As I noted in my review of the new book by Nancy Kraus, there has been considerable push-back from the members of the Virginia Canals and Navigations Society who feel Ms. Kraus is mistaken in her findings. They sent along a resolution laying out their concerns along with this list.
Overview on Difficulties with Nancy’s Book
Page 22 Plat of proposed Great Basin mistakenly labeled as “super-imposed on the grid of Manchester” when it was made on the Byrd Lottery lots map of Richmond.
Page 30 “Conjectural Map” of John Ballendine property has no relationship to the two deeds that define his property boundaries.
Page 33 Labels on Latrobe’s sketches are inaccurate – planks & large stones are labeled as Cascade and Eddy, canal is extended in wrong direction and Downstream & Upstream are reversed.
Page 36 Thomas Jefferson’s quotes are augmented by incorrect structures “[Foundry]” and locations “[to the north bank]”.
Page 39 Many added labels to the 1819 Manchester Canal Map are incorrect.
Page 42 Patrick Coutts had not “inherited the land that he sold to Ballendine from Alexander Coats” and it was not “on the east side of Westham Creek”.
Pages 46-51 Elliot Lacy did not survey land along the south bank, many of the added labels to the Manchester Canal map are incorrect, only one of the 5 property owners on the Lacy plat owned land on the south bank at this time.
Page 53 The photo labeled “One of two locks” is actually of a covered-culvert for later railroad tracks.
Page 59 Added label “Head Broad Rock” is incorrect. Broad Rock (now Belle Isle) was upstream from this Byrd mill canal location.
Page 62 Wood Map of Chesterfield County is not “depicting features of the lower canal”. It is depicting areas across the river from the locations that are shown on the Wood Map of Henrico County.
Page 64 Radziminske Map is mislabeled with “Manchester Canal” and “James River Lower Canal” when these waterways were actually the Byrd/Mayo mills headrace and the Town of Manchester mills headrace.
Pages 73-81 The 1819 Manchester Canal Map was for the proposed route of a south-side continuous canal. It is incorrect that “that canal was excavated“. There was another full 1825 survey of the same route that has no mention of any parts of a previous 1819 canal.
Pages 85-89 The structures listed were not “a water-control tower and an underground system of aqueducts and cisterns” “linked to the Manchester Canal”. They were an early mansion basement repurposed as a Civil War magazine and the 1880s water tower for the town of Manchester.
And this was included in a separate email from Dick Helm, who wished to address a couple points.
First is Latrobe’s estimate of “A large island lies opposite to the entrance of the Canal at about 300 Yards distance from it.” Nancy makes much of the difference between this estimate and the current river width on the north side. This estimate was made in his diary entry for 12 April 1796. It could be that this estimate made by an architect was accurate IN 1796. I suggest that comparing it to the distance between Williams Island and the north shore IN 2014 is not an apples-to-apples comparison. This might be due to the changing nature of James River islands in size and shape due to currents and floods. The Williams Island side of the north-side dam was along the downstream sheltered side of the island and could have been added-to by sand, mud and flood debris over the years. The north shore has had extensive alterations during this 200+ year interval. In the early 1820s the James River Company extended the canal upstream from Ballendine’s canal location. This involved blasting part of a bluff, digging the newer larger canal bed and a larger towpath. In the later 1830s the James River & Kanawha Canal Company changed the lock location in this part of the canal, expanded the canal width and declared Ballendine’s dam was no longer needed as a water feeder into the canal. In the 1880s The Richmond & Allegheny Railroad laid their train track on the towpath and probably made sure it was wide enough and supported enough for train traffic. In the early 1900s, the City of Richmond built a concrete dam from Williams Island to the north shore and constructed their water-control intakes and a concrete channel to the settling ponds of the Richmond Waterworks. All of these north shore alterations make a current comparison to a 1796 estimate problematic.
