|
|
|
|
|
|
by asdff
1715 days ago
|
|
|
If trading opportunities were the answer it would have been reported as much at the time imo. Here is the justification from the U.S. house of representatives about the project at the time, in 1856: "The necessity that now exists for constructing lines of railroad and telegraphic communication between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of this continent is no longer a question for argument; it is conceded by every one. In order to maintain our present position on the Pacific, we must have some more speedy and direct means of intercourse than is at present afforded by the route through the possessions of a foreign power" (1) The reason seemed to be just geopolitics rather than trading opportunities. I'm curious if you know what route they were referring to in this quote that routed through a foreign power? An oversea route maybe? In 1856 we had territory coast to coast already so the caravan routes were within our possessions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_railroa... |
|
|
- take the railroad as far west as possible, then a stagecoach (expensive, slow, uncomfortable). The land route was created after the Gold Rush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Trail
- ship to Panama, cross by land in Panama, ship from Panama to California (cheaper, slower, risk of disease like malaria)
- ship around South America. Yep, all the way to Antarctica, through Magellan Strait. (even cheaper, even slower, risks from travelling by the sea). This route seems crazy if you look at the map. However, for goods, it was very much in use before Panama Channel was built. Sea is so much easier than land.
I am not sure what "foreign power" this quote refers to though. Panama? Chile? Maybe you could also go through Mexico?