Jump to content

History of the Panama Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Panama Canal Company)

Large ship coming through a canal lock
Miraflores Locks in 2004

The idea of the Panama Canal dates back to 1513, when the Spanish conquistador Vasco Núñez de Balboa first crossed the Isthmus of Panama. This narrow land bridge between North and South America was a fine location to dig a water passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The earliest European colonists recognized this, and several proposals for the construction of a canal were made.[1]

By the late nineteenth century, technological advances and commercial pressure allowed construction to begin in earnest. Noted canal engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps, builder of the Suez Canal, led the initial attempt by France to build a sea-level canal. Beset by cost overruns due to the severe underestimation of the difficulties in excavating the rugged terrain, heavy personnel losses to tropical diseases, and political corruption in France surrounding the financing of the massive project, the canal was only partly completed.

Interest in a U.S.-led canal effort picked up as soon as France abandoned the project. Initially, the Panama site was politically unfavorable in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, including the taint of the failed French effort and the unfriendly attitude of the Colombian government (at the time, the owner of the land) towards the U.S. continuing the project. The U.S. first sought to construct a canal through Nicaragua instead.

French engineer and financier Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla played a key role in changing American attitudes. Bunau-Varilla had a large stake in the failed French canal company and stood to profit on his investment only if the Panama Canal was completed. His extensive lobbying of American lawmakers, coupled with his support of a nascent independence movement among the Panamanian people, led to a revolution in Panama and to the negotiation of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, thus simultaneously securing independence for Panama and an opportunity for the U.S. to lead a renewed effort to construct the canal. Colombia's response to the Panamanian independence movement was tempered by an American military presence; this is often cited as a classic example of the era of gunboat diplomacy. The leaders of the new government in breakaway Panama felt they had no choice but to accept the canal treaty. Had the U.S. withdrawn its warships, the Colombian army would have returned to Panama and executed the members of the new government. "The notion that Roosevelt would abandon Panama at this point, that he would leave the junta to the vengeance of Colombia, that he would now suddenly turn around and treat with Bogota, was not simply without foundation, but ridiculous to anyone the least familiar with the man or the prevailing temper in Washington. Nothing of the kind was ever even remotely contemplated at the White House or the State Department."[2]

The Americans' success hinged on two factors. First was converting the original French sea-level plan (which required extremely large excavations) to a more realistic lock-controlled canal. The second was controlling the diseases which had decimated workers and management alike under the original French attempt. The Americans' chief engineer John Frank Stevens (the second Chief Engineer of the American-led project after John Finlay Wallace resigned out of frustration with the bureaucracy in 1905) built much of the infrastructure necessary for later construction; slow progress on the canal itself led to his replacement by George Washington Goethals. Goethals oversaw the bulk of the excavation of the canal, including appointing Major David du Bose Gaillard to oversee the most daunting project, the Culebra Cut through the roughest terrain on the route. Almost as important as the engineering advances were the healthcare advances made during the construction, led by William C. Gorgas, an expert in controlling tropical diseases such as yellow fever and malaria. Gorgas was one of the first to recognize the role of mosquitoes in the spread of these diseases and, by focusing on controlling the mosquitoes, greatly improved worker conditions.

On 7 January 1914, the French crane boat Alexandre La Valley became the first to traverse the entire length of the canal, and on 1 April 1914 the construction was officially completed with the hand-over of the project from the construction company to the Panama Canal Zone government. The outbreak of World War I caused the cancellation of any official "grand opening" celebration, but the canal officially opened to commercial traffic on 15 August 1914 with the transit of the SS Ancon.

During World War II, the canal proved vital to American military strategy, allowing ships to transfer easily between the Atlantic and Pacific. Politically, the canal remained a territory of the United States until 1977, when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties began the process of transferring territorial control of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, a process which was finally completed on 31 December 1999.

The Panama Canal continues to be a viable commercial venture and a vital link in world shipping, and is periodically upgraded. A Panama Canal expansion project started construction in 2007 and began commercial operation on 26 June 2016. The new locks allow the transit of larger Post-Panamax and New Panamax ships, which have greater cargo capacity than the original locks could accommodate.[3]

Early proposals in Panama

[edit]
Satellite image showing the location of the Panama Canal: dense jungles are visible in green, topped by clouds

The earliest record regarding a canal across the Isthmus of Panama was in 1534, when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, ordered a survey for a route through the Americas in order to ease the voyage for ships traveling between Spain and Peru. The Spanish were seeking to gain a military advantage over the Portuguese.[4]

In 1668, the English physician and philosopher Sir Thomas Browne speculated in his encyclopedic work, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, that "some Isthmus have been eaten through by the Sea, and others cut by the spade: And if the policy would permit, that of Panama in America were most worthy the attempt: it being but few miles over, and would open a shorter cut unto the East Indies and China".[5]

Given the strategic location of Panama, and the potential of its narrow isthmus separating two great oceans, other trade links in the area were attempted over the years. One early example of this was the ill-fated Darien scheme, launched by the Kingdom of Scotland in 1698 to set up an overland trade route. Generally inhospitable conditions thwarted the effort, and it was abandoned in April 1700.[6] In 1788, Americans suggested that the Spanish should build the canal, since they controlled the colonies where it would be built. They said that this would be a less treacherous route for ships than going around the southern tip of South America, and that tropical ocean currents would naturally widen the canal after construction.[7] During an expedition from 1788 to 1793, Alessandro Malaspina outlined plans for construction of a canal.[8]

See caption
1888 German map of a projected Panama Canal (above) and an alternate Nicaragua route (below)

The idea of a canal across Central America was revived during the early 19th century. In 1819, the Spanish government authorized the construction of a canal and the creation of a company to build it.Numerous canals were built in other countries in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The success of the Erie Canal through central New York in the United States in the 1820s and the collapse of the Spanish Empire in Latin America resulted in growing American interest in building an inter-oceanic canal. Beginning in 1826, US officials began negotiations with Gran Colombia (present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama), hoping to gain a concession to build a canal. Jealous of their newly gained independence and fearing domination by the more powerful United States, president Simón Bolívar and New Granada officials declined American offers. After the collapse of Gran Colombia, New Granada remained unstable under constant government intrigue.[citation needed]

Great Britain attempted to develop a canal in 1843. According to the New-York Daily Tribune, 24 August 1843, Barings Bank of London and the Republic of New Granada entered into a contract for the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien (Isthmus of Panama). They referred to it as the Atlantic and Pacific Canal, and it was a wholly British endeavor. Projected for completion in five years, the plan was never carried out. At nearly the same time, other ideas were floated, including a canal (and/or a railroad) across Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That did not develop, either.[9]

In 1846, the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, negotiated between the US and New Granada, granted the United States transit rights and the right to intervene militarily in the isthmus. In 1848, the discovery of gold in California, on the West Coast of the United States, generated renewed interest in a canal crossing between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. William Henry Aspinwall, who had won the federal subsidy to build and operate the Pacific mail steamships at around the same time, benefited from the gold discovery. Aspinwall's route included steamship legs from New York City to Panama, and from Panama to California, with an overland portage through Panama. This route with an overland leg in Panama was soon frequently traveled, as it provided one of the fastest connections between San Francisco, California, and the East Coast cities, about 40 days' transit in total. Nearly all the gold that was shipped out of California went by the fast Panama route. Several new and larger paddle steamers were soon plying this new route, including private steamship lines owned by American entrepreneur Cornelius Vanderbilt that made use of an overland route through Nicaragua, and the unfortunate SS Central America.[10][11]

Map showing the Railway and the proposed Panama Canal route

In 1850, the United States began construction of the Panama Railroad (now called the Panama Railway) to cross the isthmus; it opened in 1855. This overland link became a vital piece of Western Hemisphere infrastructure, greatly facilitating trade. The later canal route was constructed parallel to it, as it had helped clear dense forests.[citation needed] An all-water route between the oceans was still the goal. In 1855, William Kennish, a Manx-born engineer working for the United States government, surveyed the isthmus and issued a report on a route for a proposed Panama Canal.[12] His report was published as a book entitled The Practicability and Importance of a Ship Canal to Connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[13][page needed]

Share of the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique de Panama, issued 29. November 1880 – signed by Ferdinand de Lesseps

French project

[edit]

Although the project stalled for some time, a number of surveys were made between 1850 and 1875. They indicated that the two most-favorable routes were across Panama (then part of Colombia) and Nicaragua, with a third route across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico another option. The Nicaraguan route was surveyed.

