MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 12/13/2017 10:59:20 PM
 General History    
AuthorMessage
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 12:02:25 PM
Your opinion on the controversial and not always peaceful transfer, & it's aftermath?

[Read More]

[Read More]

MD

BTW Check out part 2 on the video documentary going over the enlargement of the canal system.
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 519

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 12:10:45 PM
We sent a battleship to persuade the Colombians to "be reasonable".

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 12:35:54 PM
Not America's best moment. It was imperialism at its worst but no different than some of the actions of other nations.

The US and the British and the French had long wanted a link to the Pacific through Panama which was under the rule of Columbia. The French gave it a go in the late 1880's but packed it in when it proved to be an engineering nightmare and workers were dying in huge numbers.

The Columbians didn't like the proposed deal offered by the US which had taken over the building of the canal. The Columbian senate wouldn't ratify.

No problem. The US supported a revolution in the Panamanian sector and then recognized Panama as a country.

Then a treaty was struck with some contentious wording that granted the US the right to build and control the canal.

The Columbians were angry but couldn't do much about it because as OP alluded, the USN showed up with gunboats to make sure that the Colombians didn't do anything stupid like trying to retake Panama.

Gunboat diplomacy.

Ironically, the Panamanians didn't like the deal any more than the Colombians.


Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who finally signed a treaty in the 70's, with Panama, giving them management rights of the canal so long as they continued to treat it as an international waterway?

So what was the status of Panama vis a vis the US after the revolution in 1903? Were they like Puerto Rico?

Cheers,

George

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 519

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 1:20:25 PM
Panama was "independent", but the Canal Zone was run by the US. Our military "protected it".

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 3:27:49 PM

Quote:
Panama was "independent", but the Canal Zone was run by the US. Our military "protected it".
--OpanaPointer


OP, are you being sarcastic?

Cheers,

George

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 519

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 4:56:31 PM
We had a military presence there right up to turn-over. Technically the Panamanians operated the Canal but we ran the Zone.

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 145

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/2/2017 8:25:20 PM
In 1927 we "paid" the Colombians for the land and apologized

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 178

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/7/2017 5:12:10 PM
From britannica.com [Read More]:


Quote:
The Canal Zone came into being on May 4, 1904 (“Acquisition Day”), under the terms of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1904 by which Panama granted to the United States, in return for annual payments, the sole right to operate and control the canal and about 5 miles (8 km) of land on each side. The canal was constructed between 1904 and 1914. As reorganized in 1951, the administration of the canal and adjoining land was entrusted to two closely related U.S. agencies, the Panama Canal Company (responsible for operating the canal itself) and the Canal Zone government (responsible for civil rule in the zone). The governor of the Canal Zone, appointed by the president of the United States and supervised by the secretary of the army, was ex officio president and director of the Panama Canal Company.


Text of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1904: [Read More]

Yours,
JohnT

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/17/2017 11:49:36 AM
Well Panama certainly owns the Canal today!

Here are answers to other Canal questions?

[Read More]

MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:02:24 PM

Quote:
Well Panama certainly owns the Canal today!

Here are answers to other Canal questions?

[Read More]

MD
--Michigan Dave



With conditions.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/19/2017 9:39:07 AM

Quote:
We sent a battleship to persuade the Colombians to "be reasonable".
--OpanaPointer



Like TR said, "walk quietly but carry a big stick"!

"The Big Stick Policy!"

[Read More]
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

John Wallace
Mostly Saudi Arabia, UK
New User
E-2 Private
Posts: 5

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/19/2017 2:53:56 PM
There is an interesting comparison to be made. Britain bought Egypt's shares in the Suez canal for £4,000,000 - due to their economic plight, but of their own choice, Egypt formally agreed a neutral canal zone under British control, principally because the King had invited them in to save him from a military coup in 1881. The arrangement was renewed until 1956 in a treaty of 1936, and Egypt got a pretty good deal out of the arrangement in 1914 and 1939.

