French Panama Canal?

[Scarecrow]

in 1880 the French tried to build a canal in Panama. it failed, and in 1904 the United States bought the assets and started work on it.

What if the French had been sucessful in building a canal? would America see this as a violation of the Monroe doctrine?:confused:

[Max Sinister]

Maybe the canal would be internationalized. But as long as the French don't send soldiers there, the US shouldn't really have a problem. After all, France and the US aren't enemies and wouldn't suddenly become... uh...

[David S Poepoe]

Maybe the canal would be internationalized. But as long as the French don't send soldiers there, the US shouldn't really have a problem. After all, France and the US aren't enemies and wouldn't suddenly become... uh...

There are already French forces in the other French possessions in the Caribbean, why would there not be French soldiers to protect the French Panama Canal?

However, taking the Suez Canal as an example, its likely that security for the canal would primarily be provided by the Panamanian Government - or realistically the Colombian Government. The foreign investors won't step in unless there is some serious problem.

[Wendell]

Maybe the canal would be internationalized. But as long as the French don't send soldiers there, the US shouldn't really have a problem. After all, France and the US aren't enemies and wouldn't suddenly become... uh...
Actualyy, the U.S. and France were enemies more often than thy were friends after 1788.

[Nicole]

Actualyy, the U.S. and France were enemies more often than thy were friends after 1788.
I wouldn't say enemies- after the messes in the Adams Administration, has the US ever been in a state of war with France?

[DuQuense]

Coumbia retains Pamana, and it's share of the Revenues. Well some is siphoned off, enuff remains to allow for more development in columbia. the canal Zone is a source of Jobs, and development, North Columbia and the Isthmus are more stable,
No Roosevelt and his big Stick, US /LatAmer relations are slightly better.

[Wendell]

I wouldn't say enemies- after the messes in the Adams Administration, has the US ever been in a state of war with France?
They were not helpful in Mr. Madison's War, or that adventure Nappy III took in Mexico.

[The Ubbergeek]

They were not helpful in Mr. Madison's War, or that adventure Nappy III took in Mexico.
Nappy was a mexican thing... :rolleyes:

[marl_d]

we never declared war on France, it's called the Quasi war for that reason and it was the first time the USS Constituion was used in Battle:D

[benjamin]

I believe that the US would have most certainly seen a French built canal in Centrla America as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. From 1850 (when California became a state) onward the US looked for ways to begin construction of a canal. The French effort was not seen as threat because it was poorly concieved and didn't get anywhere.

Had France been successful the US would have used every effort to take control or at least internationalize the canal. French troops would not have been allowed to police the canal unless accompanied by US troops as well. The US would have had the covert and if need be overt support of Britain because they too did not want the canal controlled by any one nation, especially France.

France would have been forced out by 1917, perhaps as a deal for US entrence into WWI, at the latest or, more likely, the day after the canal was finished at the earliest. Perhaps the canal could have passed to an international company to be policed by mercenaries. I like the idea of Gurkhas, Legionnaires, Swiss Guards, and Pinkertons working together to protect this vital waterway from banditos, banana republic dictators, Asian triads and their hired ronins, and shemeing henchmen loyal only to the Kaiser.

Benjamin

[fortyseven]

Would make a good setting for a story.

[David S Poepoe]

The easiest way to figure this whole thing out is simply to look at the newspapers of the time and see what the editorials say - if anything. From the 1880s onward there would not have been that much bad blood or misconception of Republican France by the US as is being perceived here.

I think the Colombians would be perfectly capable of defending their canal.

[Wendell]

The Monroe Doctrine is not selective-beyond turning a blind eye to the activities of the Royal Navy.

[The Ubbergeek]

The Monroe Doctrine is not selective-beyond turning a blind eye to the activities of the Royal Navy.

I'd call that selective...

The monroe doctrine was of course an excuse for imperialism, and America turned a blind eye (usually) to his 'chum'...

[Wendell]

I'd call that selective...

The monroe doctrine was of course an excuse for imperialism, and America turned a blind eye (usually) to his 'chum'...
Ironically, the Doctrine served to replace Continental imperialism with that of Anglophone trade concessions.