In 1876, Lucien Napoléon Bonaparte Wyse and his chief assistant Armand Réclus, both officers and engineers of the French Navy, explored several routes in the Darien-Atrato regions and made proposals including the construction of tunnels and locks.[14][page needed] A second Isthmian exploratory visit began on 6 December 1877, where two routes were explored in Panama, the San Blas route and a route from Bahía Limón to Panama City, the current Canal route. The French had achieved success in building the Suez Canal in the Middle East. While it was a lengthy project, they were encouraged to plan for a canal to cross the Panamanian isthmus.[15] Wyse went to Bogotá and on 20 March 1878, signed a treaty, in the name of the Société civile internationale du Canal interocéanique par l'isthme du Darien headed by general Étienne Türr, with the Colombian government, known as the Wyse concession, to build an interoceanic canal through Panama.

French construction attempts, 1881–1899

[edit]
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French originator of the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal

The first attempt to construct a canal through what was then Colombia's province of Panama began on 1 January 1881. The project was inspired by the diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps, who was able to raise considerable funds in France as a result of the huge profits generated by his successful construction of the Suez Canal.[16] Although the Panama Canal needed to be only 40 percent as long as the Suez Canal, it was much more of an engineering challenge because of the combination of tropical rain forests, debilitating climate, the need for canal locks, and the lack of any ancient route to follow.

De Lesseps wanted a sea-level canal (like the Suez), but he visited the site only a few times, during the dry season which lasts only four months of the year.[17] His men were unprepared for the rainy season, during which the Chagres River, where the canal started, became a raging torrent, rising up to 10 m (33 ft). The dense jungle was alive with venomous snakes, insects, and spiders, but the worst challenges were yellow fever, malaria, and other tropical diseases, which killed thousands of workers; by 1884, the death rate was over 200 per month.[18] Public health measures were ineffective because the role of the mosquito as a disease vector was then unknown. Conditions were downplayed in France to avoid recruitment problems,[19] but the high mortality rate made it difficult to maintain an experienced workforce.

Excavator at work in Bas Obispo, 1886

Workers had to continually widen the main cut through the mountain at Culebra and reduce the angles of the slopes to minimize landslides into the canal.[20] Steam shovels were used in the construction of the canal, purchased from Bay City Industrial Works, a business owned by William L. Clements in Bay City, Michigan.[21] Bucket chain excavators manufactured by both Alphonse Couvreux and Wehyer & Richemond and Buette were also used.[22] Other mechanical and electrical equipment was limited in capabilities, and steel equipment rusted rapidly in the rainy climate.[23]

In France, de Lesseps kept the investment and supply of workers flowing long after it was obvious that the targets were not being met, but eventually the money ran out. The French effort went bankrupt in 1889 after reportedly spending US$287,000,000; an estimated 22,000 men died from disease and accidents, and the savings of 800,000 investors were lost.[19][24] Work was suspended on May 15, and in the ensuing scandal, known as the Panama affair, some of those deemed responsible were prosecuted, including Gustave Eiffel.[25] De Lesseps and his son Charles were found guilty of misappropriation of funds and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. This sentence was later overturned, and the father, at age 88, was never imprisoned.[19]

Conception

[edit]
Part de Fondateur of the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique de Panama, issued 29. November 1880

After the 1869 completion of the Suez Canal, the French government believed that an apparently similar project to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans could be carried out with little difficulty. In 1876 an international company, La Société internationale du Canal interocéanique, was created to undertake its construction; two years later, it obtained a concession from the Colombian government (since Panama was a Colombian province) to dig a canal across the isthmus. On March 20, 1878, the Société Civile obtained an exclusive 15 years concession from the Colombian government to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, which at the time was a Department of Colombia; the waterway that would revert to the Colombian government after 99 years without compensation.

Ferdinand de Lesseps, who was in charge of the Suez Canal construction, headed the project. His enthusiastic leadership and his reputation as the man who had built the Suez Canal persuaded speculators and ordinary citizens to invest nearly $400 million in the project.

Despite his previous success, de Lesseps was not an engineer. The construction of the Suez Canal, essentially a ditch dug through a flat, sandy desert, presented few challenges. Although Central America's mountainous spine has a low point in Panama, it is still 110 meters (360.9 ft) above sea level at its lowest crossing point. The sea-level canal proposed by de Lesseps would require a great deal of excavation through a variety of unstable rock, rather than Suez's sand.

Less-obvious barriers were the rivers crossing the canal, particularly the Chagres, which flows strongly during the rainy season. Since the water would be a hazard to shipping if it drained into the canal, a sea-level canal would require the river's diversion.

The most serious problem was tropical diseases, particularly malaria and yellow fever, whose methods of transmission were unknown at the time. The legs of hospital beds were placed in cans of water to keep insects from crawling up them, but the stagnant water was an ideal breeding place for mosquitoes (carriers of the diseases).

In May 1879, the Congrès International d'Etudes du Canal Interocéanique (International Congress for Study of an Interoceanic Canal), led by Lesseps, convened in Paris. Among the 136 delegates of 26 countries, 42 were engineers and made technical proposals before the congress. The others were speculators, politicians, and friends of Lesseps, for whom the purpose of this congress was only to launch fundraising by legitimizing Lesseps' own decision, based on the Lucien Bonaparte-Wyse and Armand Réclus plan, through a so-called international scientific approval, since he was convinced that a sea-level canal, dug through the mountainous spine of Central America, could be completed at least as easily as the Suez Canal.

In reality, only 19 engineers approved the chosen plan, and only one of those had actually visited Central America. While the Americans abstained because of their own plan through Nicaragua, the five delegates from the French Society of Engineers all refused. Among them were Gustave Eiffel and Adolphe Godin de Lépinay [fr], the general-secretary of the Société de Géographie, who was the only one to propose a lake-and-locks project. Designer in particular of the large-gauge canal between Bordeaux and Narbonne, the road between Sétif and Bougie, and of the railway lines connecting Philippeville to Constantine, Algeria, Algiers to Constantine, and Athens to Piraeus, he also supervised the construction of a rail link between Veracruz and Córdoba, Mexico, losing two-thirds of his workers to tropical disease.

Godin de Lépinay's plan was to build a dam across the Chagres River in Gatún, near the Atlantic, and another on the Rio Grande, near the Pacific, to create an artificial lake accessed by locks. Digging less and avoiding unsanitary work and the danger of flooding was his priority, with an estimated lower cost of $100,000,000 (equivalent to $3,157,241,379 in 2023) and 50,000 lives saved, as mentioned in the motivation for his negative review of Lesseps' plan. The bankruptcy of the Lesseps project is described clearly, without ambiguity. It will be technical and financial, as Godin de Lépinay had planned. Unfortunately, his plan received no serious attention. Had it been adopted, the Panama Canal might well have been completed by the French instead of by the United States.

Following the congress, the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique de Panama, in charge of the construction, whose president was Lesseps, acquired the Wyse Concession from the Société Civile.

The engineering congress estimated the Lesseps project's cost at $214 million; on February 14, 1880, an engineering commission revised the estimate to $168.6 million. Lesseps further reduced this estimate twice, with no apparent justification: on February 20 to $131.6 million and on March 1 to $120 million. The congress estimated seven or eight years as the time required to complete the canal; Lesseps reduced this estimate to six years (the Suez Canal had required ten).

The proposed sea-level canal would have a uniform depth of 9 meters (29.5 ft), a bottom width of 22 meters (72.2 ft) and a width at water level of about 27.5 meters (90.2 ft); the excavation estimate was 120,000,000 m3 (157,000,000 cu yd). A dam was proposed at Gamboa to control flooding of the Chagres River, with channels to drain water away from the canal. However, the Gamboa dam was later found impracticable and the Chagres River problem was left unsolved.

Construction

[edit]
Illustration of a large, terraced excavation
The Culebra Cut in 1885

Construction of the canal began on January 1, 1881, with digging at Culebra beginning on January 22.[26] A large labor force was assembled, numbering about 40,000 in 1888 (nine-tenths of whom were afro-Caribbean workers from the West Indies). Although the project attracted good, well-paid French engineers, retaining them was difficult due to disease. The death toll from 1881 to 1889 was estimated at over 22,000, of whom as many as 5,000 were French citizens.[27]

By 1885 it had become clear to many that a sea-level canal was impractical, and an elevated canal with locks was preferable; de Lesseps resisted, and a lock canal plan was not adopted until October 1887. By this time increasing mortality rates, as well as financial and engineering problems coupled with frequent floods and mudslides, indicated that the project was in serious trouble. Work continued under the new plan until May 15, 1889, when the company went bankrupt and the project was suspended. After eight years the canal was about two-fifths completed, and about $234.8 million had been spent.

