A man, a plan, a canal…
You sir, are a small foolish little man, with a small weak little mind. Stop worrying about Panama and their small insignificant little canal.
-
useless militarily; ships too big;
-
near useless commercially; most commercial ships too big (>50,000 DWT);
-
was already silting up, not cost effective to repair for US, less likely for Panamanians to do so without outside help, probably US engineering firm paid for by the Asian fleet interests, the only places operating scows (I mean vessels) small enough to fit in the canal, along with coastal freighter traffic; let the beneficiaries pay for the repairs;
-
It theirs, this is a twenty year old decision, let it stand; more superficial than substantive anyway, unless you own your own yacht and don’t want to depend on f’erners letting you through from Pacific to Atlantic.
To quote Bugs Bunny:
“Two bits to go through this ditch! Forget it, Bub! We’ll go around the long way!”
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
Little Nemo says
I think that’s debatable. After the United States’ $40 million purchase of the French Trench, the Colombian government, in 1903, insisted on renegotiating payment for the right to dig. Later the same year, a coup–financed and organized by the Franco-American canal lobby–was staged and an American battleship materialized to discourage Colombian resistance. The resultant puppet government of Panama capitulated as a matter of course to the wishes of the Roosevelt administration.
danielnsmith’s recollection is correct:
In 1898, as the Spanish-American War appeared inevitable, the Oregon was rushed from port near San Francisco to the Caribbean Sea–in ten weeks, a point that was never lost on (then-Vice President) Theodore Roosevelt
As amply demonstrated by Ursa Major, Jorge, et al., the Canal has outlived its usefulness militarily and is factually in a state of repair that Panamanians could do little but improve upon.
That said, manhattan’s demonstration of Hutchison’s role provides little solace to the conspiratorially-minded (the Chinese involved in our telecommunications infrastructure?). Red China is extremely hungry for any crumbs it can collect as far as means of exerting influence in the Western Hemisphere are concerned. Mjollnir’s comment
is not only punishingly bigoted, it is dead wrong–unless you think Los Alamos National Laboratory has nothing to do with the defense of the Western Hemisphere. Irrespective the extent of Wen Ho Lee’s complicity in China’s theft of nuclear secrets–whether he willfully provided them with information, or he was used as an unwitting conduit of information–he likely represents the tip of the … ooh, I can’t resist it … riceberg.
John C
I know you wrote this in jest, but I have to ask:
I don’t think you mean that the U.N. has good luck, but I think this is a weird way to describe it. Does Russia have bad engineers? Does France have bad cops? Does Germany have bad accountants? I mean, are you referring to specific incidents or do these countries have reputations I’m unware of?
- Boris B, Hellacious Ornithologist
Boris B: There’s an old joke regarding “in Heaven and in Hell” where various nationalities take over the various jobs; in Heaven, the Italians are the cooks, in Hell, the Italians run the government; etc. I think a version of this is in one of the threads in MPSIMS (which, for some bizzare reason, I can’t open today; if I could, I’d link to the right thread).
Anyways, I assumed egkelly was being serious, and presenting a ‘best case’ scenario; as per the joke, I rearranged the nationalities into a ‘much less deserving’ basis (I’ve heard a few horror stories about French police, and the competency of Soviet-era architects).
In retrospect, I realize now that egkelly was trying to do the ‘worst case’ scenario on his own.
My humor, as it often is, was misdirected and confused. I apologize for any offense or confusion caused as a result.
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
Little Nemo:
PatronAnejo:
The key word being “debatable.” (As in, pick a viewpoint and defend it.)
Panama was a separate colony of Spain that was not politically connected to the colonies to the south of it and, originally, chose to remain a colony rather than join Bolivar’s fight for independence. As such, it had already developed its own culture, traditions, and dialect. When Spain removed some of its trading concessions (at the urging of Spanish seaports), the Panamanians decided to join with Bolivar, eventually joining the country of Gran Colombia as a semi-independent state around 1838. It sent representatives to the Bolivian parliament (or congress, I forget which), but elected its own governor and wrote many of its own administrative laws. By the 1860’s, Colombia (having lost Peru and Ecuador to their own independence movements) began insisting on the right to govern Panama as a dependent. Colombia replaced six or seven governors without Panamanian consent and a serious independence movement had begun before the 1880’s.
The U.S. capitalized on the disaffection between Panama and Colombia, claiming to help Panama become “independent” while actually creating an extended colony of the U.S. I don’t believe that the U.S. acted out of any but selfish motives and I don’t believe that the U.S. actually granted Panama true independence. But it was not a case of the U.S. simply declaring an integral portion of Colombia to be “independent.” Panama existed separately before Colombia existed and there was an actual indepence movement that the U.S. exploited.
Tom~
The inexplicably contentious tomndebb writes:
Here we go. While there is no question that Panama had possessed its own identity previous to the 1903 coup–and the isthmus in fact experienced several brief periods of secession from the 1840’s to the cusp of the twentieth century–I dispute the notion that this revolution was not wholly dependent upon the United States’ involvement; I find dubious any suggestion that popular sentiment sufficient to support such a coup existed in Panama–especially if the coup were to entail more deaths than those of a donkey and a Chinese laundryman; my viewpoint is that the coup of November 3, 1903, would never have taken place without American intervention.
Still with me?