Its extension agreed by Nasser in 1954. In 1956, because of growing relations between Egypt and Russia, Britain and America backed out of financing the Aswan High Dam, and Nasser nationalised the canal, ostensibly to pay for it. Britain and France seized it back, and the reaction of the Eisenhower government was to threaten to sell all the British sterling bonds it held, producing economic disaster.

brian grafton
Victoria, BC, Canada
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Moderator


Posts: 1450

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/19/2017 3:55:18 PM
John, welcome back to posting on MHO. It seems years since I saw your name on post, unless I've got the wrong body!

Cheers
Brian G
---------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.

"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/29/2017 7:46:24 AM

Quote:

Quote:
We sent a battleship to persuade the Colombians to "be reasonable".
--OpanaPointer



Like TR said, "walk quietly but carry a big stick"!

"The Big Stick Policy!"

[Read More]
--Michigan Dave


Yes Dave. Not the most comforting policy to read about if you aren't an American or you have been threatened with a big stick.

The Alaska Boundary Dispute is but one example.

Notwithstanding the fact that the US had a pretty compelling case, it was the manner in which TR interfered with negotiations that is galling.

The US agreed to allow a 6 person panel to judge where the boundary should be.

TR let it be known that if any of what he considered to be US territory was going to be lost, that he would send in the marines.

The panel consisted of 3 Americans, 2 Canadians and a Brit. Note the British, in 1903 still handled our foreign policy issues.

You would think that Canada would have been more angry with the imperialistic measures employed by the US but in fact, the country took out its anger on Great Britain who representative on the panel was seen to have sold out the new country of Canada.

Hopefully negotiations on the Beaufort Sea boundary will be handled without the spectre of the Monroe Doctrine hanging over it.

Alaska Boundary and the "big stick" enforcement policy.

[Read More]

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 519

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/29/2017 9:23:23 AM
The "Big Stick" wasn't as big as the Royal Navy.

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/29/2017 10:26:55 AM
Guys,

I didn't say I supported the "Big Stick Policy", I just stated it as a matter of fact!?

Peace,
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 10/29/2017 10:53:59 AM

Quote:
The "Big Stick" wasn't as big as the Royal Navy.
--OpanaPointer


No but TR reminded the British and Canadians as the negotiations commenced that the USN wasn't the navy of 1812 any longer.

The Brits were currying favour with the US. Canada was just a Dominion.

There was a naval race between the UK and Germany and the UK needed a good deal on US steel.

The Canadians were naive. They thought that the British representative on the negotiation team was there to protect their interests. But the British representative was there to represent British interests, not Canadian.

When the decision was made, the Canadians were angry. They had sent men to fight in the Boer War in support of GB. You can see how the decision by the British lord to vote with the Americans was seen as betrayal.

I have looked at this and it seems that the Russia-GB treaty prior to the sale of the Alaskan territory in 1867 did give the Americans a strong case.

The argument then became more of where to draw the line. The US wanted a line that was well inland. The Canadians farther out into the island chain.

The final decision was a line down the middle.

Canada, upon receiving this defeat sent troops to the north of the Yukon to reinforce sovereignty. Economic sanctions against the US were taken to discourage American interest in the territory.

But my point is that the negotiations were never going to be fair and impartial (the US, Can. and UK reps were supposed to be impartial), if Roosevelt threatened to send in the marines if he didn't get his way.

Perhaps he sensed or knew that the British had no stomach for a war with the US just to protect a little bit of land in one of the Dominions, especially one like Canada that was no longer very important to the success of the British economy.

Effectively we were bystanders to the negotiations.

The Brits weren't going to challenge the US position as they had in 1812. There would be no Falkland Islands rescue should the US marines come in.

This comment from the Times sums it up:


Quote:
British Columbia is a long way off. . . . With the exception of a limited official class it receives few immigrants from England, and a large proportion of its inhabitants consists of citizens of the United States who have entered it from the south”


It is quite ironic that some Alaskan communities like Hyder on the panhandle must cross the border into Canada for services. They buy BC hydro and send their kids to school in Stewart.