Photo of the canal's construction
Construction of the canal

The company's collapse was a scandal in France, and the antisemitic Edouard Drumont exploited the role of two Jewish speculators in the affair. One hundred and four legislators were found to have been involved in the corruption, and Jean Jaurès was commissioned by the French parliament to conduct an inquiry which was completed in 1893.[28]

New Panama Canal Company

[edit]

In 1894, a second French company, the Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama, was created to take over the project. A minimal workforce of a few thousand people was employed primarily to comply with the terms of the Colombian Panama Canal concession, to run the Panama Railroad, and to maintain the existing excavation and equipment in salable condition. The company sought a buyer for these assets, with an asking price of US$109,000,000. In the meantime, they continued with enough activity to maintain their franchise. Phillipe Bunau-Varilla, the French manager of the New Panama Canal Company, eventually managed to persuade Lesseps that a lock-and-lake canal was more realistic than a sea-level canal.[29] The Comité Technique, a high level technical committee, was formed by the Compagnie Nouvelle to review the studies and work—that already finished and that still ongoing—and come up with the best plan for completing the canal. The committee arrived on the Isthmus in February 1896 and went immediately, quietly and efficiently about their work of devising the best possible canal plan, which they presented on 16 November 1898. Many aspects of the plan were similar in principle to the canal that was finally built by the Americans in 1914.[30] It was a lock canal with two high level lakes to lift ships up and over the Continental Divide. Double locks would be 738 feet long and about 30 feet deep (225 m × 9 m); one chamber of each pair would be 82 feet (25 m) wide, the other 59 ft (18 m). There would be eight sets of locks, two at Bohio Soldado and two at Obispo on the Atlantic side; one at Paraiso, two at Pedro Miguel, and one at Miraflores on the Pacific. Artificial lakes would be formed by damming the Chagres River at Bohio and Alhajuela, providing both flood control and electric power.

It soon became clear that the only way to recoup expenses for the stockholders was to continue the project. A new concession was obtained from Colombia, and in 1894 the Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama was created to finish the canal. To comply with the terms of the contract, work began immediately on the Culebra excavation while a team of engineers began a comprehensive study of the project. They eventually settled on a plan for a two-level, lock-based canal.

The new effort never gained traction, mainly because of US speculation that a canal through Nicaragua would render one through Panama useless. The most men employed on the new project was 3,600 (in 1896), primarily to comply with the terms of the concession and to maintain the existing excavation and equipment in saleable condition. The company had already begun looking for a buyer, with an asking price of $109 million.

In the US, a congressional Isthmian Canal Commission was established in 1899 to examine possibilities for a Central American canal and recommend a route. In November 1901, the commission reported that a US canal should be built through Nicaragua unless the French were willing to sell their holdings for $40 million. The recommendation became law on June 28, 1902, and the New Panama Canal Company was compelled to sell at that price.[31]

Results

[edit]

Although the French effort was effectively doomed to failure from the beginning due to disease and a lack of understanding of the engineering difficulties, it was not entirely futile. The old and new companies excavated 59,747,638 m3 (78,146,960 cu yd) of material, of which 14,255,890 m3 (18,646,000 cu yd) was taken from the Culebra Cut. The old company dredged a channel from Panama Bay to the port at Balboa, and the channel dredged on the Atlantic side (known as the French canal) was useful for bringing in sand and stone for the locks and spillway concrete at Gatún.

Detailed surveys and studies (particularly those carried out by the new canal company) and machinery, including railroad equipment and vehicles, aided the later American effort. The French lowered the summit of the Culebra Cut along the canal route by five meters (16 feet), from 64 to 59 metres (210 to 194 ft). An estimated 22,713,396 m3 (29,708,000 cu yd) of excavation, valued at about $25.4 million, and equipment and surveys valued at about $17.4 million were usable by the Americans.[citation needed]

Nicaraguan canal

[edit]

The 1848 discovery of gold in California and the rush of would-be miners stimulated US interest in building a canal between the oceans. In 1887, a United States Army Corps of Engineers regiment surveyed canal possibilities in Nicaragua. Two years later, the Maritime Canal Company was asked to begin a canal in the area and chose Nicaragua. The company lost money in the panic of 1893, and its work in Nicaragua ceased. In 1897 and 1899, the United States Congress charged a canal commission with researching possible construction; Nicaragua was chosen as the location both times.

Although the Nicaraguan canal proposal was made redundant by the American takeover of the French Panama Canal project, increases in shipping volume and ship sizes have revived interest in the project. A canal across Nicaragua accommodating post-Panamax ships or a rail link carrying containers between ports on either coast have been proposed.[citation needed]

United States

[edit]

Theodore Roosevelt believed that a US-controlled canal across Central America was a vital strategic interest of the country. This idea gained wide circulation after the destruction of the USS Maine in Cuba on February 15, 1898. Reversing a Walker Commission decision in favor of a Nicaraguan canal, Roosevelt encouraged the acquisition of the French Panama Canal effort. George S. Morison was the only commission member who argued for the Panama location. The purchase of the French-held land for $40 million was authorized by the June 28, 1902 Spooner Act. Since Panama was then part of Colombia, Roosevelt began negotiating with that country to obtain the necessary rights. In early 1903 the Hay–Herrán Treaty was signed by both nations, but the Senate of Colombia failed to ratify the treaty.

United States acquisition

[edit]
The US's intentions to influence the area (especially the Panama Canal construction and control) led to the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903
The Culebra Cut in 1896
The Culebra Cut in 1902

At this time, US President Theodore Roosevelt and the United States Senate were interested in establishing a canal across the isthmus, with some favoring a canal across Nicaragua and others advocating the purchase of the French interests in Panama. Bunau-Varilla, who was seeking American involvement, asked for $100 million, but accepted $40 million in the face of the Nicaraguan option. In June 1902, the US Senate voted in favor of the Spooner Act, to pursue the Panamanian option, provided the necessary rights could be obtained.[32]

On 22 January 1903, the Hay–Herrán Treaty was signed by United States Secretary of State John M. Hay and Colombian Chargé Tomás Herrán. For $10 million and an annual payment, it would have granted the United States a renewable lease in perpetuity from Colombia on the land proposed for the canal.[33] The treaty was ratified by the US Senate on 14 March 1903, but the Senate of Colombia unanimously rejected the treaty since it had become significantly unpopular in Bogotá due to concerns over insufficient compensation, threat to sovereignty, and perpetuity.[34]

Roosevelt changed tactics, based in part on the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty of 1846, and actively supported the separation of Panama from Colombia. Shortly after recognizing Panama, he signed a treaty with the new Panamanian government under terms similar to the Hay–Herrán Treaty.[35]

On 2 November 1903, US warships blocked sea lanes against possible Colombian troop movements en route to put down the Panama rebellion. Panama declared independence on 3 November 1903. The United States quickly recognized the new nation.[36] This happened so quickly that by the time the Colombian government in Bogotá launched a response to the Panamanian uprising US troops had already entered the rebelling province. The Colombian troops dispatched to Panama were hastily assembled conscripts with little training. While these conscripts may have been able to defeat the Panamanian rebels, they would not have been able to defeat the US army troops that were supporting the Panamanian rebels. The reason an army of conscripts was sent was that it was the best response the Colombians could muster, as Colombia still was recovering from a civil war between Liberals and Conservatives from October 1899, to November 1902, known as the "Thousand Days War". The US was fully aware of these conditions and even incorporated them into the planning of the Panama intervention as the US acted as an arbitrator between the two sides. The peace treaty that ended the "Thousand Days War" was signed on the USS Wisconsin on 21 November 1902. While in port, the US also brought engineering teams to Panama with the peace delegation to begin planning the canal's construction before the US had even gained the rights to build the canal. All these factors would result in the Colombians being unable to put down the Panamanian rebellion and expel the United States troops occupying what today is the independent nation of Panama.[37]

On 6 November 1903, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, as Panama's ambassador to the United States, signed the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting rights to the United States to build and indefinitely administer the Panama Canal Zone and its defenses. This is sometimes misinterpreted as the "99-year lease" because of misleading wording included in article 22 of the agreement.[38] Almost immediately, the treaty was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country's new national sovereignty.[39][40] This would later become a contentious diplomatic issue among Colombia, Panama, and the United States.

Roosevelt implied to Panamanian rebels that if they revolted, the US Navy would assist their fight for independence. Panama declared its independence on November 3, 1903, and the USS Nashville impeded Colombian interference. The victorious Panamanians gave the United States control of the Panama Canal Zone on February 23, 1904, for $10 million in accordance with the November 18, 1903 Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty.

