The Nicaraguan Canal Instead of The Panama Canal

I've been read Don't Know Much About History by; Kenneth C. Davis, (fantastic book, by the way) and I was reading the part about the Panama Canal.

In it, he says that Teddy Roosevelt originally wanted to build a the canal from the pacific to the atlantic, that went through Nicaraguan, and not Panama. This would have been a longer dig, but it was thought to be easier than building one in Panama. However, when Senator Mark Hanna said it would be cheaper to build it in Panama, Teddy jumped on that band wagon.

However, this only happened because a french company dropped the asking price from $109 million, to $40 million.

What if they hadn't? The Canal would have been built in Nicaragua instead.

How would this have effected the rest of American, and Latin American history?
 
First of all, Panama might continue to be a restive part of Colombia, if that changes much in the great scheme of things.

Nicaragua is going to be forced into a strongly Pro-American position. There probably will be no installation of the Somozas in the first place, as Nicaragua is going to become heavily pro-US; that US Forces are going to be safeguarding the canal is part of the bargain as well.

Latin America will remain a battleground for hearts and minds in the Cold War; but obviously, a Nicaraguan Canal and No Somoza means no Contras and a similar game played a different way. Perhaps Panama, always unhappy in Colombian control, starts courting Soviet Support and that of other revolutionaries, while Colombia itself starts moving deeper in the US Camp, earlier. That might mean a "Colombian War" to defeat FARC and possibly some resolution of the drug cartels in that country.

Hard to say...
 
Well, for one it would probably mean Panama doesn't become independant from Colombia. OTL it was american and french backing that led to their declaration of independance, on the condition of the new government letting them build and control the canal. Also, an american gunboat and forces that were 'coincidentally' in the area at the time. So, if Nicaragua is where the canal now is, I can't imagine the USA caring about some tiny unimportant part of Colombia. The Panamanians might still declare independance but I doubt they'll be successful.
 
No idea how this would come about, but it'd be interesting to see both a Panama and a Nicaragua canal, the former under Colombian sovereignty but under the influence of another power or coalition of powers, the latter directly controlled by the US. The potential for imperialist conflict in the Caribbean would go up tenfold (assuming the US allows the Panama canal to be built).
 
One question I have is what is the rate of infection for yellow fever in that part of Nicaragua vice that of Panama?

One of the spin off effects of building the Panama canal was the need to develop better ways of treating and preventing yellow fever in the canal construction zone.

If the rates of infection are lower, then the pressure to treat yellow fever would be less then historical, possibly delaying it.

Also IIRC there were a number new techniques and technologies developed for construction, brought about by the needs of building in Panama. These will probably not come about until a similiar project is done elsewhere.
 
No idea how this would come about, but it'd be interesting to see both a Panama and a Nicaragua canal, the former under Colombian sovereignty but under the influence of another power or coalition of powers, the latter directly controlled by the US. The potential for imperialist conflict in the Caribbean would go up tenfold (assuming the US allows the Panama canal to be built).


Actually the idea has been around for quite awhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal

However the Panama Canal was the first to actually get started by the French but the effort fell apart,then got bought up by the US. To ensure the US stuck with the Panama effort, opponents of the Nicaragua effort started a propaganda campaign which claimed a local volcano threatened the Nicaragua canal(in reality the volcano was quite a distance rom the Nicaragua canal route.).
 

MrP

Banned
Actually the idea has been around for quite awhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal

However the Panama Canal was the first to actually get started by the French but the effort fell apart,then got bought up by the US. To ensure the US stuck with the Panama effort, opponents of the Nicaragua effort started a propaganda campaign which claimed a local volcano threatened the Nicaragua canal(in reality the volcano was quite a distance rom the Nicaragua canal route.).

I vaguely recall there was a philately-based faux pas during the period, too. Some stamps were published with a picture of said volcano, and then were (ab)used to draw attention to it. I think.
 
Here's another thought. There is a current effort going on to build a new canal in Nicaragua as the limits of the Panama canal and the ability to expand it have nearly been reached.

As almost all of the US Navy's post war aircraft carriers amongst other ships were already too big to go through the Panama, what if the US decided to go with Nicaragua Canal after World War II? Or feeling that the Panama Canal was too vunerable to Axis attack tried to build it during World War II?

<Shrug> Might be too ASB but they're a couple of thoughts that popped in my head while reading up on this.
 
I knew that. My thoughts were on the potential ramifications of two canals completed nearly simultaneously (say around the turn of the 20th century, perhaps a little later than IOTL).

A lot would depend on who would replace the French when their effort collapses. The Nicaragua effort would likely be the US effort in this case as it would be impossible to convince the Congress to spend money on duplicate efforts and Nicaragua was already negotiating with the US.

So likely powers to invest in or take over the French effort at Panama would likely be either the Brits (probably a joint effort at the start like the Suez) or the Germans.

Whoever get the canal would likely help Panama get it's Independence as a way of securing it. The Nations or nations would for a time have cooler relations with the US and possibly the rest of the Caribbean.

After that a lot would depend on the trade going through the two canals.

When World War I breaks out things could be very interesting based on whom has control of the Panama Canal and what kind of festivities were planned for it's Grand Opening.

If Germany has it, then they might have a few warships in the Caribbean at the outbreak of the war. Also the British or French might try to seize the Canal Zone to stop movement of German Blockade runners.

Should be an interesting fight to see who gets control in the post war period.

Alternately the British or French running it, may try to pass it over to the US as either a bribe to bring the US into the war or as payment for war debts.

That's all I got for now.
 

MrP

Banned
A lot would depend on who would replace the French when their effort collapses. The Nicaragua effort would likely be the US effort in this case as it would be impossible to convince the Congress to spend money on duplicate efforts and Nicaragua was already negotiating with the US.

So likely powers to invest in or take over the French effort at Panama would likely be either the Brits (probably a joint effort at the start like the Suez) or the Germans.

Whoever get the canal would likely help Panama get it's Independence as a way of securing it. The Nations or nations would for a time have cooler relations with the US and possibly the rest of the Caribbean.

After that a lot would depend on the trade going through the two canals.

When World War I breaks out things could be very interesting based on whom has control of the Panama Canal and what kind of festivities were planned for it's Grand Opening.

If Germany has it, then they might have a few warships in the Caribbean at the outbreak of the war. Also the British or French might try to seize the Canal Zone to stop movement of German Blockade runners.

Should be an interesting fight to see who gets control in the post war period.

Alternately the British or French running it, may try to pass it over to the US as either a bribe to bring the US into the war or as payment for war debts.

That's all I got for now.

I confess that the idea of the Germans controlling it interests me - putting questions of plausibility of building two canals for the same purpose simultaneously aside - since it throws the RN's response into confusion (or compels them to seek a pre-war solution/deployment of their own units). In addition to the fact that the RN would have to cover Graf von Spee's squadron in both the Caribbean and South Atlantic, there's also the question of America's reaction to the opportunity to do what Japan did to Tsingtao IOTL. Again, were the RN the purchasers, it'd be intriguing to see if TTL's units at the Falklands were shifted to this canal, and thus capable of restricting von Spee to the Pacific.
 
Presuming one canal in Nicaragua, by the U.S., I can picture more willingness to accept CAm countries as U.S. states (starting with Nicaragua:p). I also see more growth of Texas & Louisiana ports, as sea traffic to WCoast & transpacific is faster. Maybe more economic development in Caribbean countries, too, for the same reason.

Presuming 2 canals, accelerate both trends, IMO.

There's also some long-term environmental impacts on Panama/Columbia: water into (LGatun?) goes into the locks & from there into the Pacific, instead of back into the rainforest, which is (slowly but surely...) creating a desert...:eek:

One possible oddball butterfly: the size of the locks. Is Nicaragua built to the OTL Panama size? If it isn't, Yamato may have to be bigger, to account for USN not being limited to "Panamax BBs", or maybe not built at all....
 
Miscelaneous results

I confess that the idea of the Germans controlling it interests me - putting questions of plausibility of building two canals for the same purpose simultaneously aside - since it throws the RN's response into confusion (or compels them to seek a pre-war solution/deployment of their own units). In addition to the fact that the RN would have to cover Graf von Spee's squadron in both the Caribbean and South Atlantic, there's also the question of America's reaction to the opportunity to do what Japan did to Tsingtao IOTL. Again, were the RN the purchasers, it'd be intriguing to see if TTL's units at the Falklands were shifted to this canal, and thus capable of restricting von Spee to the Pacific.

Lots of major butterflies, but the Royal Navy had the Caribean covered already in case von Spee used the Panama Canal. HMS Princess Royal was assigned to cover it...and a Lion class battlecruiser by itself likely would have eaten von Spee's ships for lunch, baring catastrophe.