There may be examples where it works the other way but clearly it is impractical for the Alaskan government to provide certain services to Hyder when it is cheaper to get them in Canada.

No boundary disputes here. Just neighbours helping neighbours. Gives me faith in mankind.

[Read More]


It looks to me as though a resident of Hyder would have to use Highway 37 in BC to get to Juneau.



Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/1/2017 10:45:37 AM
Hi George,

Here are a few videos on isolated border areas!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

Go US-CAN,
MD

BTW Back to the Panama Canal, Canada has never had any problems using the Canal!
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/1/2017 12:58:22 PM
Thanks Dave.

The second video highlights a problem that we are dealing with since the election of Trump.

There are a lot of fearful immigrants and refugees who are country shopping and they are jumping the border to get into Canada to claim refugee status.

The US and Canada have the Safe Third Country Agreement that says that any refugee who lands in one of our two countries may not jump to the other.

In other words, both countries are considered safe havens and the agreement was designed to prevent country shopping.

But it has a loophole in that the agreement only applies to legitimate border entry points.

So the refugees and some immigrants who already have status are trying to cross into places like Emerson, Manitoba without going through the border crossing. This is illegal and they know that but they will be turned back at a border crossing so they are willing to take the chance.

We also now realize that the US is authorizing visas to people whose intent is to cross into Canada ASAP. Our governments are talking about this right now.

The video that you included was about one illegal entry point but the greatest number of illegal entries are at an upstate NY town and the province of Quebec.

Over 8,000 people have jumped the border in the last few months. It is overwhelming our refugee system.

Of the 8,000, most were Haitians. Why? The US government allowed a lot of Haitians to come to the states after the last major hurricane. It was a temporary measure and their time is up though they have been living in the US for a long time. But they don't want to go home so they are taking a chance on Canada.

[Read More]

Canada had set up a tent city near the border where Roxham Rd in NY state dead ends at Canada. We have been told that winterized trailers will be added to accommodate the people who will try to cross in the winter.

Most of these Haitians will not be allowed in. They are not refugees. I suspect that most will be deported but I don't know whether the Safe Third Country Agreement means that we ship them back to the US first.

But there are other groups from Central America who have been granted temporary protective status in the US and their legal stay in the US will end soon. They are starting to appear at our border.

[Read More]

Canada has told the Haitian community in the US that their chances are not good. We already take significant numbers of refugees through resettlement programmes from places like Syria. And we take in immigrants through regular channels.

Canada wants to know who is encouraging these folks to come here because the procedure to get here seems well organized and the people know exactly what to say. They are warned by RCMP as they cross that they will be arrested and that is just what they want because they know that all asylum seekers must be processed. Very expensive for us.

Most of these people, nearly all are economic migrants. The only danger they face in the US is deportation and so this phenomenon is directly related to Trump and his policies. These people are scared. Some actually have some sort of legal status in the US and still they come.

Watch this tape offered by the Miami Herald. The man who was interviewed speaks for a lot of Canadians. We are a generous country and generally generous of spirit but we don't like people to take advantage.

[Read More]


Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/1/2017 1:09:13 PM

Quote:
BTW Back to the Panama Canal, Canada has never had any problems using the Canal!


I am not sure what you are saying Dave. The canal is an important international waterway but that doesn't mean that countries who use it should not be able to discuss the strong arm tactics that disrespected Columbian sovereignty and forced the Panamanians to relinquish control initially.

It was an unincorporated territory of the US until 1979.

BTW, despite the agreement with Panama, the world watches over that canal to ensure its neutrality, part of the agreement. Jimmy Carter signed an agreement that gave control of the canal to Panama but the US retains the right to send in troops to protect it. So ownership, sorta.

Two years ago, Operation PANAMAX took place and it involved troops from many nations, including a small number from Canada.


Quote:
With more than 2,100 military personnel from 20 nations participating, the purpose of Exercise PANAMAX is to practice methods of protecting the safe passage of commercial traffic through the canal, while ensuring its neutrality and respecting national sovereignty, the Canadian Forces noted in a news release.