President Roosevelt famously stated, "I took the Isthmus, started the canal and then left Congress not to debate the canal, but to debate me." Several parties in the United States called this an act of war on Colombia: The New York Times described the support given by the United States to Bunau-Varilla as an "act of sordid conquest".[41][42] The New York Evening Post called it a "vulgar and mercenary venture".[43] The US maneuvers are often cited as the classic example of US gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, and the best illustration of what Roosevelt meant by the old African adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick [and] you will go far." After the revolution in 1903, the Republic of Panama became a US protectorate until 1939.[44]

In 1904, the United States purchased the French equipment and excavations, including the Panama Railroad, for US$40 million, of which $30 million related to excavations completed, primarily in the Culebra Cut, valued at about $1.00 per cubic yard.[45] The United States also paid the new country of Panama $10 million and a $250,000 payment each following year.

In 1921, Colombia and the United States entered into the Thomson–Urrutia Treaty, in which the United States agreed to pay Colombia $25 million: $5 million upon ratification, and four $5 million annual payments, and grant Colombia special privileges in the Canal Zone. In return, Colombia recognized Panama as an independent nation.[46]


Takeover

[edit]
See caption
1923 elevation map of the canal, showing the region's topography

The United States took control of the French property connected to the canal on May 4, 1904, when Lieutenant Mark Brooke of the United States Army was presented with the keys during a small ceremony.[47] The new Panama Canal Zone Control was overseen by the Isthmian Canal Commission (ICC) during construction.

The first step taken by the US government was to place all the canal workers under the new administration. The operation was maintained at minimum strength to comply with the canal concession and keep the machinery in working order. The US inherited a small workforce and an assortment of buildings, infrastructure and equipment, much of which had been neglected for fifteen years in the humid jungle environment. There were no facilities in place for a large workforce, and the infrastructure was crumbling.

Cataloguing assets was a large job; it took many weeks to card-index available equipment. About 2,150 buildings had been acquired,[48] many of which were uninhabitable; housing was an early problem, and the Panama Railway was in a state of decay. However, much equipment (such as locomotives, dredges[49] and other floating equipment) was still serviceable.

General George Washington Goethals

Although chief engineer John Findley Wallace was pressured to resume construction, red tape from Washington stifled his efforts to obtain heavy equipment and caused friction between Wallace and the ICC. He and chief sanitary officer William C. Gorgas were frustrated by delay, and Wallace resigned in 1905. He was replaced by John Frank Stevens, who arrived on July 26, 1905. Stevens quickly realized that serious investment in infrastructure was necessary and determined to upgrade the railway, improve sanitation in Panama City and Colón, renovate and construct the old French buildings and build hundreds of new ones for housing. He then began the difficult task of recruiting the large labor force required for construction. Stevens' approach was to press ahead first and obtain approval later. He improved drilling and dirt-removal equipment at the Culebra Cut for greater efficiency, revising the inadequate provisions in place for soil disposal.

No decision had been made about whether the canal should be a lock or a sea-level one; the ongoing excavation would be useful in either case. In late 1905, President Roosevelt sent a team of engineers to Panama to investigate the relative merits of both types in cost and time. Although the engineers voted eight to five in favor of a sea-level canal, Stevens and the ICC opposed the plan; Stevens' report to Roosevelt was instrumental in convincing the president of the merits of a lock canal and Congress concurred. In November 1906 Roosevelt visited Panama to inspect the canal's progress, the first trip outside the United States by a sitting president.

Whether contract employees or government workers would build the canal was controversial. Bids for the canal's construction were opened in January 1907, and Knoxville, Tennessee-based contractor William J. Oliver was the low bidder. Stevens disliked Oliver, and vehemently opposed his choice. Although Roosevelt initially favored the use of a contractor, he eventually decided that army engineers should carry out the work[50] and appointed Major George Washington Goethals as chief engineer (under Stevens' direction) in February 1907. Stevens, frustrated by government inaction and the army involvement, resigned and was replaced by Goethals.


United States construction of the Panama canal, 1904–1914

[edit]
Chief engineer John Frank Stevens
Sanitation officer William C. Gorgas

The US formally took control of the canal property on 4 May 1904, inheriting from the French a depleted workforce and a vast jumble of buildings, infrastructure, and equipment, much of it in poor condition. A US government commission, the Isthmian Canal Commission (ICC), was established to oversee construction; it was given control of the Panama Canal Zone, over which the United States exercised sovereignty.[51] The commission reported directly to Secretary of War William Howard Taft and was directed to avoid the inefficiency and corruption that had plagued the French 15 years earlier.

On 6 May 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed John Findley Wallace, formerly chief engineer and finally general manager of the Illinois Central Railroad, as chief engineer of the Panama Canal Project. Overwhelmed by the disease-plagued country and forced to use often dilapidated French infrastructure and equipment,[52] as well as being frustrated by the overly bureaucratic ICC, Wallace resigned abruptly in June 1905.[53] The ICC brought on a new chairman, Theodore P. Shonts, and a new chief engineer was appointed, John Frank Stevens, a self-educated engineer who had built the Great Northern Railroad.[54] Stevens was not a member of the ICC; he increasingly viewed its bureaucracy as a serious hindrance, bypassing the commission and sending requests and demands directly to the Roosevelt administration in Washington, DC.

One of Stevens' first achievements in Panama was in building and rebuilding the housing, cafeterias, hotels, water systems, repair shops, warehouses, and other infrastructure needed by the thousands of incoming workers. Stevens began the recruitment effort to entice thousands of workers from the United States and other areas to come to the Canal Zone to work. Workers from the Caribbean—called "Afro-Panamanians"—came in large numbers and many settled permanently. Stevens tried to provide accommodation in which the workers could work and live in reasonable safety and comfort. He also re-established and enlarged the railway, which was to prove crucial in transporting millions of tons of soil from the cut through the mountains to the dam across the Chagres River.

President Theodore Roosevelt sitting on a Bucyrus steam shovel at Culebra Cut, 1906
Construction work on the Gaillard Cut is shown in this photograph from 1907

Colonel William C. Gorgas had been appointed chief sanitation officer of the canal construction project in 1904. Gorgas implemented a range of measures to minimize the spread of deadly diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria, which had recently been shown to be mosquito-borne following the work of Cuban epidemiologist, Carlos Finlay and American pathologist, Walter Reed.[55] Investment was made in extensive sanitation projects, including city water systems, fumigation of buildings, spraying of insect-breeding areas with oil and larvicide, installation of mosquito netting and window screens, and elimination of stagnant water. Despite opposition from the commission (one member said his ideas were barmy), Gorgas persisted, and when Stevens arrived, he threw his weight behind the project. After two years of extensive work, the mosquito-spread diseases were nearly eliminated.[56] Despite the monumental effort, about 5,600 workers died from disease and accidents during the US construction phase of the canal.

Besides healthier and far better living conditions for the workers, another benefit given to American citizens working on the Canal was a medal for two years of service. Additional bars were added for each two-year period after that. Designed by Victor D. Brenner and featuring the then-current president they were popularly known as The Roosevelt Medal. A total of 7189 were ultimately issued, with a few people receiving as many as four bars.[57] Certificates are available today.[58]

In 1905, a US engineering panel was commissioned to review the canal design, which had not been finalized. In January 1906 the panel, in a majority of eight to five, recommended to President Roosevelt a sea-level canal,[59] as had been attempted by the French and temporarily abandoned by them in 1887 for a ten locks system designed by Philippe Bunau-Varilla, and definitively in 1898 for a lock-and-lake canal designed by the Comité Technique of the Compagnie Nouvelle de Canal de Panama as conceptualized by Adolphe Godin de Lépinay in 1879.[60] But in 1906 Stevens, who had seen the Chagres in full flood, was summoned to Washington; he declared a sea-level approach to be "an entirely untenable proposition". He argued in favor of a canal using a lock system to raise and lower ships from a large reservoir 85 ft (26 m) above sea level. This would create both the largest dam (Gatun Dam) and the largest human-made lake (Gatun Lake) in the world at that time. The water to refill the locks would be taken from Gatun Lake by opening and closing enormous gates and valves and letting gravity propel the water from the lake. Gatun Lake would connect to the Pacific through the mountains at the Gaillard (Culebra) Cut. Unlike Godin de Lépinay with the Congrès International d'Etudes du Canal Interocéanique, Stevens successfully convinced Roosevelt of the necessity and feasibility of this alternative scheme.[61]

The construction of a canal with locks required the excavation of more than 17 million cu yd (13 million m3) of material over and above the 30 million cu yd (23 million m3) excavated by the French. As quickly as possible, the Americans replaced or upgraded the old, unusable French equipment with new construction equipment that was designed for a much larger and faster scale of work. 102 large, railroad-mounted steam shovels were purchased, 77 from Bucyrus-Erie, and 25 from the Marion Power Shovel Company. These were joined by enormous steam-powered cranes, giant hydraulic rock crushers, concrete mixers, dredges, and pneumatic power drills, nearly all of which were manufactured by new, extensive machine-building technology developed and built in the United States. The railroad also had to be comprehensively upgraded with heavy-duty, double-tracked rails over most of the line to accommodate new rolling stock. In many places, the new Gatun Lake flooded over the original rail line, and a new line had to be constructed above Gatun Lake's waterline.