[ul][li]By July of 1903, as it became apparent that the Hay-Herrán treaty (necessitated because the rights purchased from the French were granted by the United States of Colombia–an entity wiped out by civil war and replaced by the Republic of Colombia) would not be ratified in Bogotá, a revolutionary junta was assembled in Panama City.[]This junta was founded by two Spanish men with experience supporting another American concern on the isthmus: the Panama Railroad Company, wholly-owned and -operated by an American board. José Augustin Arango, an attorney for the railroad, was its leader; Manuel Amador Guerrero, a physician for the Railroad (his son was also a physician–in the United States Army) was its pointman.[]Financing of the junta was entirely arranged by Phillipe Bunau-Varilla, French national and director of the New Panama Canal Company–and the leading lobbyist for American takeover of the abortive French effort in Panama.[]The near-bloodless coup staged on November 3, 1903, was choreographed in New York City, where officials of the New Panama Canal Company and the Panama Railroad Company coached Amador Guerrero at the home of his son Raoul.[]Colombian resistance to the coup was precluded by the intimidating presence of U.S. Navy gunboats–the Atlantic side covered by the Nashville and the Pacific side covered by either the Brooklyn or the Boston (probably the latter).[]The Roosevelt administration betrayed probable foreknowledge of the coup by bestowing de facto recognition upon the Panamanian junta at 12:51 p.m. November 6–only seventy minutes after official word reached Washington that the maneuver had come off successfully (de jure recognition came about on November 13; the Senate approved the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty on February 23, 1904).[]Following the coup, the Frenchman Bunau-Varilla drafted the Panamanian constitution and declaration of independence at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York City. He also designed Panama’s new flag.[]There was no native Panamanian signatory of the Isthmian Canal Convention of November 13, 1803. Also known as the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, it was “negotiated” between Roosevelt’s Secretary of State John Hay and French national Phillipe Bunau-Varilla. At the time, Bunau-Varilla had not stepped foot in Panama in seventeen years. Bunau-Varilla was Panama’s first Ambassador to the United States.[]The treaty–begrudgingly ratified by Panamanians on December 2, 1903–not only granted “in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control” of the canal zone, a strip ten miles wide and extending three miles from both terminals into the sea–it ceded to the United States eminent domain over Panama City, over which Hay negotiated “all the rights, power, and authority…which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign…to the entire exclusion” of Panama![]Many of these facts were reported by two contemporary newspapers, the New York World and the Indianapolis News. The World was privy to inside information–in July of 1903, the paper had allowed someone–either Raoul Amador or Roosevelt himself–to plant an unsigned article alleging, “information has also reached this city that the State of Panama…stands ready to secede from Colombia and enter into a canal treaty with the United States”. The Indianapolis News was home to a reporter named Earl Harding, who was named in a libel suit Roosevelt brought against both newspapers. The suit was thrown out by Judge Charles Merrill Hough (Dartmouth class of 1879, appointed by Roosevelt in 1906) in 1911; Harding’s research resides in a special collection at Georgetown University.[]Later that year, at the University of California at Berkeley, Roosevelt admitted to overstepping his authority in his famous I took the Isthmus speech:[/li][quote]
…the Panama Canal would not have been started if I had not taken hold of it, because if I had followed the traditional or conservative method I should have submitted an admirable state paper occupying a couple of hundred pages detailing all of the facts to Congress and asking Congress’ consideration of it.
In that case there would have been a number of excellent speeches made on the subject in Congress; the debate would be proceeding at this moment with great spirit and the beginning of work on the canal would be fifty years in the future.
Fortunately the crisis came at a period when I could act unhampered. Accordingly I took the Isthmus, started the Canal and then left Congress not to debate the canal, but to debate me.
[/quote]
This speech deflects criticism of the Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary toward an ineffectual Congress ostensibly charged with its execution. Roosevelt (and basically every other American at the time) certainly saw no ethical problem in the Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary per se, but was opposed to any depiction of his administration as an instrument of big business.[/ul]
Work for you?
I agree with you, and said the same, above.
You could be right, but the heavy-handed, unilateral actions of the U.S. make the point moot. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Panama would not have been willing to revolt, given that anti-Colombia rioting had occurred on several occasions and that Panamanians did participate in the War of 1,000 Days that ended just prior to the U.S. intervention.
Absolutely true.
I don’t think we disagree that the U.S. was pretty much a unilateral participant in the whole affair. I certainly have not indicated any approval of U.S. actions.
The main sticking point is that it is frequently claimed, nowadays, that the U.S. went in and simply annexed a portion of Colombia that was not even considering independence. (Somewhat as if the U.S., today, decided to support the “independence” of Nova Scotia in order to gain access to the harbor at Halifax.) While I certainly agree that the U.S. actions excluded the Panamanians from any participation in their own independence (and, frankly, deprived them of any true indepedence), I believe that the reason that the U.S. used the ploy of creating a “new country” was the existing independence movement. Without such a movement, I suspect that the U.S. would have simply imposed the canal treaty directly upon Colombia (much as it “persuaded” Japan to open itself for trade by mimicking the actions of Britain in China eleven years prior to Perry’s visit).
(I will log the epithet “inexplicably contentious” in my collection, however. That one is new to me.)
Tom~
I seem to recall that President Roosevelt’s much put-upon Attorney General was consulted at some point about the US actions regarding Panama, and sighed, “Oh, Mr. President, let not such a glorious action be tainted by any hint of legality.”
Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, wrote:
The precise quote is, “Twenty-five cents to go through this thing? Eeeeah, we’ll walk first!”
– tracer, wondering if you could help out a fellow American who’s down on his luck.
Sometimes the Brooklyn accent throws me. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
:::hanging my head in shame:::
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.
jti- The story I heard was that the AG asked President Roosevelt about some of the legalities and proprieties regarding the uprising and building the canal, and after Roosevelt told the AG what had happened, what was planned for the future, and his reasons for it, the AG looked horrified and stated, “Sir, you were accused of seduction and your defense has proven you guilty of rape.”
JMCJ
“John C., it looks like you have blended in very nicely.”
-UncleBeer
How much money were we making off of that thing?
-David