Quote:
Nations participating in Exercise PANAMAX include: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and the United States.


I suspect that this has more to do with ensuring that this waterway stays open and that any future unrest in the area would not disrupt international shipping.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/1/2017 3:09:50 PM
What happened to my last post? It's all pushed over to the right side. Very odd. What have I done?

Cheers,

George


EDIT: Never mind. I fixed it. I left a ' target='blank'>[Read More] off one post and it seemed have affected the next.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/1/2017 3:47:14 PM
Canada has always claimed that it did not declare war on Germany until Sept. 10 to allow Parliament to discuss the issue. It has also been said that it was a demonstration of independence from Great Britain. Unlike WW1 there would be none of this business of the Empire is at war, so you're in it Canada.

But there is one story that I have seen repeated that indirectly brings the Panama Canal and US ownership of the canal into the story of declaration of war by Canada.

When GB declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, Canada was already mobilizing and had been for some time.

The RCN had 6 modern destroyers at its disposal and two of those were based at Esquimalt on the west coast.

Realizing that they would be needed in the upcoming Battle of the Atlantic, naval command ordered the two vessels to proceed as quickly as possible through the Panama Canal. They left Vancouver on Aug. 31

The other option of course is the long, slow route around Cape Horn.

The neutral USA controlled the Panama canal and it was feared that the US would stop the warships of belligerents from using the canal.

I don't know whether the US had declared this as policy or whether it was speculation on the part of the Canadians.

And so the two RCN ships entered the canal and made it through, monitored the whole time by the communications centre in Halifax. The two ships were actually in the canal when Canada declared war on Sept. 10.

So the story goes, the Canadian government delayed declaration of war just to ensure that use of the Panama Canal would not be denied to them by the Americans.

Is it true? Don't know but I would like to.


cheers,

George

OpanaPointer
St. Louis, MO, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 519

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 8:18:53 AM
Who declared against Japan first, Canada or GB? I have a memory, but it's wandering around the neighborhood right now.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 9:02:55 AM

Quote:
Who declared against Japan first, Canada or GB? I have a memory, but it's wandering around the neighborhood right now.
--OpanaPointer


Canadian PM Mackenzie King announced a declaration of war against Japan late in the evening of Dec. 7, 1941. Canadians were already fighting with British and Indian troops against the Japanese at Hong Kong, as you know.

It has been reported that Canada was the first western ally to declare war on Japan.

It is hard to explain our relationship with the UK at the time but on the next day, Dec. 8, the King announced his approval of the Canadian declaration.


Quote:
Whereas by and with the advice of our Privy Council for Canada we have signified our approval of the issue of a proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a state of war with Japan exists and has existed in Canada as and from the 7th day of December, 1941.

Now, therefore, we do hereby declare and proclaim that a state of war with Japan exists and has existed as and from the seventh day of December, 1941.

Of all which our loving subjects and all others whom these presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.



It is my understanding that the UK declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941 after Parliament was recalled.

Churchill had an agreement with FDR that should the Japanese attack the US that FDR would declare first followed by the UK.

But it became apparent that Japan had attacked both the US and UK at virtually the same time so WSC felt that there was no need to wait and there was the 4 hour time difference between the UK and the US east side.

British Parliament was quickly recalled and the declaration was made, one day after the Canadian declaration.

I don't read too much into that. It may be that the Canadian parliamentary system could be speedier in this situation. PM King and the cabinet made this decision. The full Parliament was not recalled for the declaration of the war with Japan.
The cabinet happened to be meeting on Dec. 7 to discuss some aspect of the war in Europe. (Romania??). So the key Canadian players were already at the table.

So yes Canada was the first, before the UK and USA, but by hours and I can assure you that Canada was not going to take on the Japanese Empire by itself.