Between 1912 and 1914 there was a controversy about the tolls for the canal.[62]

Construction of locks on the Panama Canal, 1913

Goethals replaces Stevens as chief engineer

[edit]
General George Washington Goethals, who completed the canal

In 1907, Stevens resigned as chief engineer.[63] His replacement, appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, was US Army Major George Washington Goethals of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soon to be promoted to lieutenant colonel and later to general, he was a strong, West Point-trained leader and civil engineer with experience in canals (unlike Stevens). Goethals directed the work in Panama to a successful conclusion in 1914, two years ahead of the target date of 10 June 1916.[64]

Goethals divided the engineering and excavation work into three divisions: Atlantic, Central, and Pacific. The Atlantic Division, under Major William L. Sibert, was responsible for construction of the massive breakwater at the entrance to Bahía Limón, the Gatun locks, and their 3+12-mile (5.6 km) approach channel, and the immense Gatun Dam. The Pacific Division, under Sydney B. Williamson (the only civilian member of this high-level team), was similarly responsible for the Pacific 3-mile (4.8 km) breakwater in Panama Bay, the approach channel to the locks, and the Miraflores and Pedro Miguel locks and their associated dams and reservoirs.[65]

The Central Division, under Major David du Bose Gaillard of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, was assigned one of the most difficult parts: excavating the Culebra Cut through the continental divide to connect Gatun Lake to the Pacific Panama Canal locks.[66]

Nautical chart of 1915 showing the canal shortly after completion

On 10 October 1913, President Woodrow Wilson sent a signal from the White House by telegraph which triggered the explosion that destroyed the Gamboa Dike. This flooded the Culebra Cut, thereby joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans via the Panama Canal.[67] Alexandre La Valley (a floating crane built by Lobnitz & Company and launched in 1887) was the first self-propelled vessel to transit the canal from ocean to ocean. This vessel crossed the canal from the Atlantic in stages during construction, finally reaching the Pacific on 7 January 1914.[68] SS Cristobal (a cargo and passenger ship built by Maryland Steel, and launched in 1902 as SS Tremont) on 3 August 1914, was the first ship to transit the canal from ocean to ocean.[69]

The construction of the canal was completed in 1914, 401 years after Panama was first crossed overland by the Europeans in Vasco Núñez de Balboa's party of conquistadores. The United States spent almost $500 million (roughly equivalent to $15.2 billion in 2023)[70] to finish the project. This was by far the largest American engineering project to date. The canal was formally opened on 15 August 1914, with the passage of the cargo ship SS Ancon.[71]

The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 caused a severe drop in traffic along Chilean ports due to shifts in maritime trade routes,[72][73][74] despite the closure of the canal for nearly seven months after a landslide in the Culebra Cut on 18 September 1915.[75] The burgeoning sheep farming business in southern Patagonia suffered a significant setback by the change in trade routes,[76] as did the economy of the Falkland Islands.[77]

Throughout this time, Ernest "Red" Hallen was hired by the Isthmian Canal Commission to document the progress of the work.

In 1914, steam shovels from the Panama Canal were purchased and put to use in Chuquicamata copper mine of northern Chile.[78]

Workforce

[edit]

The US relied on a stratified workforce to build the canal. High-level engineering jobs, clerical positions, skilled labor and jobs in supporting industries were generally reserved for Americans, with manual labor primarily by cheap immigrant labor. These jobs were initially filled by Europeans, primarily from Spain, Italy and Greece, many of whom were radical and militant due to political turmoil in Europe. The US then decided to recruit primarily from the British and French West Indies, and these workers provided most of the manual labor on the canal.[79]

Living conditions

[edit]

The Canal Zone originally had minimal facilities for entertainment and relaxation for the canal workers apart from saloons; as a result, alcohol abuse was a great problem. The inhospitable conditions resulted in many American workers returning home each year.

A program of improvements was implemented. Clubhouses were built, managed by the YMCA, with billiard, assembly and reading rooms, bowling alleys, darkrooms for camera clubs, gymnastic equipment, ice cream parlors, soda fountains and a circulating library. Member dues were ten dollars a year, with the remaining upkeep (about $7,000 at the larger clubhouses) paid by the ICC. The commission built baseball fields and arranged rail transportation to games; a competitive league soon developed. Semi-monthly Saturday-night dances were held at the Hotel Tivoli, which had a spacious ballroom.

These measures influenced life in the Canal Zone; alcohol abuse fell, with saloon business declining by 60 percent.[citation needed] The number of workers leaving the project each year dropped significantly.

US construction

[edit]
Large excavation through mountains, seen from a rail tunnel
The Culebra Cut in 1907

The work done thus far was preparation, rather than construction. By the time Goethals took over, the construction infrastructure had been created or overhauled and expanded from the French effort and he was soon able to begin construction in earnest.

Goethals divided the project into three divisions: Atlantic, Central and Pacific. The Atlantic Division, under Major William L. Sibert, was responsible for construction of the breakwater at the entrance to Bahía Limón, the Gatún locks and their 5.6 km (3.5 mi) approach channel, and the Gatun Dam. The Pacific Division (under Sydney B. Williamson, the only civilian division head) was responsible for the Pacific entrance to the canal, including a 4.8 km (3.0 mi) breakwater in Panama Bay, the approach channel, and the Miraflores and Pedro Miguel locks and their associated dams. The Central Division, under Major David du Bose Gaillard, was responsible for everything in between. It had arguably the project's greatest challenge: excavating the Culebra Cut (known as the Gaillard Cut from 1915 to 2000), which involved cutting 8 miles (13 km) across the continental divide down to 12 meters (39 feet) above sea level.

By August 1907, 765,000 m3 (1,001,000 cu yd) per month was being excavated; this set a record for the rainy season; soon afterwards this doubled, before increasing again. At the peak of production, 2,300,000 m3 (3,000,000 cu yd) was being excavated per month (the equivalent amount of spoil from the Channel Tunnel every 3½ months).[citation needed]

Culebra Cut

[edit]
See caption
1923 diagram illustrating the elevations through which the canal cuts across the isthmus

One of the greatest barriers to a canal was the continental divide, which originally rose to 110 metres (360.9 ft) above sea level at its highest point. The effort to cut through this barrier of rock was one of the greatest challenges faced by the project.

Goethals arrived at the canal with Major David du Bose Gaillard of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Gaillard was placed in charge of the canal's Central Division, which stretched from the Pedro Miguel locks to the Gatun Dam, and dedicated himself to getting the Culebra Cut (as it was then known) excavated.

The scale of the work was massive. 6 thousand men worked in the cut, drilling holes in which a total of 27,000 t (60,000,000 lb) of dynamite were placed to break up the rock (which was then removed by as many as 160 trains per day). Landslides were frequent, due to the oxidation and weakening of the rock's underlying iron strata. Although the scale of the job and the frequent, unpredictable slides generated chaos, Gaillard provided quiet, clear-sighted leadership.

On May 26, 1913, Bucyrus steam shovels made a passage through the Culebra Cut at the level of the canal bottom. The French effort had reduced the summit to 59 metres (193.6 ft) over a relatively narrow width; the Americans had lowered this to 12 metres (39.4 ft) above sea level over a greater width, and had excavated over 76,000,000 m3 (99,000,000 cu yd) of material. About 23,000,000 m3 (30,000,000 cu yd) of this material was in addition to the planned excavation, due to landslides. Dry excavation ended on September 10, 1913; a January slide had added 1,500,000 m3 (2,000,000 cu yd) of earth, but it was decided that this loose material would be removed by dredging when the cut was flooded.

Dams

[edit]

Two artificial lakes are key parts of the canal: Gatun and Miraflores Lakes. Four dams were constructed to create them. Two small dams at Miraflores impound Miraflores Lake, and a dam at Pedro Miguel encloses the south end of the Culebra Cut (essentially an arm of Lake Gatun). The Gatun Dam is the main dam blocking the original course of the Chagres River, creating Gatun Lake.

