Question

During the construction of the Erie Canal, Suez Canal, & Panama Canal how did it support imperalism?

Answer 1

canals allow the transport of goods and materials. The empires extracted profits from trade. Canals increase trade. Trade increases empires. And being an imperial power means not having to worry about local concerns when building the canal.

Answer 2

Well, the Erie Canal certanly didn't. It was under construction in the very early 1800s, probably about 1810-20, and no serious historian considers the United States of the 1820s imperialist. If nothing else, she entirely lacked the military capacity for being so, and was already entirely involved in colonizing her own backyard (that to the west of the original 13 colonies).

A case can be made that the Panama Canal was the *result of* a kind of imperialism: begun by private French interests interested in pure commerce, it was finished by the United States in the early 1900s in the interests of speeding the transport of commercial and military vessels from the East to the West Coast of the United States. In order to keep control of the Canal, President Roosevelt encouraged the Panamanians to declare independence from Colombia, and provided the rebels with direct military assistance. In return, the new Panamanian government ceded control of the Canal and the Canal Zone for many decades -- that is, the Panama Canal Zone became a colony of the United States in order to facilitate the construction of the canal.

The Suez Canal might have been expected to benefit primarily British imperialism, since it cut travel times significantly between England and India, but in fact the Suez Canal was built in the middle of the 1800s by private French interests in collaboration with Egyptian, and was strongly opposed by the British, as representing a threat to their dominance of sea commerce around South Africa.