The Yamato (assuming not butterflied away) class battleships would have been affected--after all, the US could easily build a matching ship and still use the canal. A sea level canal is much easier to widen than one with locks.

Any ecological consequences? A sea level canal means that critters from one side or the other will migrate through, depending on the flow of the current. Anything that clings to a ship's hull will also make the transit, since it won't be killed by fresh water.
 
Gents,

Just a quick note in an interesting thread because a few people seem to be getting confused.

The Nicaraguan Canal proposed in the late 19th/early 20th Century was not a sea level canal. The plan for that project used rivers on either side of the continental divide, the lake, and shorter canals. but those portions were not supposed to work at sea level.

The project proposed by Nicaragua in the 21st Century is a sea level canal and will not have locks.

Thus, a Nicaraguan canal built in the early decades of the 20th Century would not be able to pass ships of any size because there will be locks. A Nicaraguan canal built in the 21st Century will be able to pass ships limited only by their draft.


Bill
 
Thus, a Nicaraguan canal built in the early decades of the 20th Century would not be able to pass ships of any size because there will be locks. A Nicaraguan canal built in the 21st Century will be able to pass ships limited only by their draft.
Actually, the limit would be the depth of the river portions, since that governs how big the ships transiting can be (their draft). In Panama, as built, the size limit was (is...) the size of the locks...as it is on Welland Canal & (IIRC) St. Lawrence Seaway, too.
 
Any ecological consequences? A sea level canal means that critters from one side or the other will migrate through, depending on the flow of the current. Anything that clings to a ship's hull will also make the transit, since it won't be killed by fresh water.

one of the modern worries is that sea snakes would make it from the Pacific to the Caribbean... and that would have catastrophic ecological consequences. Not to mention, it would kill off much of the tourism there...
 
Actually, the limit would be the depth of the river portions, since that governs how big the ships transiting can be (their draft).


PacificHistorian,

Sorry, but no. Remember, we're talking about two different designs for the "same" canal over 100 years apart. It's easy to conflate the two`proposals.

Yes, the late 19th/early 20th Century Nicaraguan used rivers. However, there were still locks in the plans because the design was not for a sea level canal. Ships using the canal would travel up each of the rivers in question to what had been their natural heads of navigation. There locks would lift the ships to the upper portions of each river where they would transit to lake. Unlike the lower parts of the rivers, the upper portions of the rivers would have to be dredged and widened in order to be used. Aside from the dredging, the water depth in the upper portions of the rivers would also be increased by the use of dams placed at the natural heads of navigation.

You'll notice that this design had a lot in common with the OTL canal eventually built at Panama. There is a central lake providing the water necessary for the canal's operation with that water controlled by dams and locks. What made the Nicaraguan route more attractive to some is that the rivers provided ready made canal beds and that the central lake [already existed.

In Panama only a miniscule portion of a pre-exisiting river bed was used; more digging was required because the vast majority of the canal path had to be excavated through higher elevations. The Nicaraguan route also had a pre-existing lake; Lake Managua while the central lake in Panama; Lake Gatun, would have to be built.

Putting it simply:

- The Nicaraguan Canal meant a longer route through locks and a lake, but less digging.
- The Panama Canal meant a shorter route through locks and a lake, but more digging.

So, the late 19th/early 20th Century Nicaraguan canal design had locks. Ships transitting it would have to worry about their beam and draft due to lock width and canal depth restrictions just as with the OTL Panama canal.

Eventually it was political concerns that placed the canal in Panama. Political concerns and a Nicaraguan postage stamp that featured a volcano, but that's another story.

The canal proposed in the early 21st Century is a sea level design. There will be no locks used in it.


Bill
 
For those who want a Japanese or German canal in Nicaragua after the US went the way of Panama you might be out of luck. US probably would not have allowed any other nation to build a competing canal.
Nicaragua and the United States signed but never ratified the Castill-Knox Treaty in 1914, giving the United States the right to intervene in Nicaragua to protect United States interest. Emiliano Chamorro signed the treaty with Williams Jenning Bryan on 5 August 1914 in which the United States agreed to give an exclusive concession for building an interoceanic canal across the San Juan River for a period of 99 years. By signing this treaty Nicaragua received the sum of three million dollars. Because the United States had already built the Panama Canal, however, the terms of the Chamorro-Bryan Treaty served the primary purpose of securing United States interests against potential foreign countries -- mainly Germany or Japan -- building another canal in Central America. The treaty also transformed Nicaragua into a near United States protectorate. The modified version of Castill-Knox Treaty, the Chamorro-Bryan Treaty, omitting the intervention clause, was finally ratified by the United States Senate in 1916.
Nicaragua and Panama were important when it came to the 1848 Gold Rush of California. It was quicker to go via those two nations then overland US or sailing around the tip of South America.