EDIT: I should add that PM King was concerned about a declaration of war against Japan without a sitting of Parliament. His diaries indicate that he justified the declaration by saying that he considered it all part of the same war that had been approved on Sept. 10, 1939.
On Dec 7, 1941, the cabinet also approved declarations of war against Romania, Hungary and Finland and issued those proclamations.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 11:08:31 AM
George,

You can always count on Canada to have your back!

A great ally for sure!
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

GaryNJ
NJ, USA
New User
E-2 Private
Posts: 7

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 12:22:31 PM
If you have not seen the US Army study titled Military Relations Between the United States and Canada, 1939-1945, it is very interesting.

[Read More]

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 1:31:58 PM

Quote:
If you have not seen the US Army study titled Military Relations Between the United States and Canada, 1939-1945, it is very interesting.

[Read More]
--GaryNJ


Thank you for that link. I shall read it and try to find a comparable Canadian perspective as the author, a US officer, wrote the essay, he noted that there was no comparable document that would give the Canadian views. He was looking for balance I suppose.

There was a high degree of cooperation between the two nations in the years prior to official US entry into the war.

FDR 1936


Quote:
On August 14, 1936, during an address at Chautauqua, New York, he said that "our closest neighbors are good neighbors. If there are remoter nations that wish us not good but ill, they know that we are strong. They know that we can and will defend our- selves and defend our neighborhood."


FDR had been talking with the Brits and Japanese in early 1930's about naval limitations and he cautioned Britain that should the British prefer to ally with the Japanese then he would:


Quote:
"be compelled in the interests of American security, to approach public sentiment in Canada" and the other Dominions to make them "understand clearly that their future security is linked with us in the United States."


So the US or FDR had an interest in some sort of co-operative relationship with Canada.

There are Canadian newspaper articles in that post war period that supporting an alliance of some sort with the US. This was a departure from the usual suspicion with which our southern neighbour was viewed.

At a convocation address at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario in 1938, FDR said:


Quote:
"I give you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire."


In 1940 at Ogdensburg, NY, FDR and PM King met and established the Permanent Joint Board on Defence which was intended to outlive the war.

And so increased communication between the two militaries increased greatly.

Some Canadian historians suggest that Canada was able to ramp up its contribution to the war effort partly because it knew that the US, ostensibly neutral, would never permit a foreign invader to use Canada as a jumping off point to the USA.

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 8:23:31 PM
Really love to know how in the hell Canada becomes the focus of a thread about the Panama Canal?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 8:57:32 PM
Read the thread John. Anything to contribute?

GaryNJ
NJ, USA
New User
E-2 Private
Posts: 7

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 9:39:27 PM
Canada, or more precisely the Alaska Panhandle dispute, and the Panama Canal were slightly connected. The United States and Britain had signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in 1850 where the two countries agreed to not unilaterally build a canal in Central America. The U.S. wanted a new treaty to replace the old one and Britain originally insisted that there must be an agreement on the Alaska Panhandle simultaneous to a new treaty on Central America. The U.S. refused and the two issues were separately negotiated with the new U.S.-British treaty being the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901. That is not exactly how this thread moved from the Panama Canal to Canada, but it is still a small connection between the two.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/2/2017 11:37:16 PM
Well I could start talking about the price of tea in China in 1492 which has just as much to do with the Panama Canal as Canada does.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/3/2017 7:44:23 AM

Quote:
Well I could start talking about the price of tea in China in 1492 which has just as much to do with the Panama Canal as Canada does.
--John R. Price


Yes and I added my two cents worth with an anecdote about the movement of RCN warships and concern that American control of the canal would hamper that movement.

Someone asked me about the entry date by Canada into WW2 and I answered. It went from there. Asked and answered.

Meanwhile what does a rather bitter, angry man in Pennsylvania have to say about the Panama Canal. Nothing.



George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/5/2017 9:32:23 AM
When the canal was opened, did it have any negative effect on the rail transport industry in the US? Did it impact the economies of any of the major rail hubs?