The Miraflores dams are an 825-metre (2,707 ft) earth dam connecting the Miraflores Locks in the west and a 150-metre (492 ft) concrete spillway dam east of the locks. The concrete dam has eight floodgates, similar to those on the Gatun spillway. The earthen, 430-metre (1,411 ft) Pedro Miguel dam extends from a hill in the west to the lock. Its face is protected by rock riprap at the water level. The largest and most challenging of the dams is the Gatun Dam. This earthen dam, 640 metres (2,100 ft) thick at the base and 2,300 metres (7,546 ft) long along the top, was the largest of its kind in the world when the canal opened.[citation needed]

Locks

[edit]
Concrete wall and rail line
Pedro Miguel Locks under construction during the early 1910s, looking north, showing the center wall and intakes

The original lock canal plan called for a two-step set of locks at Sosa Hill and a long Sosa Lake extending to Pedro Miguel.[80] In late 1907, it was decided to move the Sosa Hill locks further inland to Miraflores, mostly because the new site provided a more stable construction foundation. The resulting small lake Miraflores became a fresh water supply for Panama City.

Building the locks began with the first concrete laid at Gatun on August 24, 1909. The Gatun locks are built into a cutting into a hill bordering the lake, requiring the excavation of 3,800,000 m3 (4,970,212 cu yd) of material (mostly rock). The locks were made of 1,564,400 m3 (2,046,158 cu yd) of concrete, with an extensive system of electric railways and aerial lifts transporting concrete to the lock-construction sites.

The Pacific-side locks were finished first: the single flight at Pedro Miguel in 1911, and Miraflores in May 1913. The seagoing tugboat Gatun, an Atlantic-entrance tug used to haul barges, traversed the Gatun locks on September 26, 1913. The trip was successful, although the valves were controlled manually; the central control board was not yet ready.

Opening

[edit]

On October 10, 1913, the dike at Gamboa which had kept the Culebra Cut isolated from Gatun Lake was demolished; the detonation was made telegraphically by President Woodrow Wilson in Washington. On January 7, 1914, the Alexandre La Valley,[81] an old French crane boat, became the first ship to make a complete transit of the Panama Canal under its own steam after working its way across during the final stages of construction.

As construction wound down, the canal team began to disperse. Thousands of workers were laid off, and entire towns were disassembled or demolished. Chief sanitary officer William C. Gorgas, who left to fight pneumonia in the South African gold mines, became surgeon general of the Army. On April 1, 1914, the Isthmian Canal Commission disbanded, and the zone was governed by a Canal Zone Governor; the first governor was George Washington Goethals.

Although a large celebration was planned for the canal's opening, the outbreak of World War I forced the cancellation of the main festivities and it became a modest local affair. The Panama Railway steamship SS Ancon, piloted by Captain John A. Constantine (the canal's first pilot), made the first official transit on August 15, 1914. With no international dignitaries in attendance, Goethals followed the Ancon's progress by railroad.

Summary

[edit]
Aerial photo through small clouds
International Space Station photo showing (right to left) the Miraflores locks, Miraflores Lake, the Pedro Miguel locks and the Centennial Bridge

The canal was a technological marvel and an important strategic and economic asset to the US. It changed world shipping patterns, removing the need for ships to navigate the Drake Passage and Cape Horn. The canal saves a total of about 7,800 miles (12,600 km) on a sea trip from New York to San Francisco.

The anticipated military significance of the canal was proven during World War II, when the canal helped restore the devastated United States Pacific Fleet.[82] Some of the largest ships the United States had to send through the canal were aircraft carriers, particularly Essex class; they were so large that although the locks could accommodate them, the lampposts along the canal had to be removed.

The Panama Canal cost the United States about $375 million, including $10 million paid to Panama and $40 million paid to the French company. Although it was the most expensive construction project in US history to that time, it cost about $23 million less than the 1907 estimate despite landslides and an increase in the canal's width. An additional $12 million was spent on fortifications.

The USS Missouri fitting tightly in a canal lock
USS Missouri traverses the Panama Canal en route to the United States in October 1945

A total of over 75,000 people worked on the project; at the peak of construction, there were 40,000 workers. According to hospital records, 5,609 workers died from disease and accidents during the American construction era.[citation needed]

A total of 182,610,550 m3 (238,845,582 cu yd) of material was excavated in the American effort, including the approach channels at the canal ends. Adding the work by the French, the total excavation was about 204,900,000 m3 (268,000,000 cu yd) (over 25 times the volume excavated in the Channel Tunnel project).[citation needed]

Of the three presidents whose terms spanned the construction period, Theodore Roosevelt is most associated with the canal and Woodrow Wilson presided over its opening. However, William Howard Taft may have given the canal its greatest impetus for the longest time. Taft visited Panama five times as Roosevelt's secretary of war and twice as president. He hired John Stevens and later recommended Goethals as Stevens' replacement. Taft became president in 1909, when the canal was half finished, and was in office for most of the remainder of the work. However, Goethals later wrote: "The real builder of the Panama Canal was Theodore Roosevelt".[citation needed]

The following words by Roosevelt are displayed in the rotunda of the canal's administration building in Balboa:[citation needed]

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

David du Bose Gaillard died of a brain tumor in Baltimore on December 5, 1913, at age 54. Promoted to colonel only a month earlier, Gaillard never saw the opening of the canal whose creation he directed. The Culebra Cut (as it was originally known) was renamed the Gaillard Cut on April 27, 1915, in his honor. A plaque commemorating Gaillard's work stood over the cut for many years; in 1998 it was moved to the administration building, near a memorial to Goethals.

Later developments

[edit]

By the 1930s, water supply became an issue for the canal, prompting construction of the Madden Dam across the Chagres River above Gatun Lake. Completed in 1935, the dam created Madden Lake (later Alajuela Lake), which provides additional water storage for the canal.[83] In 1939, construction began on a further major improvement: a new set of locks large enough to carry the larger warships that the United States was building at the time and planned to continue building. The work proceeded for several years, and significant excavation was carried out on the new approach channels, but the project was canceled after World War II.[84][85]

Third-lane plans

[edit]
USS Missouri, an Iowa-class battleship, passes through the canal in 1945. The 108 ft 2 in (32.97 m) beams of the Iowas and preceding South Dakota class were the largest ever to transit the Canal.

In the Treaty of the Danish West Indies, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands in 1917 in part to defend the Panama Canal.[86] As the situation in Europe and Asia deteriorated during the late 1930s, the US again became concerned about its ability to move warships between the oceans. The largest US battleships already had problems with the canal locks, and there were concerns that the locks could be incapacitated by bombing. These concerns were validated by several US naval exercises, which showed that the canal's defenses were inadequate.[87][88]

These concerns led Congress to pass a resolution on May 1, 1936, authorizing a study of improving the canal's defenses against attack and expanding its capacity to handle large vessels. A special engineering section was created on July 3, 1937, to carry out the study. The section reported to Congress on February 24, 1939, recommending work to protect the existing locks and the construction of a new set of locks capable of carrying larger vessels than the existing locks could accommodate. On August 11, Congress authorized the work.

Three new locks were planned, at Gatún, Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, parallel to the existing locks with new approach channels. The new locks would add a traffic lane to the canal, with each chamber 1,200 ft (365.76 m) long, 140 ft (42.67 m) wide and 45 ft (13.72 m) deep. They would be 12 mi (805 m) east of the existing Gatún locks and 14 mi (402 m) west of the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores locks.

The first excavations for the new approach channels at Miraflores began on July 1, 1940, following the passage by Congress of an appropriations bill on June 24, 1940. The first dry excavation at Gatún began on February 19, 1941. Considerable material was excavated before the project was abandoned, and the unused approach channels can still be seen paralleling the original channels at Gatún and Miraflores.

