Obiwan_Salami t1_j139m9l wrote
Reply to comment by Josef_The_Red in When this bridge in Fort Benton, Montana, USA was built 1888 it was required to have a swing span to allow steamboats to navigate. It was considered the furthest navigable point on Earth, more than 2,700 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. by triviafrenzy
this makes a little more sense, but in that vein, couldn't you hit the great lakes to get to canada as well?
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.
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.
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.
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.
blubblu t1_j13mfmd wrote
You would?
Not to sound too obtuse, but how would you know that at all?
Obiwan_Salami t1_j13mltm wrote
if indians could do it in canoes then so could pelt traders.
[deleted] t1_j18pr2c wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_j142pyc wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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.
nye1387 t1_j13q15l wrote
It's entirely possible to get to the Mississippi from there - but not without canals or portaging.
ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Portage?wprov=sfti1
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.
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?
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
Chicago1871 t1_j14jhox wrote
Thats around where the canal starts.
The actual portage was a swamp. It was only navigable after the rains in spring and dried up by fall.
You were on this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Sanitary_and_Ship_Canal
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.
fleebleganger t1_j13rqac wrote
Perhaps but montana to the gulf is farther than the Great Lakes to the gulf or Atlantic
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments