American Doctors and the Construction of the Panama Canal, 1904-1914 Sarah Rhoads

University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Honors Theses Student Research 4-1-2012 Regulating death and building empire : American doctors and the construction of the Panama canal, 1904-1914 Sarah Rhoads Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses Recommended Citation Rhoads, Sarah, "Regulating death and building empire : American doctors and the construction of the Panama canal, 1904-1914" (2012). Honors Theses. Paper 66. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Regulating Death and Building Empire: American Doctors and the Construction of the Panama Canal, 1904-1914 By Sarah Rhoads Honors Thesis in Department of History University of Richmond Richmond, VA April 18, 2012 Advisor: Carol Summers 1 1 1 William A. Rogers, “The First Mountain to be Removed.” Illustration. New York: Harper’s Weekly, July 22, 1905. From New York Times ‘On This Day’ http://tv.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0722.html (accessed Nov. 15, 2011) 2 INTRODUCTION In May 1904, American engineers, doctors, nurses, and laborers arrived in Panama to begin work on one of the most expensive, challenging, and rewarding technological achievements of the twentieth century- the Panama Canal. At the time, the majority of Americans saw Panama as a wild tropical jungle, with dangerous diseases and a hostile climate. One of the most prevalent diseases in tropical regions, yellow fever, also known as yellow jack, was known to pose an enormous challenge to the success of the canal construction- the first mountain blocking Panama from successful U.S. intervention (see image above). In the popular U.S. imagination, Panama provided opportunities for employment but at a potentially very high cost. The cartoon above also illustrates more public perceptions of Central American culture, that were to play a large role in the development of notions of U.S. superiority and right to imperialism. The skull itself gives the impression of a typical Mexican sombrero figure, lazily waiting for whoever might approach. This depiction fed into American stereotypes of lassitude as a common cultural feature among Latin Americans. Panama, blocked by death and a lack of inventiveness or energy, was apparently viewed by many contemporary Americans as an ideal location for U.S. intervention and construction. As construction of the Panama Canal proceeded and conditions in the Canal Zone advanced, the conceptions of Panama in the United States began to improve, and more people began to see the canal as a remarkable achievement 3 and testament to U.S. power. By 1915, it was said by politicians, engineers, and historians such as the contemporary writer Logan Marshall that, “no material work of man since the creation of the world has had so deep and widespread an influence upon the affairs of mankind in general as that which may calculably be expected to ensue from the achievement of the Panama Canal”.2 The emphasis placed on sanitation and the successful management of death during the construction of the canal became one of the foundations of the developing U.S. hegemonic presence, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean. The canal was a physical reminder of the technological capabilities of the United States, as well as its ability to successfully organize a massive construction effort in a foreign country and influence nearly every aspect of life within the confines of the Canal Zone, including the maintenance of life itself. Neocolonialism and the Path to the Canal While the government, helmed by Theodore Roosevelt, maintained that the United States worked in tandem with the Panamanian government, the treaty allowing for U.S. ownership of the Canal Zone was hastily constructed and signed (without any native Panamanians present) within days of the United States’ recognition of Panama as a country.3 The influence of Europe, and later 2 Logan Marshall, C. Harcourt, A.L. Forbes-Lindsey, The Story of the Panama Canal: The Wonderful Account of the Gigantic Undertaking Commenced by the French, and Brought to Triumphant Completion by the United States (Philadelphia: Winston, 1913), Google E-book. 5. 3 John Chasteen, Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America (New York: Norton, 2001). 206. 4 the United States, on Latin American society was so widespread and pervasive that 1880-1930, despite being a time of newfound independence, is often referred to as the neocolonial period.4 Much of the influence of Europe and the United States was through economic pressure and demands for Latin American products. Foreign businessmen invested millions into various Latin American products, from rubber to bananas, and these powerful financial factors led to a vested interest, particularly on the part of the United States, in maintaining ‘order’ in Latin American countries to ensure the continued supply of desired products. Taking inspiration from the colonization efforts of European counterparts, particularly Great Britain, many Americans embraced the idea of influencing Latin American countries in ‘our backyard’. Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” became an inspiration for U.S. diplomats regarding Latin America, with some politicians going so far as to suggest that the American people were destined by God to “lead the regeneration of the world.”5 The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, proclaiming that the Western Hemisphere was ‘off-limits’ to those not part of it, had been largely ignored but now became the justification behind increasingly interventionist tendencies throughout Central America. This interference drastically changed the relationships between the United States and many countries in Latin America, and encouraged distrust and hostility towards the United States. 4 Chasteen, Born in Blood and Fire. 183. 5 Chasteen, Born in Blood and Fire. 207. 5 The new strain between the United States and Latin America necessitated, in the minds of many responsible for the canal, evidence of U.S. superiority. The growing empire of the United States utilized the unhealthful reputation of tropical environments to demonstrate and secure its preeminence. The ability of U.S. physicians to control the infamous tropical diseases that were so dangerous to the French construction effort in Panama was a key element to the success of the U.S. construction. At the turn of the twentieth century, the United States, reveling in the success of the 1898 Spanish-American “splendid little war,” began exerting its power throughout Central America, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands by annexing the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Hawaii within the same year.6 The Western hemisphere, perceived as the United States’ backyard, became a sort of social laboratory, a place where U.S. priorities and cultural standards could be preserved and cultivated. For decades, the idea of a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Central America preoccupied leaders around the world. As the prominence of the United States rose drastically going into 1900, so did the preoccupation of her leaders, such as Theodore Roosevelt, with the idea of a trans-continental canal. However, it would not be until the United States acquired the Panama Canal Zone through political machinations, the appropriation of millions of dollars, and heavy pressure from Theodore 6 This sudden expansion, paralleling the European scramble for ‘spheres of influence’ in Africa two decades before, created a perception of the United States as a Western colossus. For more, see Chasteen’s Born in Blood and Fire. 6 Roosevelt, that we see the inevitability of such a colossal project. By the middle of the nineteenth century, U.S. and European interest in building a transoceanic canal through Central America had greatly increased. Anticipating the great advantage that a transcontinental canal could bring to a nation, the United States and the United Kingdom agreed in the 1850 Clayton- Bulwer treaty that neither country would construct such a canal. Twenty-nine years later, Ferdinand de Lesseps, the hero of the Suez Canal construction, proposed another French effort of immense magnitude, this time in Panama. De Lesseps used his legendary status to raise capital and support in France for this canal effort, despite firmly supporting what many engineers claimed was the least practical option: a sea-level canal through the jungles of Panama. In 1884, construction on the canal began, and was immediately beset by problems. Workers succumbed to tropical diseases at outstanding rates, and construction was difficult in the wet climate, which was prone to mudslides and flooding. The work lasted almost a decade before the project folded amidst tremendous scandal.7 Following the French failure, the United States and Britain nullified their 1850 agreement in the 1901 Hay-Paunceforte Treaty, which allowed the United States to build and manage a canal through Central America, so long as all nations were permitted equal access. With the ratification of this treaty, the construction of a U.S.-built canal was under way. That same year, Theodore 7 David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870- 1914, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977). 204, 236-7. 7 Roosevelt became President of the United States, and the Panama Canal was to be his self-described “most important action during the time [he] was President.”8 In 1903, the United States offered the Hay-Herran treaty to Colombia, then in control of Panama. The treaty would have permitted the United States to lease the land through which the canal was to be built. When Colombia demanded more money, however, Roosevelt angrily refused. The canal appeared to be put on hold, until later that year, when Panamanians led an uprising against Colombia and declared themselves an independent Republic.

Load more