In 2006, the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (the Panama Canal Authority, or ACP) proposed a plan creating a third lane of locks using part of the abandoned 1940s approach canals. Following a referendum, work began in 2007 and the expanded canal began commercial operations on June 26, 2016. After a two-year delay, the new locks allow the transit of Neopanamax ships (which have a greater cargo capacity than the original locks can handle). The first ship to cross the canal through the third set of locks was a Panamax container ship, the Chinese-owned Cosco Shipping Panama. The cost of the expansion was estimated at $5.25 billion.[3]

Transfer to Panama

[edit]

After construction, the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it were administered by the United States. After World War II, US control of the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it became contentious; relations between Panama and the United States became increasingly tense. Many Panamanians felt that the Zone rightfully belonged to Panama; student protests were met by the fencing-in of the zone and an increased military presence there.[89] Demands for the United States to hand over the canal to Panama increased after the Suez Crisis in 1956, when the United States used financial and diplomatic pressure to force France and the UK to abandon their attempt to retake control of the Suez Canal, previously nationalized by the Nasser regime in Egypt. Panamanian unrest culminated in riots on Martyr's Day, 9 January 1964, when about 20 Panamanians and 3–5 US soldiers were killed.[90]

On September 7, 1977, US President Jimmy Carter signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaty setting in motion the process of transferring control of the canal to Panama. The treaty became effective on October 2, 1979, providing for a 20-year period in which Panama would have increasing responsibility for canal operations before complete US withdrawal on December 31, 1999. Since then, the canal has been administered by the Panama Canal Authority (Autoridad de Canal de Panama, or ACP).

The transfer of the canal came under heavy attack from conservatives, especially the American Conservative Union, the Conservative Caucus, the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, Citizens for the Republic, the American Security Council, the Young Republicans, the National Conservative Political Action Committee, the Council for National Defense, Young Americans for Freedom, the Council for Inter-American Security, and the Campus Republican Action Organization. The treaty narrowly passed with the required 2/3 vote in the Senate.[91] Though Panamanians welcomed the return of sovereignty over the Panama Canal, many people at the time also expressed fears of the possible negative economic repercussions.[92]

See caption
Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos shake hands moments after the signing of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties.

Although concerns existed in the US and the shipping industry about the canal after the transfer, Panama has exercised good stewardship.[93] On October 22, 2006, Panamanian citizens approved a referendum to expand the canal.[94]

Former US Ambassador to Panama Linda Ellen Watt, who served from 2002 to 2005, said that the canal operation in Panamanian hands has been "outstanding". "The international shipping community is quite pleased", Watt added.[93]

A decade later, in 1974, negotiations toward a settlement began and resulted in the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. On 7 September 1977, the treaty was signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of Panama. This mobilized the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal so long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal. The treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on 31 December 1999, and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway. The Panama Canal remains one of the chief revenue sources for Panama.[95][96]

Before this handover, the government of Panama held an international bid to negotiate a 25-year contract for operation of the container shipping ports located at the canal's Atlantic and Pacific outlets. The contract was not affiliated with the ACP or Panama Canal operations and was won by the firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong–based shipping interest owned by Li Ka-shing.[97]

21st century

[edit]

On 21 December 2024, President-elect Donald Trump threatened that the United States would retake control of the Panama Canal from Panama, stating that the rates Panama was charging American ships were "exorbitant" and in violation of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties.[98] The following day, Trump stated that the canal was "falling into the wrong hands" and brought up China. Shortly afterwards, Panamanian president José Raúl Mulino responded. He denied that the United States was being unfairly charged or that anyone besides Panama was in full control of the canal, and affirmed that the canal was part of the country's "inalienable patrimony".[99]


