Going by Mr. Op's insinuation that western region had less revenue than eastern region, what were they doing with all of their money? because looking at the western region, there were lots of recurrent expenses attached to most of the project and schemes that made them stand out. It is not all about infrastructure as there are schemes like free education policy that was using up the western region government fund constantly, or is he going to use the excuse of Lagos being developed by the eastern region revenue to justify free education all over the west also?
Op's argument just doesn't hold water.

Aigbofa:

Of course, everything is a mirage to you as long as it doesn't have Biafran colors.

I always come with the truth. Unfortunately, it does not sit well with people who are bent on dissemination of falsehood.

Standing5: Going by Mr. Op's insinuation that western region had less revenue than eastern region, what were they doing with all of their money? because looking at the western region, there were lots of recurrent expenses attached to most of the project and schemes that made them stand out. It is not all about infrastructure as there are schemes like free education policy that was using up the western region government fund constantly, or is he going to use the excuse of Lagos being developed by the eastern region revenue to justify free education all over the west also?
Op's argument just doesn't hold water.

dude did you even read the comments here at all
when did the "western region" came to be in the first place?

interesting thread!

I think the most important thing to note is that Protectorate of Southern Nigeria's head was cut off so that Colony of Lagos would grow.
We continue to pay for this till this day, it has to end.

PhysicsQED:

You're referring to this, right:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA138

The context for that is given on p. 139 of that same book and also here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GrcNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA75

The 800,000 - 1,250,000 figure is the estimated cost, and they did in fact, have to borrow money from the Treasury as you said, as confirmed directly here:

books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA61



I think you're referring to this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA146

(where Ralph Moor proposed a rail line system estimated to cost 15,000,000 pounds for southern Nigeria)

The Lagos to Ibadan rail line was authorized in 1895 and actual work on it began in 1898 though. And as you can see from the second link I posted, they had already made significant progress on the rail line by 1899 so I don't know if it would have made sense to abandon that one or to build another rail line that they thought (for whatever reason) would take revenue away from the existing one.

Now the link immediately above (p.146 of that book) shows that the reasons for shelving Moor's proposal for Southern Nigeria by those in charge basically amounted to 1) "the Lagos rail line was already there" , 2) "it might take revenue away from the existing Lagos rail line", 3) "they had no reason to believe at the time that an eastern rail line might even be necessary." (which contradicted Lugard's belief that [url=books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA41]"an eastern line will be both strategically and economically necessary"[/url]) and 4) "financial considerations"

Southern Nigeria, although a richer colony, had not started bringing in sufficient revenue for the British as at 1901 (the year that Moor's plan was proposed) for the colony to be able to pay for a 15,000,000 pound rail line while also partially paying for Northern Nigeria's administration, without also borrowing and incurring debt.

If you read the specifics of Moor's letter where he made the proposal,

http://books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA44

two things are clear:

1) That the revenue from no part of Nigeria would be enough to cover the initial costs of any rail line whether the western (Lagos to the North) or the eastern (Calabar to the North). (see section 6)

2) That the 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 pounds for additional expenditure on a rail line was to be borrowed from the Treasury (placing the borrowing colony in "debt" (although really, it was a British territory at that point, so one British government is borrowing from another)) to pay for the initial costs in the hope/belief that these initial costs and the costs of the upkeep and maintenance of these rail lines would be made up for by money gained from local revenue from the colony at a later time and the monetary benefit to British skilled workers employed in the colony at a later time. (see section 7)

You are right about the merger of the colony of Lagos with the rest of Southern Nigeria improving the colony of Lagos's developmental prospects in this instance though because it seems that the planners of the Lagos rail were only able to get further loans from the Treasury to complete the rail because of the promise that it was going to be merged with Southern Nigeria:

books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA162



Lagos was never dredged specifically in favor of Calabar by the British though. The other ports in consideration as a terminal of the first (western) rail line to the North were Warri or Sapele. The selection of Lagos over Warri or Sapele as the terminus seems to have been arbitrary. They were always going to have either Lagos, Warri, or Sapele as the terminal of the western railway to the North, but their decision to drop the second (eastern) railway to the north out of fear that it would infringe on the revenue from the first one and out of financial considerations seems to be how Calabar got sidelined in the whole process.

The failure to dredge Calabar lies mostly on successive Nigerian governments, not just on the British, so I do agree that there was political and economic loss on the part of the rest of southern Nigeria from the joining of the colonies by Britain. But I suspect the fact that Calabar is further inland is the real problem/obstacle there as far as dredging the port for Nigerian governments.

What a thread.

Obiagu1:
I think the most important thing to note is that Protectorate of Southern Nigeria's head was cut off so that Colony of Lagos would grow.
We continue to pay for this till this day, it has to end.

As at 1903 before the amalgamation of the so called Southern protectorate. Lagos already had a thriving seaport, telephone, tram, street lights, railway from Lagos to Oshogbo via Ibadan, roads, bridges, banks, companies etc.

Not even one single train exited in the Calabar and that region as at then.

How did the so called Southern protectorate helped Lagos to grow?

forgiveness:


As at 1903 before the amalgamation of the so called Southern protectorate. Lagos already had a thriving seaport, telephone, tram, street lights, railway from Lagos to Oshogbo via Ibadan, roads, bridges, banks, companies etc.

Not even one single train exited in the Calabar and that region as at then.

How did the so called Southern protectorate helped Lagos to grow?

The union of Nigeria was a big mistake, it should never have happened