Early Erie Canal butterflies Louisiana

Could a successful Western Inland Lock Company lead to an earlier Erie Canal which would lead NY, NJ and New England to successfully block the purchase of Louisiana and New Orleans as they wouldn't want the competition for Western trade and there could also be fears of slave expansion.
 
Could a successful Western Inland Lock Company lead to an earlier Erie Canal which would lead NY, NJ and New England to successfully block the purchase of Louisiana and New Orleans as they wouldn't want the competition for Western trade and there could also be fears of slave expansion.

Southeners had long lusted after the port of New Orleans. And even if they blocked it, I give it 20-30 years tops before demographics and settlement (legal or otherwise) causes Louisiana to fall into American hands no matter what France thinks.
 
How the HECK do you get an Erie Canal much earlier than OTL? Let alone before OTL's Louisiana purchase?

There's no economic case for a canal to nowhere - which is what the Great Lakes region really was before 1800.
 
While technically feasible, much of the canal was built through what amounted to near wilderness in OTL, in TTL it will be literal wilderness.

There's no reason for it to get built, it would be a canal to nowhere.
 
a canal to nowhere

...Well, the U.S. government has funded similar boondoggles and pet projects like that before. A certain bridge comes to mind.

A few possibilities:

  • The canal is a private project -- perhaps by early American colonists, perhaps in a collaboration with native Iroquois confederation. The big question is how soon did the technology develop to allow for such a project. Perhaps we could imagine a rich Britishman (a la William Penn) purchasing the land for such a project, hoping to connect the Hudson and St. Lawrence river systems to profit from the trade. Perhaps the canal could be done in bits and pieces, like the Great Northern Railway of later years, expanding its length as profits allow.
  • The canal is a state-wide (colony-wide?) project. I really doubt the technology developed in time for the Dutch to get involved, but perhaps a colonial company (a la Massachusetts Bay) could attempt the same as our hypothetical British investor. Or we could start the timeline later, when New York state turned its attention westward and sought to gain an advantage over its neighbors in expanding its frontier borders.
  • The canal is a colonial British project. This would certainly run against the 'benign neglect' policy of the century before Revolution, but perhaps the British government looked at the frontier with the French and Indian population and wondered how to secure the border. Answer: pry Indian alliances away from the French so they'd support Britain in a future war. How? Answer: by promoting lots and lots of trade. But France has the St. Lawrence to make their trade flow smoother... so we need a canal.
  • The canal is a project by the early American republic. As above, if the US government can spend millions on a Bride to Nowhere on behalf of a small wealthy population of donors (and a Senator with lots of seniority), perhaps even the early republic would do the same for similar reasons. A wealthy family, an influential political leader -- the Schuylers own much of the land and Hamilton owes a few favors, who knows? -- and the canal is funded. Certainly this would affect the tone of debates that followed, between Hamilton and Jefferson. Perhaps this would lead to internal improvements (of the Federalist 'American system' sort) becoming even more taboo and politically unfeasible than they were in OTL. But the Erie Canal would be built sooner.

I'm an amateur and the late colonies/early Republic is not my specialty, so let me know if I missed anything obvious. But it doesn't take an ASB to make the seemingly impossible happen in real history. Hannibal did get elephants across the Alps, after all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Erie Canal connects the Hudson to the Buffalo and Lake Erie

Could a successful Western Inland Lock Company lead to an earlier Erie Canal which would lead NY, NJ and New England to successfully block the purchase of Louisiana and New Orleans as they wouldn't want the competition for Western trade and there could also be fears of slave expansion.

The Erie Canal connects the Hudson to the Buffalo and Lake Erie; Lake Erie is a route for trade from nothern Ohio (and by extension, Indiana, Michigan, etc.)

New Orleans is the port for the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers, which (among other things) is a route for trade from southern Ohio and Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc.

Two totally different economic regions.

Best,
 
The Erie Canal connects the Hudson to the Buffalo and Lake Erie; Lake Erie is a route for trade from nothern Ohio (and by extension, Indiana, Michigan, etc.)

New Orleans is the port for the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers, which (among other things) is a route for trade from southern Ohio and Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc.

Two totally different economic regions.

Best,

Except you have an overlap of states, and you say so yourself. Also these are two completely different economic regions. The lack of access to New Orleans forced many who would rather trade on the Mississippi to ship their goods north and east and take the Erie Canal. Illinois is among those states. And also it helps New York in regards to competing nationally, as New Orleans won't become a major U.S. Port.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not in an era that largely predates steam

Except you have an overlap of states, and you say so yourself. Also these are two completely different economic regions. The lack of access to New Orleans forced many who would rather trade on the Mississippi to ship their goods north and east and take the Erie Canal. Illinois is among those states. And also it helps New York in regards to competing nationally, as New Orleans won't become a major U.S. Port.

Not in an era that largely predates steam; the trade from the Midwest/Old Northwest along the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi was especially economical because the rivers' current did the work.

Likewise, the Erie worked out economically because the trade (Midwestern produce east, mid-Atlantic and New England manufactures west) because there wasn't an alternative, really.

When moving goods depends on the current, wind, and muscle, New Orleans and the western rivers were key for the agricultural producers in the regions touched by the rivers, including the Old Northwest and the Old Southwest that were US territory in the 1780s.

No way around that.

Best,
 
Great Lakes vs Ohio Watershed

Except you have an overlap of states, and you say so yourself. Also these are two completely different economic regions. ...

Yes there is a overlap in terms of the modern states boundaries. There was some overlap in the actual direction of the flow of goods as well. The nominal boundary between the east-west trade between the Great Lakes region & the eastern seaboard & the north-south route of the Mississippi lay on the divide between the Great Lakes watershed and the Ohio river watershed. Timber and grain could be either floated down the rivers feeding the Great Lakes & thence by boat to the population centers & ports in Canada or the Atlantic seaboard. Or down the Ohio basin feeder to the Mississippi to New Orleans. Until working canals crossed it it was not economical for mass movement of good across that watershed divide. Venues like the National Road were not efficient enough for large scale movement of biomass east or bulk industrial manufactors west, & the wagon roads usually were completed too late in the game anyway.

Ultimatly it was steam that made the watershed divide unimportant in mass product movement. The wagon roads too expensive and the horse or ox drawn canals crossing it to slow to develop.

Had the states developed along transportation lines of 1810 what we now see as northern Ohio, NE Indiana, and SE Michigan might be the state of Erie, united by a early economic and transportation orientation on that lake.
 

Driftless

Donor
Ultimatly it was steam that made the watershed divide unimportant in mass product movement. The wagon roads too expensive and the horse or ox drawn canals crossing it to slow to develop.

In the winter for the northern tier, roadways had frequent deep and drifted snow to cross, and in the spring, mud from snow melt fed floods and just the deep frost coming out of the ground(which impacts even high ground). Early days, some locals would construct corduroy or plank roads just to make some areas passable - costly (in time to build) and high maintenance.

Moving goods down the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, etal watersheds was more efficient than going East & West. As CS notes: Steamboats of course made trade up-river more efficient
 
Top