Second is Nancy’s Timeline. The beginning errors in this document are the starting and ending dates. She uses two documents for these dates for the North Bank canals. Her starting date of 1793 was the date of a plan for the Great Basin located in Richmond. However, excavating and connecting the basin in Richmond was a very late step in the total canal construction. Prior to 1793, John Ballendine bought his land on the north shore, excavated his canal and built his locks on the north shore. Prior to 1793, the James River Company acquired Ballendine’s canal and bought other land and excavated the Lower Canal on the north shore. Only when those steps had been accomplished did the James River Company plan, excavate & connect the Lower Canal to the Great Basin. Nancy’s ending date of 1808 was the date of the Gallatin Report. The Great Basin in Richmond was connected to the Lower Canal much earlier than 1808. I have discussed the other errors in this Timeline with Nancy. Her “Canal B” WAS the Upper Canal and her “Canal C” WAS the Lower Canal.
One last point, John Ballendine bought land on the north shore of the James River for the sole purpose of excavating a canal around the Upper Falls of the James River at Williams Island. His canal excavated on his property did bypass the Upper Falls. There are 2 deeds that list the boundaries of the John Ballendine’s property. Those boundaries can be drawn by any independent knowledgeable cartographer (or any independent person familiar with early deed boundary descriptions) and they will show a north shore location. Since the Ballendine Canal and the Westham Foundry were located within this John Ballendine property, they were also on the north shore of the James River.
The History and Patents of C&O Canal Steamboats, by Andrew G. Sparber, 2025. 141 pages.
Fitting a steam engine into a canal boat was not an easy task. It had to be powerful enough to move the boat, and perhaps tow others, but small enough to fit into the small confines of a hull that was made to fit through locks. The steam engines were relatively inefficient and burned a lot of fuel. The weight and space of the engine and tons of fuel that was needed was lost revenue capacity. They required a certain level of engineering skill, and if not treated with respect, they were fond of blowing up. A boat traveling through the narrow confines of a canal creates tractive resistance as the water tries to flow around the boat hull. The faster the boat travels, the more the resistance. It was also felt that the boats and prop wash would create waves that could wash the banks, The study of how inventors sought to deal with these issues is quite fascinating and I was excited to see this new book about the C&O steamboats announced on Facebook and purchased one. A week later, a free copy came from the author.
This new book by Andrew Sparber offers a mix of canal and steamboat history, along with a compilation of patents that were issued to inventions on how to fit steam machinery into canal boats. I had hoped for more then I got. At its best, this book is useful in that Mr. Sparber has gathered these patents under one cover. At its worse, the research and history is incredibly weak. This could be so much better. I am not one to look for faults of authors. Research, writing, editing and publishing on a topic with such a narrow focus is a labor of love and no one is going to get rich or even break-even from their effort. You do it because you want the information to be widely available. But, sadly, in my opinion, this book misses its mark as it could have offered so much more.
Let me begin by saying that any reader who is going to be attracted to a book with the title, “The History and Patents of C&O Steamboats” would be someone reasonably versed in towpath canals and or steamboats. Aside from an introductory chapter, there is no reason not to dive in the deep end of the challenges that inventors faced when trying to put a steam engine into a canal boat. Any chapters with a simplistic canal history overview are a waste of time and paper.
Perhaps I completely missed the intent of this book, but there are numerous instances where I feel that Mr. Sparber could have launched into a subject. One instance was when He quotes one paper from 1867 that said, “…is a five-foot propeller on the Chillicothe plan.” What was the Chillicothe plan? Who was the inventor? Was it used on the Ohio and Erie Canal? Was the technology shared? He never explains.
I found one passage was totally incorrect. He writes that the Enlargement of the Erie Canal began in 1862 when investors knew it had to be bigger to be competitive. The errors in this one sentence alone made me question the rest of the work. The Enlargement of the Erie began in 1836 and was completed in 1862 by the State of New York. There were no investors in the Erie Canal. As Mr. Sparber doesn’t offer any end or foot notes, I don’t know what sources he used.