[The Ubbergeek]

Ironically, the Doctrine served to replace Continental imperialism with that of Anglophone trade concessions.

And it was used as ironically to enforce american interests wherever possible and crush communists...

[Wendell]

And it was used as ironically to enforce american interests wherever possible and crush communists...
Russians are Europeans last I checked. Granted, there were mistakes made. But, the U.S. was not going to let another Cuba emerge.

[Eusabian]

In OTR, the primary reason America became motivated to finish the canal was what happened during the Spanish-American War, when the USS Oregon had to sail 14,000 miles around South America to join up with the Atlantic fleet. Granted, it set a new record of making the journey in only 66 days, but during that time, people along the coast of Florida and the Carolinas were terrified that Spanish warships could just show up and start shelling them with impunity. Of course, what no one knew was the comletely terrible state the Spanish ships were in, unable to fight, barely able to steam at all.

So if the French had completed thier canal, I believe that the US would have realized that the defense of the nation rested solely on the goodwill of a foriegn power, the French, being willing to allow them to pass through the canal. This would be intolerable to Roosevelt, the man who's actions in creating the nation of Panama coined the term 'Big Stick Diplomacy'.

So would this lead to negotiations for the US to purchase the canal? Or, perhaps, leading to military action to seize both ends of the canal? By 1904, the US was in the midst of building a modern, big gun naval fleet to compete with the European powers. Maybe they would have been put to the test, acclerating the deployment of the new Dreadnought class ships that the US was so very slowly building. William Sims' ideas and innovations that could have revolutionized the American Navy might have found a more welcome reception if there were a naval conflict with the French Navy.

Would the French risk their battleships in a fight against the US? They had just seen their ally Russia get nearly their entire fleet destroyed by the Japanese.

And let us not forget the Japanese. They had just recently proven their competence in naval warfare by crushing the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, and were a major worry for the US. If they saw a chance to exploit a situation where the American Pacific fleet had to be withdrawn from the Philipines to fight a war with France, would the exploit it?

The root causes of WWI came from battleship expansion, the first Superweapon, so could something like this lead to the war starting a decade earlier as a series of naval engagements?

P.S. Colombia's opinions in the matter would be given less thought than a gnat's fart. If you have no battleships, you have no voice.

[SteveW]

This would be intolerable to Roosevelt, the man who's actions in creating the nation of Panama coined the term 'Gunboat Diplomacy'.


I thought it was coined for Palmerston?

[Eusabian]

I thought it was coined for Palmerston?

The creation of the nation of Panama was effected by Roosevelt parking several large ships off of the coast of Colombia in 1903 and supplying the 'rebels' with arms and money to fight for independence. The papers at the time described it as gunboat diplomacy, so this is the reason I believed it to coined for Teddy.

But looking on Wikipedia, I see that it is much older than that. I should have used the term 'big stick diplomacy'. In fact I believe I will edit the post to reflect that. Thanks!

[Earling]

I suspect the US would just purchase some sort of join administration rights and some form of naval base in close proximity. Theres gun boat diplomacy and then theirs petty blackmail. Turning up and demanding the Canal "or else" is hardly effective politics with a state with who you are hardly hostile.

France would almost certainly back down if such were the case, but it would set a rather bad precedent. Don't invest in the Western Hemisphere because the US government shall come along and steal it from you.

[Phoenix]

The Brits might have something to say if the Americans gained control of the canal from the French.

[Eusabian]

The Brits might have something to say if the Americans gained control of the canal from the French.
Indeed they may. GB was already unhappy with Roosevelt's naval expansion policy, they saw it as a challenge to their hegemony of naval power. If they allied themselves with France, perhaps America could start talks with the Kaiser. He had a fresh new battle fleet and was pining for an overseas empire of his own. In fact, Germany and the US nearly went to war over the Philipines. There was a large German fleet there when the US destroyed the Spanish fleet and captured Manila, and they felt the Americans didn't deserve to have an overseas possesion when the mighty German Reich didn't have one. So a deal between the US and Germany, keep the Home Fleet occupied in exchange for maybe Guam or something. That would be very plausible because Germany needed more coaling stations in the Pacific, they had to buy their coal from Spain, France and, later, the US.