See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Smith, Lydia (August 15, 2014). "Panama Canal 100th Anniversary". International Business Times. Retrieved May 12, 2015.
  2. ^ The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, 1978, p.396
  3. ^ a b The Associated Press (June 26, 2016). "Panama Canal Opens $5B Locks, Bullish Despite Shipping Woes". The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
  4. ^ "A History of the Panama Canal: French and American Construction Efforts". Panama Canal Authority. Archived from the original on December 15, 2014. Retrieved September 3, 2007.; Chapter 3, Some Early Canal Plans Archived 2 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine
  5. ^ Browne, Sir Thomas (1668). "Book 6, chapter 8". On the River Nile (4th ed.). Archived from the original on November 19, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2022.
  6. ^ "Darien Expedition". Archived from the original on July 19, 2011. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
  7. ^ James Rodger Fleming (1990). Meteorology in America, 1800–1870. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-8018-3958-0.
  8. ^ Caso, Adolph (1978). They too made America great. Internet Archive. Boston : Branden Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8283-1714-6.
  9. ^ [1][dead link]
  10. ^ Stiles, T. J. (2009). The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-41542-5.
  11. ^ "COLUMBUS-AMERICA DISCOVERY GROUP and the SS CENTRAL AMERICA" (PDF). columbia.edu. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
  12. ^ A.W. Moore (1901). "William Kennish (b. 1799, d. 1862)". Manx Worthies or Biographies of Notable Manx Men and Women. Douglas, Isle of Man: S. K. Broadbent. p. 118. Archived from the original on June 28, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2010 – via isle-of-man.com.
  13. ^ Kelley, Frederick M.; Kennish, William; Serrell, Edward Wellman (1855). The Practicability and Importance of a Ship Canal to Connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  14. ^ Fauconnier, Gérard (2004). Panama: Armand Reclus et le canal océans. University of Virginia reprint in French Panama Atlantica. ISBN 978-2-84394-668-4. Archived from the original on October 25, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2022.
  15. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 58–59.
  16. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 125.
  17. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 103–123.
  18. ^ Cadbury 2003, pp. 201–204.
  19. ^ a b c Avery, Ralph E. (1913). "The French Failure". America's Triumph in Panama. Chicago, IL: L.W. Walter Company. Archived from the original on July 28, 2017. Retrieved January 10, 2022.
  20. ^ Rocco, Fiammetta (2003). The Miraculous Fever-Tree. HarperCollins. p. 192. ISBN 0-00-653235-7.
  21. ^ "The Panama Canal: Explorers, pirates, scientists and engineers – University of Michigan News". umich.edu. April 18, 2007. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
  22. ^ Keith Haddock. Giant Earthmovers: An Illustrated History. MotorBooks International. pp. 173–174. ISBN 978-1-61060-586-1.
  23. ^ "Read our history: The French Canal Construction". Panama Canal Authority. Archived from the original on December 15, 2014. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
  24. ^ Cadbury 2003, p. 262.
  25. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 224.
  26. ^ Pre-Canal History Archived December 19, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, from Global Perspectives
  27. ^ The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, 1978 (a comprehensive history of the building of the canal)
  28. ^ On the Panama Scandal, speech by Jean Jaurès, 1893 (at Marxists.org Internet Archive)
  29. ^ Cadbury 2003, p. 261.
  30. ^ Panama Canal Official Site – History – https://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/ Archived 10 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine select chapter The French Canal Construction – Retrieved 9 November 2021
  31. ^ The French Failure, from CZ Brats
  32. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 305–328.
  33. ^ "Hay-Herrán Treaty". U-S-history.com. November 18, 1903. Archived from the original on February 14, 2012. Retrieved October 24, 2010.
  34. ^ "Hay-Herran Treaty (1903)".
  35. ^ Livingstone, Grace (2009). America's Backyard: The United States and Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror. London: Zed. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-84813-214-6.
  36. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 361–386.
  37. ^ Meade, Teresa A. (2016). History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 128–130. ISBN 978-1-118-77248-5.
  38. ^ "Avalon Project—Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), 18 November 1903". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Archived from the original on November 4, 2011. Retrieved October 24, 2010.
  39. ^ "07 September 1977: Panama to control canal". History.com. 2010. Archived from the original on April 10, 2015. Retrieved April 4, 2015.
  40. ^ Lowe, Vaughan (September 28, 2007). International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-19-150907-0. Archived from the original on March 23, 2017. Retrieved April 4, 2015.
  41. ^ Delano, Anthony (November 9, 2016). "America's devious dream: Roosevelt and the Panama Canal". HistoryExtra. Archived from the original on April 26, 2024. Retrieved March 6, 2024.
  42. ^ Colby, Gerard (January 1, 2020). "William S. Culbertson and The Search for The Geopolitical Imperium". Graduate College Dissertations and Theses.
  43. ^ Huffman, Alan (August 15, 2014). "Panama Canal's 48 Miles To An 'American Century'". International Business Times. Archived from the original on August 17, 2024. Retrieved March 6, 2024.
  44. ^ Hanson, David C. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Panama Canal" (PDF). Virginia Western Community College. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 1, 2014. Retrieved January 21, 2014.
  45. ^ Committee On Appropriations, United States. Congress. House (1913). "Col. Goethals testimony". The Panama Canal Congressional Hearings 1909. p. 15. Archived from the original on January 10, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
  46. ^ "U.S. agrees to transfer Panama Canal to Panama". History.com. Archived from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2021.
  47. ^ 115 Years Ago..., from Panama Canal Museum Collection
  48. ^ "Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army". 1916.
  49. ^ French Belgian Built Ladder Dredge - http://www.czimages.com/CZMemories/ladderdredge/ladderdredge1.htm accessed 7/19/2018
  50. ^ DuVal, Miles P. (1947) And the Mountains Will Move: The Story of the Building of the Panama Canal. Stanford University Press.
  51. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 273–274.
  52. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 440.
  53. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 457.
  54. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 459–462.
  55. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 405–426.
  56. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 466–468.
  57. ^ The Panama Canal Service Medal – The "Junk" Medal.
  58. ^ "Roosevelt Medal Holders". Archived from the original on February 8, 2024. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  59. ^ Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Panama Canal" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 670.
  60. ^ Panama Canal Official Site – https://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/ (Archived 10 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine) select chapter "The French Canal Construction" – Retrieved 9 November 2021
  61. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 485–489.
  62. ^ Coker, William S. (1968). "The Panama Canal Tolls Controversy: A Different Perspective". The Journal of American History. 55 (3): 555–564. doi:10.2307/1891013. ISSN 0021-8723. JSTOR 1891013.
  63. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 503–508.
  64. ^ "The Panama Canal: Writings of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Officers Who Conceived and Built It". p. 1. Archived from the original on April 8, 2013. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
  65. ^ McCullough 1977, pp. 540–542.
  66. ^ "Col. David D.B. Gaillard". www.czbrats.com. Archived from the original on October 1, 2018. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
  67. ^ "Wilson blows up last big barrier in Panama Canal". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. October 11, 1913. p. 1. Archived from the original on November 25, 2015. Retrieved November 24, 2015.
  68. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 607.
  69. ^ McCullough 1977, p. 609.
  70. ^ 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  71. ^ "Read our history: American Canal Construction". Panama Canal Authority. Archived from the original on December 15, 2014. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
  72. ^ John Lawrence, Rector (2005), The History of Chile, p. xxvi
  73. ^ Martinic Beros, Mateo (2001), "La actividad industrial en Magallanes entre 1890 y mediados del siglo XX", Historia, 34, archived from the original on July 2, 2017, retrieved July 4, 2014
  74. ^ Figueroa, Victor; Gayoso, Jorge; Oyarzun, Edgardo; Planas, Lenia (1998). "Investigación aplicada sobre Geografía Urbana: Un caso práctico en la ciudad de Valdivia" [Applied research on Urban Geography: A practical case in the city of Valdivia]. Gestión Turistica (in Spanish) (3). UACh: 107–148. doi:10.4206/gest.tur.1998.n3-06. ISSN 0717-1811. Archived from the original on October 25, 2014.
  75. ^ "A Century of Progress: A Century of Slides". The Land Divided, The World United. Kansa City, Missouri: Linda Hall Library. Archived from the original on May 25, 2022. Retrieved November 13, 2022.
  76. ^ "La economía ovejera en Magallanes (1876–1930)", Memoria Chilena (in Spanish), Biblioteca Nacional de Chile, archived from the original on October 19, 2013, retrieved June 30, 2013
  77. ^ Dodds, Klaus (December 9, 2012). "The Falkland Islands as a 'Strategic Gateway'". The RUSI Journal. 157 (6): 8–25. doi:10.1080/03071847.2012.750882. S2CID 154575728.
  78. ^ Barros M., María Celia (April 6, 2015). "Una mina centenaria". mch.cl (in Spanish). Archived from the original on July 2, 2022. Retrieved July 2, 2022.
  79. ^ Robert H. Zieger. "Builders and Dreamers." Reviews in American History 38, no. 3 (2010): 513–519.
  80. ^ Panama Canal Official Site - History - https://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/ Archived September 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine select chapter Locks Design - accessed 7/19/2018
  81. ^ Official Site Panama Canal - History - https://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/ Archived September 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine select chapter END OF THE CONSTRUCTION - accessed 7/19/2018
  82. ^ Prize Possession: The United States and the Panama Canal 1903–1979, John Major, Cambridge University Press, 1993 (a comprehensive history of U.S. policy, from Teddy Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter)
  83. ^ "Panama Dam to Aid Canal Traffic". Popular Mechanics. Bonnier Corporation. January 1930. p. 25. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  84. ^ "Enlarging the Panama Canal". czbrats.com. Archived from the original on April 5, 2016. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  85. ^ "Presentation on the Third Locks Project – Panama Canal Zone". czimages.com. Archived from the original on February 14, 2017. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  86. ^ Jones, Halbert (2016). Governing the North American Arctic: Sovereignty, Security, and Institutions. Springer. pp. 107–116. ISBN 978-1137493910.
  87. ^ Enlarging the Panama Canal, Alden P. Armagnac, CZ Brats
  88. ^ Enlarging the Panama Canal for Bigger Battleships, notes from CZ Brats
  89. ^ "The Martyrs of 1964". www.czbrats.com. Archived from the original on April 30, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
  90. ^ "MILESTONES: 1953–1960". Archived from the original on April 25, 2021. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  91. ^ David Skidmore, "Foreign Policy Interest Groups and Presidential Power: Jimmy Carter and the Battle over Ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties" in Herbert D. Rosenbaum, Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years (1994) pp 297-327. online Archived January 21, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  92. ^ "Wider than a Mile", Radio Netherlands Archives, December 31, 1999
  93. ^ a b "Panama delivers a lesson to isolationists by Andrés Oppenheimer". Archived from the original on November 6, 2006. Retrieved October 30, 2006.
  94. ^ Funke, Daniel (June 24, 2016). "A timeline of the Panama Canal". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 19, 2023.
  95. ^ "Here's Why The Panama Canal Expansion Has Everyone Excited". TheHuffingtonPost.com. July 11, 2016. Archived from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2020. The Canal previously accounted for about 15 percent of the country's GDP
  96. ^ "A plan to unlock prosperity". The Economist. December 3, 2009. Archived from the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
  97. ^ Wonacott, Peter (October 15, 1999). "Hutchison Unit's Panama Canal Contract Is Targeted by a U.S. Senate Committee". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on March 12, 2022. Retrieved March 12, 2022.
  98. ^ Bazail-Eimil, Eric (December 21, 2024). "Trump threatens to retake Panama Canal". POLITICO. Retrieved December 22, 2022.
  99. ^ McDonald, Michael; Wingrove, Josh; Korte, Gregory (December 22, 2024). "Panama's Leader Takes Up Feud With Trump Over Control of Canal". BNN Bloomberg. Retrieved December 22, 2024.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Brodhead, Michael J. 2012. "The Panama Canal: Writings of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Officers Who Conceived and Built It". US Army Corps of Engineers History Office, Alexandria, Virginia.
  • Cadbury, Deborah (2003). Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. London and New York: Fourth Estate.
  • Collin, Richard H. Theodore Roosevelt's Caribbean: The Panama Canal, the Monroe Doctrine, & the Latin American Context (Louisiana State U. Press, 1990), 520pp
  • Greene, Julie. (2009). The Canal Builders: Making America's Empire at the Panama Canal. New York: The Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-201-8
  • Hoffman, Jon T.; Brodhead, Michael J; Byerly, Carol R.; Williams, Glenn F. (2009). The Panama Canal: An Army's Enterprise. Washington, D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History. 70–115–1. Archived from the original on April 3, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2010.
  • Jaen, Omar (2005). Las Negociaciones de los Tratados Torrijos-Carter, 1970–1979 (Tomos 1 y 2). Panama: Autoridad del Canal de Panama. ISBN 9962-607-32-9 (Obra completa).
  • Lafeber, Walter. The Panama Canal: The Crisis in Historical Perspective (3rd ed. 1990), the standard scholarly account of diplomacy
  • McCullough, David (1977). The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-24409-4.
  • Mills, J. Saxon (1913). The Panama Canal—A history and description of the enterprise. A Project Gutenberg free ebook.
  • Parker, Matthew. (2007). Panama Fever: The Epic Story of One of the Greatest Human Achievements of All Time—The Building of the Panama Canal. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-51534-4.
  • Smith, Gaddis. Morality Reason, and Power: American Diplomacy in the Carter Years (1986) pp 110–15.
  • Sherman, Gary. "Conquering the Landscape (Gary Sherman explores the life of the great American trailblazer, John Frank Stevens)", History Magazine. July 2008.
  • Strong, Robert A. "Jimmy Carter and the Panama Canal Treaties." Presidential Studies Quarterly (1991) 21.2: 269-286 online
  • Swilling, Mary C. "The Business of the Canal: The Economics and Politics of the Carter Administration’s Panama Canal Zone Initiative, 1978." Essays in Economic & Business History (2012) 22:275-89. online
  • Williams, Mary Wilhelmine. Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815–1915 (1916) online

Contemporary magazines

[edit]
[edit]