My understanding of C&O Canal History is about mid-level. My understanding of tractive effort in canals is at a higher level. There are studies made by New York State engineers who were looking to enlarge the Erie Canal and who wrote about how a canal boat behaves in a narrow and shallow body of water. The engineers also wrote about the need to replace mules with steam engines just for the welfare of the animals. It was a monumental issue that was well documented.
Not one of our Nation’s canals operated in a vacuum. Information and innovations were shared by way of annual reports, newspaper accounts, trade journals, and so many more sources. A steam engine experiment may have been conducted one canal, and if it had any modicum of success, it would have been widely shared. So many of these historic materials are widely and freely available to the researcher by way of the internet. While Mr. Sparber goes into some details on a few of the inventions, he could have widened his audience by showing how the innovations were used on other canals. Perhaps, as I noted, the goal of Mr. Sparber with this work was to simply offer a list of patents of steamboat experiments, and if that was his intent, he accomplished it. But he really missed a chance to offer something so much better.
If you are interested in such a subject, read the book, “It Started With A Steamboat” by Steven Harvey (2005), check out my article titled, The Beginnings of the Second Enlargement of the Erie Canal 1858-1895, or Richard Palmer’s series titled, Pioneer Steamboat Experiment on the Erie Canal in the Fall 2023 issue of American Canals.
Mr. Sparber was kind enough to respond.
As I had more time to think about your remarks I thought I would clarify a few things. Even though I used a different date from a different source for the Erie beginning does not mean all of my work should come into question. I try to be a thorough investigator which I learned from my doing research at the NIH. The significant part of my book is the patents. The first section is really for visitors to the C&O. I had asked the different national canal leaders if they had known about the access of the patents and they said no. I took that to mean I found something very significant and hopefully other canal researchers would check out their own patents. When that could be done then a discussion could be had about all of the canal patents. This should not be minimized in your review. The main focus of my book was on the C&O not the Erie though I did briefly talk about it. William Bouman thought my work way very important. I look forward to looking at the other resources you mentioned to see if it adds to my now revising book.
Before I begin, I want to offer a bit of background because it is rare that a book comes along with so much push-back prior to its introduction to the general public. But that is what has happened with this new book by Nancy Kraus. When the American Canal Society receives any inquiry about a canal or navigation, the first thing I try to do is point the person toward the local authorities in the state canal groups. One of the goals that the ACS was founded on back in 1972 was to encourage the sharing of information between canal societies and the public. So when I was contacted by Ms. Kraus about her new book, I asked if she had been in touch with the Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, and then I asked the VC&NS if they had been in touch with Ms. Kraus. Well, my email box was soon full of emails detailing how each side was mistaken in what they believed to be true. With this in mind, I made it a point not to read the detailed responses from the VC&NS until I had read, and then reread, this new book. Ms. Kraus was kind enough to reply to my questions and she did send me a free copy of her book to review.
If you are interested in this subject and you are thinking about the buying this new book, I suggest that you also purchase a copy of the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 132, no. 3, (pages 163–206), in which Ms. Kraus presents an in-depth scholarly article on the subject titled, “John Ballendine and the James River Canal near Richmond, Virginia.” Although the book covers all the important points that are made in the magazine article, there is a difference between the two works, as the article is more akin to a major thesis, while the book covers all the canals and other water-powered infrastructure on the south bank of the James River. Ms. Kraus calls it a pictorial survey.
Richmond was built where the James River passes over the Atlantic Seaboard Fall Line, a 900-mile escarpment that separates the tidewater regions along the Atlantic coast from the interior lands. Many of the large cities that dot the coast (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC., and so many others) were constructed where the fall line formed the “head of navigation” for sea-going ships. Where the James River passes through Richmond, the escarpment created a seven-mile section of rough and fast water. Upstream of Richmond, the James River was suitable for navigation with minor improvements, and downstream, the winding river reached the coast on the tidewater. Thus, any city constructed on the fall line would be both a home to mills and for shipping.
