Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Obiwan_Salami t1_j1381al wrote

furthest navigable point" wut?

pretty sure there were people, traders, and rivers in canada in the 1880's. every reason for river traffic.

or am i misunderstanding?

edit...and btw 2473 km or 1536 miles.

48

Josef_The_Red t1_j13929k wrote

I think they mean it's the furthest inland you can travel from the ocean/sea just by boat (and from the title, maybe specifically steamboats). You can take the Mississippi up from New Orleans to St Louis and then the Missouri goes all the way up to this part of Montana.

118

Obiwan_Salami t1_j139m9l wrote

this makes a little more sense, but in that vein, couldn't you hit the great lakes to get to canada as well?

9

Kdlbrg43 t1_j13agar wrote

Not without a canal. The great lakes don't drain into the gulf of Mexico, but rather gulf of St. Lawrence. You would also need to be able to sail up the Niagara falls.

87

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13c5kd wrote

illinois river most definitely reaches lake michigan. especially before chicago played engineer with the chicago river. even now there is barge traffic there. btw chicago river had its flow reversed and now drains away from lake michigan. but its all still navigable.

edited to fix flow mistake.

−3

AdmiralVernon t1_j13gqbv wrote

Not without a canal to connect the Illinois to the Chicago. There used to be a portage used by natives for centuries followed by early European explorers, but the waterways weren’t connected until mid 19th century by the Illinois & Michigan Canal.

47

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13hsb7 wrote

in 1848 which predates op and fort benton in 1880. i'd still say that the south branch chicago river could have been navigable by smaller craft. but maybe not large steam boats.

−23

blubblu t1_j13mfmd wrote

You would?

Not to sound too obtuse, but how would you know that at all?

22

peteroh9 t1_j141juq wrote

Doesn't matter if it's navigable if you couldn't get to it from the Illinois river. It originally flowed into Lake Michigan because it wasn't connected to the Illinois River.

7

Kdlbrg43 t1_j13cfbq wrote

But I don't think there originally used to be a connection, like before the large scale projects, at least I can't find anything online.

14

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13d53k wrote

it did. the chicago river used to flow into lake michigan. over time, sewage built up in the lake and chicagos' drinking water was poisoned with bad disease outbreaks happening. so engineers reversed the flow around 1900ish in order to move sewage away from city and clean up the lake.

here

i been down the chicago river south branch almost to midway airport in a 40 ft. sailboat as it was being motored into winter storage at a marina along the river. thats almost to the joining at des plaines river and i saw barge traffic the entire way. entirely possible to get to the mississippi river from there.

5

rechlin t1_j144amm wrote

But that point was closer to the ocean than Montana. The point here is this was the farthest point away from the end of a river that the river was still navigable.

Of course, this was in the 1800s. That part of the Missouri has not been navigable since the 1950s when the USACE built a set of flood-control dams on the Missouri.

6

peteroh9 t1_j141yy7 wrote

Do you not realize that they reversed it by connecting the rivers? How would the Chicago River have flowed into Lake Michigan and connected to a river that flows to the ocean?

5

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13sxwr wrote

correct, entirely possible because the ship and sanitary canal connect the two seperate watersheds in 1900. Before that, there was not a navigable connection between the chicago and the des plaines.

edit: actually the calumet canal connects the south branch to the des plaines river, I think, but I know less about it, other

2

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13rz9a wrote

hey Obiwan, I think you're misreading the definition of navigable. Up until 1900 with the completion of the of the chicago ship and sanitary canal, there was no connection between the Des Plaines / Illinois River and the Chicago River / Lake Michigan.

Is the divide between the two watersheds very low in elevation? Yes. Was the Chicagoland area a low swamp where travelers often picked up their canoe to get from one waterway to the other? Yes. Could you travel in a boat, without getting out of the boat, with water under the entire boat enough to keep the boat floating, from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines / Illinois River system? Nope. That is why chicago played engineer with the chicago river.

13

fleebleganger t1_j13rqac wrote

Perhaps but montana to the gulf is farther than the Great Lakes to the gulf or Atlantic

7

-Vayra- t1_j13a0in wrote

Those rivers in Canada are all closer to the sea (Atlantic, Pacific, Hudson Bay or the Beaufort Sea) than Ft Benton is to where it reaches the sea (the Gulf).

20

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13btly wrote

from what i can tell its possible to get to lake nipigon via the illinois river and great lakes. almost the entire lake is more northerly than fort benton. only question i see is that there is a dam and Cameron falls on the way up to nipigon but it looks from satellite like the falls are man made.

otherwise, seems pretty navigable all the way from illinois river. currently accessible through navy pier to des plaines river to illinois river, or further south at little calumet to illinois river.

−5

The_Feeding_End t1_j13loo7 wrote

It's not about how far north it is its about how far inland it is. How far is it from the great Lakes to an ocean? Now how far is Montana? The Missouri River is the longest in North America on its own before reaching the Mississippi. We are talking about going from the Gulf nearly to Canada.

18

Obiwan_Salami t1_j13mhji wrote

north end of lake nipigon is further from gulf than benton. i think we need to compare apples to apples. thats what i was trying to say.

−4

Lamb_or_Beast t1_j13oymb wrote

You seem confused though, lake nipigon is not further from where it drains (out the st Lawrence into North Atlantic); that lake does not drain out the gulf so saying it’s further from the gulf is like comparing apples to bananas. Also, from that point you cannot navigate through natural waterways out to the ocean anyway, you need to use canals to get past Niagara Falls (and possible a few other points? Unsure about that). So no matter what it is not as far…not even close actually.

12

The_Feeding_End t1_j13n4kh wrote

How far is it from the Atlantic? It's roughly 600km as the crow flies. That's not apples to apples.

6

Chicago1871 t1_j14ju7l wrote

Have you heard of Hudson Bay? How far is it from hudson bay?

It looks pretty close the map. So its not too far inland.

3

joecarter93 t1_j14idku wrote

There were fur traders in northern Canada back in the 1700’s, but they used canoes to explore and trade. Steam ships in the 1800’s were not that common in western Canada, as the waterways that far inland tend to be too shallow. I live in Canada relatively near Ft. Benton, but our rivers mostly drain to Hudson Bay. They tried steam ships on our rivers for a couple of years, but they were prone to run aground / partially sink if the rivers were a little low, so they stopped. The railway was also built around that time, which was far more effective.

1

Obiwan_Salami t1_j157467 wrote

canoes are still a form of trade right? i realize i'm speaking from a more theoretical viewpoint, but the basic premise of what i've been saying seems to hold true.

1

platitood t1_j15jxr2 wrote

Canoes were often portaged.

2

Obiwan_Salami t1_j15mp31 wrote

during the rainy season? i can point you to an indiana department of conservation area which has a sign saying that basically from that point, which was about 20ish miles southwest of south bend, indiana, along the yellow river, kankakee system and calumet system, an area of close to 1000 square miles of swamp existed before there was any white settlements.

i'll look for it online in a little while, and if need be, i'll drive there and take a picture. it probably included what we're talking about.

2