Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Richard Casady
wrote:
>Much of the
>American West didn't have year-round-navigable rivers,
I didn't know there were any. Even the Mississippi wasn't really
navigable until they built number of locks and dams.
Casady
Hatunen
The Mississippi was the main street of the midwest and midsouth
in olden days, even before the construction of all those dams.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did a lot of wrangling
about the trans-Appalachian region (which they called "the West")
and how to handle the admission of any states which "grew up"
there, with the fear that if they didn't give them full equal
statehood the West might jsut go its own way, since trading goods
via the Ohio-Mississippi was much easier and cheaper that trading
across the Appalachians.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Keith F. Lynch
> The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did a lot of wrangling
> about the trans-Appalachian region (which they called "the West")
Us easterners still consider it the west. To me, the west is every
state that doesn't border the Atlantic, with the possible exceptions
of West Virginia and Vermont.
> and how to handle the admission of any states which "grew up" there,
> with the fear that if they didn't give them full equal statehood
> the West might jsut go its own way, since trading goods via the
> Ohio-Mississippi was much easier and cheaper that trading across
> the Appalachians.
Perhaps that would have happened if the Erie Canal hadn't linked the
two great watersheds. And perhaps it would have been better that way.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did a lot of wrangling
>> about the trans-Appalachian region (which they called "the West")
>
>Us easterners still consider it the west. To me, the west is every
>state that doesn't border the Atlantic, with the possible exceptions
>of West Virginia and Vermont.
>
>> and how to handle the admission of any states which "grew up" there,
>> with the fear that if they didn't give them full equal statehood
>> the West might jsut go its own way, since trading goods via the
>> Ohio-Mississippi was much easier and cheaper that trading across
>> the Appalachians.
>
>Perhaps that would have happened if the Erie Canal hadn't linked the
>two great watersheds. And perhaps it would have been better that way.
The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, connected the Great Lakes
states to new York City, but it didn't really help that much for
the areas in the Mississippi watershed since there was no direct
water connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and
its tributaries until the opening of the Chicago Sanitary and
Shipping Canal in 1900, by which time the railroads were in full
bloom.
The Erie Canal was clearly a boon to upstate New York and Great
Lakes ports.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did a lot of wrangling
>> about the trans-Appalachian region (which they called "the West")
>
>Us easterners still consider it the west. To me, the west is every
>state that doesn't border the Atlantic, with the possible exceptions
>of West Virginia and Vermont.
>
>> and how to handle the admission of any states which "grew up" there,
>> with the fear that if they didn't give them full equal statehood
>> the West might jsut go its own way, since trading goods via the
>> Ohio-Mississippi was much easier and cheaper that trading across
>> the Appalachians.
>
>Perhaps that would have happened if the Erie Canal hadn't linked the
>two great watersheds. And perhaps it would have been better that way.
The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, connected the Great Lakes
states to new York City, but it didn't really help that much for
the areas in the Mississippi watershed since there was no direct
water connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and
its tributaries until the opening of the Chicago Sanitary and
Shipping Canal in 1900, by which time the railroads were in full
bloom.
The Erie Canal was clearly a boon to upstate New York and Great
Lakes ports.
--
Keith F. Lynch
> The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, connected the Great Lakes
> states to new York City, but it didn't really help that much for the
> areas in the Mississippi watershed since there was no direct water
> connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and its
> tributaries until the opening of the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping
> Canal in 1900, by which time the railroads were in full bloom.
Thanks. I had mistakenly thought that the Great Lakes had been linked
to the Mississippi watershed much earlier, as land is flatter there,
and the gap is shorter.
> The Erie Canal was clearly a boon to upstate New York and Great
> Lakes ports.
Also to New York City, which I think was smaller than Boston or
Philadelphia before the canal was built.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did a lot of wrangling
>> about the trans-Appalachian region (which they called "the West")
>
>Us easterners still consider it the west. To me, the west is every
>state that doesn't border the Atlantic, with the possible exceptions
>of West Virginia and Vermont.
>
>> and how to handle the admission of any states which "grew up" there,
>> with the fear that if they didn't give them full equal statehood
>> the West might jsut go its own way, since trading goods via the
>> Ohio-Mississippi was much easier and cheaper that trading across
>> the Appalachians.
>
>Perhaps that would have happened if the Erie Canal hadn't linked the
>two great watersheds. And perhaps it would have been better that way.
The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, connected the Great Lakes
states to new York City, but it didn't really help that much for
the areas in the Mississippi watershed since there was no direct
water connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and
its tributaries until the opening of the Chicago Sanitary and
Shipping Canal in 1900, by which time the railroads were in full
bloom.
The Erie Canal was clearly a boon to upstate New York and Great
Lakes ports.
--
Keith F. Lynch
> The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, connected the Great Lakes
> states to new York City, but it didn't really help that much for the
> areas in the Mississippi watershed since there was no direct water
> connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and its
> tributaries until the opening of the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping
> Canal in 1900, by which time the railroads were in full bloom.
Thanks. I had mistakenly thought that the Great Lakes had been linked
to the Mississippi watershed much earlier, as land is flatter there,
and the gap is shorter.
> The Erie Canal was clearly a boon to upstate New York and Great
> Lakes ports.
Also to New York City, which I think was smaller than Boston or
Philadelphia before the canal was built.
[You reposted your December 18th message word for word today, so I
reposted my December 19th reply to it word for word.]
Richard Casady
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Perhaps that would have happened if the Erie Canal hadn't linked the
>two great watersheds. And perhaps it would have been better that way.
As far as I know, the canal linking watersheds runs from Chicago to
the Mississippi. As far as links go, ever hear of Niagra Falls.