At first glance, you might think that Ms. Kraus is presenting a new interpretation of the James River and Kanawha Canal, the 197-mile-long navigation that followed the two rivers west from Richmond to Buchanan. The ACS Canal Index files on the James River and Kanawha Canal lists the dates of 1785 to 1881 as the life span of the James River and Kanawha that ran along the north side of the river in the Richmond area. A short section remains watered to this day in Richmond as a linear park. However, Ms. Kraus is postulating that the first canals in the Richmond area were located on the south bank of the James River and in her work, she presents her findings after a decade of research.
The central theme of Ms. Kraus’ book is to make the argument that there were navigation canals on the south bank of the James River that allowed navigation between tidewater and the upper James. If these canals were used for navigation, they would predate the James River and Kanawha by some forty years. Her goal is to, “present a revised history of Virginia’s first navigational canal.”
She begins her history in 1732 when William Byrd constructed a short canal at the upper end of the falls to power his mills and foundry on the south side of the river. And here we get a bit into the weeds. There are canals built for mill power, and there are canals built for navigation, and there are canals that did both. Ms. Kraus admits that Byrd’s Canal was constructed to supply water to his mills, but that Byrd wrote that he had hoped to make it suitable for water craft. Clearly, Byrd saw the possibilities, but lacked the means to turn a short mill race into a seven-mile navigation canal.
Ms. Kraus then moves to John Ballendine’s canal, a short canal built between 1775 and 1781. Here is why I suggest that you also order her article, “John Ballendine and the James River Canal near Richmond, Virginia,” As I had never heard of Ballendine, I went looking through the ACS archives and found a paper by David H. McIntosh in Volume 28 of the Canal History and Technology Proceedings. McIntosh writes that John Ballendine may have been the first canal builder in the young nation with his privately constructed (but never completed) canal along the Potomac River built between 1767 and 1772. If he had been successful, this canal would have predated the works at Coteau-du-Lac which were built in 1781, and making it perhaps the first true navigation canal in North America. David McIntosh focused his article on Ballendine’s failed Potomac canal ending with a quick mention of him moving to Richmond and constructing a canal on the James River. He wrote that, “he [Ballendine] went to Richmond and built a canal for them on the James River. It must have been a canal because the State of Virginia passed a bill in 1784 to repay him 20,000 pounds for building a canal.”(1) With her book, Ms. Kraus helps fill in the biography of Ballendine as he worked to construct a waterway around the James River falls.
Not to give away the ending, but while John Ballendine may have been another man of vision, but also failed to turn that vision into reality. Ms. Kraus says that between 1775 and 1781 Ballendine constructed a 400 yard long navigation canal at the top of the falls six miles from tidewater. Maybe Ballendine built here because this was what he owned, but why go through the effort to construct a navigation canal so far from the navigable tidewaters? However, his canal did provide water power to the mills and foundry which appear to have been successful businesses. In 1779 with only a twentieth of the proposed canal completed, the state seized the property and in 1785 the state chartered the James River Company to construct a canal around the falls.
There are many places in her book and article that made me stop and think. The reading of history is akin to sitting on a jury. Twelve people sit and hear all the evidence, then retire to the jury room to argue about what they just heard. It can be astonishing how people can differ in their understanding as simple as, “was that car blue or green?” Ms. Kraus offers a Benjamin Latrobe drawing of a small dam that Ballendine had built in the river to divert water to his canal. Latrobe presents the dam in detail showing it from a top view and also with a cross section. When I first saw it in the magazine article, I made my assumptions of what was upstream and what was downstream. I was surprised to see this drawing in the book next to an annotated copy with notes from Douglas Harnsberger of the AIA (American Institute of Architects), with downstream and upstream being reversed. When I asked her about this, she defended the interpretation saying it was showing a rare “spillover dam.” I then sent the drawing to two engineers I know who, in their opinion, agreed that it has been mislabeled. (Please read her response at the end of this review.)
It does appear that the James River Company constructed improvements to the river so that boats could safely work their way around the rapids. If I understood this correctly, it appears that these were similar to many such river improvements were made across the young nation. The Mohawk River in New York, the Lehigh in Pennsylvania, the Potomac in Maryland, and so many other rivers were improved with wing dams, bear-trap locks, clearing snags and sandbars and other improvements. Whether these James River improvements were on the north or south bank of the river is unclear to me.