To Earling: I didn't mean that it would be outright theft. Just a closing of the canal to all traffic until a treaty is negotiated. If that included the purchase of the canal from France by the US, then that would be fine. I merely try too look for plausible ways for POD. If France decided to fight, with their shiny new battleships, I think it would be, well, really cool. Dreadnought type battleships were never actually tested against one another during nearly their entire existance. It wasn't until a battle in the Solomon Islands, I believe, between Japan and America during WWII, that a battleship ever fired directly on another battleship. All other battles were cruiser on battleship contests. Even Jutland in WWI.

So to see these million pound, mark, franc and dollar machines actually test thier mettle against one another would be to see which theory of naval ship building was better.

Plus, I really like Sims and would like to see his ideas succeed.

[Earling]

I didn't mean that it would be outright theft. Just a closing of the canal to all traffic until a treaty is negotiated.

Isn't such a blockade effectively a declaration of war in these times?

I suspect from the perspective of imagination a naval war with various engagements would certainly be interesting, but difficult to calculate and unlikely to occur. Primarilly this is because France has that rather more threatening prospect next door rather than half way around the world.

[Shadow Knight]

The US might have countered by building another canal in Nicaragua if it appears the French Columbian canal is too much of a risk to depend on it time of war.

On the bright side a canal in Nicaragua might be wider than the one in the Isthmus because it is mainly at sea level where the one in Panama is in mountainous terrain dependent on huge locks (difficult to build or expand) allowing for even larger ships (a limitation on ship size is whether they can fit through the Panama or Suez canals).

[David S Poepoe]

The US might have countered by building another canal in Nicaragua if it appears the French Columbian canal is too much of a risk to depend on it time of war.

On the bright side a canal in Nicaragua might be wider than the one in the Isthmus because it is mainly at sea level where the one in Panama is in mountainous terrain dependent on huge locks (difficult to build or expand) allowing for even larger ships (a limitation on ship size is whether they can fit through the Panama or Suez canals).

This appears to me to be the most realistic of American responses. However, between the two routes the Panama Canal will be the easier of the two. I think its also questionable if the French canal would have been built with locks, since I think the original design called for it being at sea level.

[Shadow Knight]

This appears to me to be the most realistic of American responses. However, between the two routes the Panama Canal will be the easier of the two. I think its also questionable if the French canal would have been built with locks, since I think the original design called for it being at sea level.

It would of had to have been a lock and damn style of canal. The terrain just could not be shaped (not without a massive movement of Earth that would dwarf what was moved in OTL on an exponential scale).

The Nicaraguan canal might have been longer but it could have been easier considering that most of it would have been built over pre-existing water ways (lakes, and rivers). The only sticking point might have been that Costa Rica shares a border with Nicaragua along the Pacific end that the canal would have had to gone through. Expect some 'gunboat diplomacy' if Costa Rica thinks they can stop TR from completing the canal (or any US president if enough money was spent).

[Othniel]

Rights to the Panama Canal would not be considered a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine forbid the transpher of lands from one European Power to anouther, or the reconquest of any part of their former empires once they had independance. The Panama Canal was but one option, but I'd take it that this has more unfortunate (or Fortunate, depending on your view on Nicaragauan Exspansionialism, and whom should have been in power there) circumstances for Nicaragau than France. It might cost a bit more for the US intially, but it provides a shorter route.

On anouther point if the US waits long enough they could just chose a central American country and build a railway across it...

In this case it is built under the Presidency of McKinley, who was goaded into Cuba by Congress and Yellow Journalism.. He isn't exactly one to warmong. Outright annex, and take advantage of a situation he didn't want to be in? Sure. Warmongering? Not a Chance.
(BTW a POD of the French discovering that misquitos are the case of yellow fever would probably send a few butterflies in the medical field, though only by a few years...)

OCC: Ubergeek, what your thinking of is Manifest Destiny and the Dominio Therory as Imperialism, not the Monroe Doctrine. Not at least until the Roosevelt Collary was put into use. Heck other nations have used the Monroe Doctrine, most notably, Venezulea, and Argentina. Though I would say that the Monroe Doctrine was specficially aimed at Spain than any other European Power..