EDIT: I posed the question because of an article I read in Forbes suggesting that the recent expansion of the canal could impact the rail transport business because ships travelling across the Pacific to US western ports where cargo is transferred to rail for transport to the east coast, would no longer have to do that. The ships would transit through the canal and head for the appropriate east coast port.

[Read More]

cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/5/2017 10:01:43 AM
Chile recently released some classified files in which it is reported that a special investigations unit in Chile broke up a Nazi espionage cell that was planning to destroy the Panama Canal, during WW2. The Chileans are praising the work of this unit called, Department 50 and claim that they influenced the course of the war by stopping the Nazis.

Now I don't know whether the plot was real or how advanced the plans were when the spies were caught but I do wonder what the chances were of even getting close to the canal.

How extensive was the build-up of US forces in the canal zone? Number of troops? Were the entry points patrolled by the navy? Torpedo nets?

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2960

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/5/2017 10:13:21 AM

Quote:
When the canal was opened, did it have any negative effect on the rail transport industry in the US? Did it impact the economies of any of the major rail hubs?

EDIT: I posed the question because of an article I read in Forbes suggesting that the recent expansion of the canal could impact the rail transport business because ships travelling across the Pacific to US western ports where cargo is transferred to rail for transport to the east coast, would no longer have to do that. The ships would transit through the canal and head for the appropriate east coast port.

[Read More]

cheers,

George
--George




George,

This may answer in part as to why most of our old Railroad lines are now bike trails!?

I do enjoy using them here in Michigan!
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/5/2017 12:15:21 PM
Hi Dave,

I wonder if the decline in the use of rail lines, at least for passenger service has more to do with the advent of flight.

But I do know that coinciding with the opening of the canal, the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba went into a great economic decline and loss of population.

Winnipeg is in the centre of Canada and it became a great rail hub. Everything went through Winnipeg for shipment east and west and south to the US.

Wheat and many other products would travel to Winnipeg and then by rail to Port Arthur on Lake Superior. From there the goods were transported via ship and rail to the east coast.

That all stopped when the Panama Canal opened because it was much cheaper for grain wholesalers to the west of Winnipeg, to ship product to Vancouver where ships would take the goods through the canal and then to the east coast of the US or to Europe.

Vancouver boomed while Winnipeg busted. It took several years but it happened.

So I wondered whether rail hubs in the US experienced a similar decline while Pacific ports like Seattle boomed.

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/7/2017 10:18:07 AM
Here is a tidbit for you George. The French engineer from the failed French attempt had a great influence on the build sire being Panama instead of Nicaraga and he did it all for personal gain because he had major land holdings in and around the Panama build site. Seems as the US Congress was getting ready to choose between the two countries for the build site a volcano erupted with great loss of life and destroyed property in the Caribbean. So the Frenchman sent a once cent Nicaraguan postage stamp to each of the 90 US Senators with a image of a smoking volcano on it as a reminder that there were 14 volcanos in Nicaragua. The fear planted shifted just enough votes to make the Panama site a slight winner in the vote in both House and Senate.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5701

Re: Panama Canal Prized possesion!? contorversial transfer of ownership?
Posted on: 11/7/2017 11:49:49 AM
Thanks John. Was the engineer Bunau-Varilla, the man who negotiated the treaty for Panama?

I wonder how much he profited from the selection of the Panama site. He owned stock, a lot of stock in the company that was supposed to build the canal but went bankrupt. He would have been in trouble had he not negotiated a deal with the US

I'm not sure of how he became the ambassador of the country of Panama, not the province under Columbia but if it's the same guy, he colluded with TR to ensure that Panama would be recognized as a nation under the protection of the US.

And I think that he signed the treaty that gave control of the canal to the US. I don't think that any Panamanians even signed the document.

Somebody always makes money on these deals. Sounds as though this French engineer was pretty crafty and knew which buttons to push in Washington.

John, what do you know about the research done by the US on tropical diseases? I understand that TR put some money into that because he didn't want workers to die in the huge numbers that they did when the French were trying to build the canal.

Cheers,

George

 General History    
 Forum Ads from Google