It is clear that Ms. Kraus has documented some canals along the south bank of the James River. In addition to Byrd’s and Ballendine’s canals/millraces, she features other canals, water control towers, railroads, and other historical industrial features. The book is presented with color images and many maps to help make her case. From my vantage point 600 miles north and not being familiar with the area, I found myself wanting a master map that showed all the canals and sites in the book so I could put each into context.
Ms. Kraus sent this map after reading my review. It is not in her book.
Ms. Kraus makes a convincing argument and if I had simply read this book without the understanding of navigation canals, I would be inclined to say that she had indeed made some important discoveries. She offered that her work was peer reviewed, so I asked the editor of the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography if their journal articles were peer reviewed as I would have liked to read what the reviewers thought. He replied that they are, but that her article was not reviewed by canal historians. I find it remarkable that that our canal societies, who have been researching and documenting canals and waterways for decades, are not consulted more often then they are. And I hope that the magazine will allow for a follow-up article.
Ms. Kraus states that one of her goals is to bring attention to the remaining industrial remains on the south bank. Nothing in this review, or the reviews of others, should stop this effort to nominate these canals and sites to the National Register of Historic Places and to promote preservation of such. I would greatly enjoy seeing an archaeological study of the two original dry-laid stone structures that are extant in the Park System of the City of Richmond. Are they locks? Or are they parts of a head race?
In one of her emails she wrote, “At stake is the recognition and preservation of the earliest operating canal system with locks and a towpath in the United States.” I would encourage her, and all parties, to keep an open mind and continue with their research and investigations on both sides of the river. The use of AI to transcribe and read old handwritten documents is reshaping how historians can research, opening access to thousands of documents and helping to rewrite history everyday. These records will aid all in their understanding of history and if they keep an open mind, they might find that they were mistaken in what they believed to be certain.
(1) A search on John Ballendine revealed that David McIntosh has published a book title, John Ballendine: Early Developer of Potomac River By-Pass Canals, 2022.
After I sent my review to Ms. Kraus, she was kind enough to respond.
Hello, Thank you for this careful analysis. Your perspective is helpful. I appreciate your objectivity. I wish I had the technical skills necessary to create a map showing the canals and the river from an aerial perspective. Recently, Bill Trout contacted me requesting information about the Southside canals. His stated intention is to update his Atlas to illustrate the archaeological sites and structures on the South bank. I hope he will follow through. Regarding the spillover dam. Determining its geographic location is critical because Benjamin Latrobe’s drawing clearly depicted the original James River Upper Canal relative to the location of the dam. He recorded that the dam extended 300 yards between the river-bank and Saunders Island. That is the distance between the South bank and Saunders (present-day Williams) Island. The distance between the North bank and Saunders Island is around 75 yards; not a match. The 300-yard determination places the dam between the South bank and Saunders island and the canal on the South bank–exactly where a remnant of the canal and two locks are today. An internet search suggests that spillover dams, in the style of Ballendine’s fish-weir dam, are very old technology, virtually unemployed today. It is also important to note that a remnant of a stone construct is visible on the edge of the South bank, just west of the Pony Pasture parking lot. It coincides with Latrobe’s drawing of “Ballendine’s Bridge.” It is very curious that an arch of stone is sometimes visible (depending on water level), extending from that stone structure, out into the river. An image of the stone remnant and the arch are in my book, page 34. The stone remnant and the arch coincide with Latrobe’s drawing of Ballendine’s Bridge and fish-weir dam. Modern engineers may have different perspectives on dam construction than engineers (from the Virginia Department of Transportation) who are knowledgeable about historic dams. Doug Harnsberger is AIA–American Institute of Architects. He is one of the most respected historical architects on the east coast, having worked on many important buildings and structures, including Monticello and the US Capitol. Doug’s analysis of the fish-weir dam was confirmed