This some info. on it: http://www.bruceruiz.net/PanamaHistory/argonauts.htm

US had a report made in 1876 on the possibility of a canal via Nicaragua.

The following on US interest in the Canal. Seems Nicaragua went to other European nations after US lost interest.
Read this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/panama-canal-nicaragua-2.htm

Once at that above page you will see an index to the right to continue or see other stories on Nicaragua and the canal.


The following is a map of what was originally planned. The numbers 1 thru 4 near the Atlantic side and 5 thru 8 on the Pacific side are the locks that were planned.

Rio San Juan was the border with Costa Rica. But in that map the Canal is North of that river.

Its a big map:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/3040888199_34f0be9171_o.jpg

In Dec. 2008 there is a story that Russia might be building the Nicaragua Canal. But with the world economy has it is it will probably be delayed. I would think Nicaragua has a better chance of building a dry canal via rail or roads. Thats what Honduras is doing.

This is a current map of the Nicaragua Interoceanic canal from 2006 from a report.The map shows which routes they would be taking. The map is in a PDF report on page 34.
http://www.pancanal.com/esp/plan/documentos/canal-de-nicaragua/canal-x-nicaragua.pdf

Side Note - Seems the San Juan river is the way they will probably be going. But that would damage the environment. Plus that would create problems with Costa Rica. The San Juan river is the border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua but Costa Rica only controls the South Bank of the river just before the river moves NW into Nicaragua. When I say the South Bank I mean up to the waters edge. Where the water begins belongs to Nicaragua. So Nicaragua controls the entire river. Story gets better.

Costa Rica really wants no Canal there but they do not control the river since they gave up the river in the Cañas-Jerez treaty in 1858. Treaty was even taken to arbitration by both nations to US President Cleveland 30 years later. Anyway, the thing is it seems the treaty has been violated and they could claim half the river.

Seems in 1897 they finally started marking the border. Problem was that the land area south of lake Nicaragua was flooded so the people marking the border had to go 2.5 KM south looking for dry land. They built a marker but that marker was suppose to indicate that the border was 2.5 Km North. Since no one lives there and that place is isolated with time everyone thought that was the actual border.

See Map on this page: http://www.rutaalterna.org/Mod2/MI%20COSTA%20RICA%20PARA%20WEB/articulos/hito13.htm

On that map the pink color under the 1858 treaty should belong to Costa Rica but because of that mistake it is under Nicaraguan control. Its a park.
Some people of that area wanted to proclaim a Republic in that small territory. The Republic of Airrecu. They even asked for UN recognition.
Here is the story:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26440119_ITM
Map of Airrecu:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SilkRoad-Lake/2917/syometsu/airrecu01.gif

Seems there have been many border problems in Central America. Costa Rica once invaded Panama in 1921 but that is another story.

That would also make a good alternative history story. :D

From a real NY Times headline from 1921:
COSTA RICANS TAKE NEW PANAMA TOWN; Continue Advance to Almirante --Panama Says 2, Nicaragua Reports 18 Killed. U.S. GUNBOAT ON THE WAY League Council Sends Message to Two States--Panama Says Washington Will Mediate. 18 Dead, Many Wounded, Reported. Costa Rica Wants League Solution. State Department Asks Navy Protection
And do not be fooled into believing that today Costa Rica has no military. Offically they do not but they have a paramilitary made up of rural and civil guards and which is one of the best trained in latin america even though they have no heavy equipment.
 
Last edited:
clarify

PacificHistorian,

Sorry, but no. Remember, we're talking about two different designs for the "same" canal over 100 years apart. It's easy to conflate the two`proposals.
I think we're at cross-purposes, here. I was presuming the river portions (& no dredging, which I didn't know Y/N on) governed the proposal as stated. The locks would always govern size limits, which I also presumed, just as they do at Panama. Let me put it this way (& I maybe should've before...:(): if the river is 30ft deep at shallowest, you're limited to ships of around 20ft draft (unless you intend to constantly dredge every point that shallow, which IMO is lunatic). Given you accept that limit, lock size then governs beam, presuming the river doesn't run thru really narrow gorges or under bridges with pillars that'll limit beam for you.

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