by Dr. Robert Kapsch who is considered by many to be the foremost authority on canal history and engineering in the United States. I recommend Kapsch’s book on the Potomac Canal for an in-depth history of John Ballendine’s canal-works on the Potomac. Ballendine started work on the Potomac Canal, but he could not get approval or funding to continue so he moved on to the James River. In his own words, he explains his decision, which I have transcribed in the VHMC article. The dry-laid stone locks, the first of that technology in America, are extant on the South bank. Harsh criticisms rejecting the assessment that the locks are indeed locks merit reconsideration. First, Robert Kapsch confirmed that the two locks are indeed locks, constructed in recognized form and size of 18th-century technology; Second, the locks are situated in an elongated position in-line with the surviving remnant of the Upper Canal; Third, the height of the one accessible lock is consistent with the eye-witness accounts of Benjamin Latrobe, that is, the lock had a lift of 8 feet; Fourth, Benjamin Latrobe recorded that “The two locks at the first falls are very ill contrived and constructed. They are Granite, hewn, and laid together without Cement,” a statement consistent with the extant locks; Fifth, the clay lining (puddling) at the base of the accessible lock was still in place in 2014, evaluated and confirmed by an authority with the National Park Service; Sixth, in the 1850s, the Richmond & Danville Railroad built a spur to support the transport of granite, which was mined at the Westham Quarry near the canal. It is likely that the railroad company was responsible for placing stone toppers over the locks to facilitate movement and to avert danger. The suggestion that those locks were built by the railroad company as bridges is preposterous. Railroad bridges were built on piers. The railroad would have absolutely no reason to build structures that look like those locks. Legal plats depict the exact location of the railroad spur. It does not align in any way with the location of the locks. Further, the canal was and is still extant. The locks survive. The railroad would not have built a spur over a canal. Benjamin Latrobe was a British-trained architect and engineer. He was considered an authority on canals and roads in his day. He visited the canals on both the South bank and the North bank (before 1835, when the James River & Kanawha Canal began) and prepared detailed drawings and written descriptions. Because of his attention to detail, he is the best eye-witness of the period. He personally gathered the data and wrote the report on the canals in Virginia for the famous Gallatin Report of 1808. Prompted by the harsh criticism of Lyle Browning, I recently began examining primary sources for information about canals on the North bank that preceded the James River & Kanawha Canal (1835-1850). The attached timelines report makes it very clear that a pair of bypass canals and a basin were indeed constructed on the North bank sometime between 1793 (plan) and 1808, documented in the Gallatin Report, a newspaper account, and Benjamin Latrobe’s drawing of canals B and C. It is not possible to have both Canals B & C and the original James River Company Upper and Lower canals on the north bank. The extant sites and structures and a multitude of primary sources make clear that pairs of bypass canals existed on both banks. By all accounts, the oldest canals and locks were on the South bank. The chart below is a summary. The attached “Timelines” provides eye-witness and primary source documentation to support the chart. I would appreciate your posting this email and the Timelines Report to the American Canals website and Facebook.
Sincerely,Nancy
Timelines: North Bank (1793-1808) and South Bank (1775-1796) Canals
The Raging Erie: Life and Labor Along the Erie Canal, by Mark S. Ferrara, 259 pages.
I think it would be safe to say that well read canal researcher or enthusiast will not learn anything new from The Raging Erie as most of the material used has been taken from other books on the canal. In fact, the extensive footnotes clearly show that the entire book has been built upon the works of others who researched, and authored books and papers before him. However, if your interest was not on the societal impacts of the canal and the era upon certain classes of people, you could have been easily skipped over much of the material that Mr. Ferrara presents in his book. The Raging Erie is divided into seven topic chapters along with an introduction and conclusion. Each chapter closely looks at the lives of a different class of people or the resulting societal movements that took place during the 1800s. He notes that he proposes “instead a journey through canal life from the perspective of the ordinary folks who experienced firsthand the dislocating and alienating social consequences, the extreme class and income inequality, that this waterway wrought.”
I greatly enjoyed the the first chapter, Decline and Fall of the Iroquoia, as it lays bare the struggles of the Native Americans as they tried to deal and live with the newly immigrated white Europeans. Most canal historians skip over the displacement of these Peoples and begin their narrative with the 1810 journey of DeWitt Clinton or the first shovel of turned earth at Rome in 1817. I had recently read Memory Wars by A. Lynn Smith and found myself wanting to learn more of the Native Peoples. A trip to the local library resulted in a pile of suggested readings that mostly were geared to the elementary school student. It is safe to say that I learned more from this book then I learned from my library raid.
After the first very useful chapter, the author details the lives of the poorer folks who helped to build and maintain the work-a-day world of the 1800s. Here, at least for me, the book falters. This is not a book about the canals. Instead, Ferrara uses the canal as a backdrop to loosely pull in various social movements. Many of the events had nothing to do with the canal aside from taking place about the same time. For instance, in chapter four he tells about Anne Royall, a woman who is considered to be the last person to be tried as a witch. Anne’s only interaction with the canal was to travel along it in a packet. She lived and was active in Washington DC., and, if you do an internet search for her, much of the same material presented by Ferrara is readily accessible. (I found out that she coined the term “redneck.”)
I have grown fond of Dr. Karen Grey’s term “zombie history” and I use it often. And here is another case of potential zombie history run amok. For instance, Ferrara quotes George Condon’s Stars In The Water often, and although it was the first book that I ever read about the canals, it is generally not considered to be the work of a great scholar. I pulled out my copy of “Stars” and see the Condon never used footnotes and most of his work is built upon the authorship of others within the limited scope of a two page bibliography. So much for deep research.
Anyone who has researched their family knows that it can be very difficult to find information and life details about their poorer ancestors. The poor working class were illiterate and didn’t have time to write diaries. That is why a book such as A Midwife’s Tale is so important in developing an understanding of what life was like in the late 1700s, or Life on a Canalboat, The Journals of Theodore D. Bartley, 1861-1889, which provides details into the life of an actual person on the canal. Another great study is Anthony Wallace’s Rockdale which gives insight to the life of mill workers in a small town in Pennsylvania. Although I mention Midwife due to its rarity, the other two works certainly fall within the scope of Ferrara’s study period and he never mentions either. What really surprised me is that I didn’t see any use of newspapers to tell the story of the poor. On the rare occasion where your ancestor might be mentioned in history is either for their birth, death, marriage or when they were arrested. These stories may not have fit into the larger scope of this book, but if you are seeking details about the life of the poor working class, the digital files of thousands of newspapers should be consulted.
As a quick overview of, or a introduction to, the social movements of the 1800s, The Raging Erie can fill that space. A reader who has never picked up a canal history will be well served by this book. And for others, it might better serve as a sort of annotated bibliography to help you find other books that deal with the subject. Each chapter stands on its own and doesn’t require you to read the entire book. So with a scan of the sources you will have a starter list of books and readings that you can pursue to hopefully find some original material.
The last chapter of the book, neatly titled “Conclusion, Transforming Life and Labor in America” nicely ties the book together and might cause you to reconsider some notions about life along the canals. We do tend to glorify the canal era, and I would guess that all of us have dreamed about having a time machine that would whisk us back to a towpath of the canal where we could see and hear the canal and the people in action. We seek sanitized versions of this when we visit parks that feature mule pulled canal boats. But I doubt many of us would like to live in those times and be a real canal driver walking 12 hours a day, find shelter in a 12 by 12 cabin, or have to unload thousands of pounds of cargo by hand. The canals, mills, factories, railroads, and so forth, were all miserable places to eke out a life. Years ago, PBS had a documentary series about a group of re-enactors living in Montana, and one man was losing weight so fast that his wife had the doctors come in to check him over. They said basically, “ma’am, this is what people looked like when they had simple diets and worked 16 hours a day!” Life was tough and few of us could hack it. And to help people cope with their existence, they sought meaning and understanding by way of religion and other social movements. And Ferrara neatly wraps that up with his conclusion.
So, for my conclusion, if you happen to volunteer at a canal park, or oversee docents, and want to help inform visitors about life in the 1800s, The Raging Erie can fill that void. But, if you are thinking about buying the book because you see the words “Erie Canal” in the title and you want to fill out your canal library, you will likely be disappointed.
Chain of Title: An Adventure To Uncover the 350-Year Legacy Of The Old Grist Mill, by Christopher Scott, 2024. 335 pages.
While a review of this book might seem to be a bit of a stretch for a canal newsletter, Chain Of Title is worthy of your time if you have ever looked at a house or building and wondered, “What is the history of that place?”
Christopher Scott purchased a decaying four-story grist mill that was built along the Pequea Creek in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. After renovations that converted the mill into his home, he began the journey to uncover the history of the property and building. This began like many investigations do with folklore and “established” history. He notes that during construction, strangers would often walk into his home and share their knowledge and websites shared conflicting histories about the mill. Plus, the reconstruction itself gave some clues about the building, and a date stone over the main door gave its own history. How could a date stone be wrong?
Scott notes, “Luckily, I am an open-minded person who is willing to adjust my view in light of new facts. I was expecting to dispel some of the fodder provided by the online grist mill enthusiasts: after all, with contradicting stories there could only be one right answer, and the others would thus be disproven. I was, however, surprised by the extent to which everything I thought I knew would need to be reevaluated, and I needed to allow myself to let go of ideas that I had taken to be solid truth – even irrefutable facts.”
Dr. Karen Gray, the noted historian of the C&O, coined the term “zombie history.” She described these as historical “facts” that would not die, no matter how many times they were disproven and killed off. Typically, someone years, decades or centuries ago wrote what they thought or heard, and from there, that information is shared over and over as fact. People cite these sources since they are old and thus must be true, without doing their own investigation.
In Chain Of Title, Scott throws out all those facts, folklore, and opinions, and begins at the beginning with the Native Americans use of the land and who was living along the Pequea when the first European settlers showed up. He then moves onto how William Penn was given the land that would become Pennsylvania, and then works forward through history to the present. In each chapter he narrows down his focus as the land changes hands, parts are given or sold off, and in the end, he ends up looking at his current lot and building. Along the way he is able to confirm or disprove all those bits of zombie history.
It is difficult to make such a journey into a great page turner, but Scott is skilled enough to keep the reader interested. I always say that those who do family genealogy have an audience of one, themselves, as no one wants to hear about your ancestors family history. And, this is basically a genealogical look at an old mill that is now a home. However, the book can serve as a good text on how to conduct such an in-depth research for anyone who is wishing to go on such a mission for themselves.
You can find the book on Amazon.
PS. Combine this book with Mills on the Tsatsawassa by Philip Lord Jr., (1983) and you will be well set to begin your research.
Since 1972, the American Canal Society has printed a quarterly newsletter titled American Canals. With the exception of a few missed issues, the staff (volunteers) have been able to keep the publication on schedule with over 200 issues that cover news and history of all American canals and waterways.
Most issues are available as digital downloads on the Newsletter tab and a index is also available. We typically delay the uploads for a couple years just to add value to being a member. Members can receive issues by mail, as a digital file (and in color), or both.
Here is a bonus copy of the latest newsletter (summer 2024).
Pete Runge, The Magazine of Albemarie County History, V.57, 1999. Pete Runge, The Magazine of Albemarie County History, V.57, 1999. Pete Runge, The Magazine of Albemarie County History, V.57, 1999. Pete Runge, The Magazine of Albemarie County History, V.57, 1999.
AMERICAN MASON’S MARKS LOOKUP TABLE by Bill Trout
(This information was on the old ACS website and is presented here by request.)
It used to be said that the only mason’s marks in America were on the stones of George Washington’s Patowmack Canal locks at Great Falls, Virginia, and on the foundations of the Capitol in Washington DC. We know now that mason’s marks are all over the place, and that these marks are trying to tell us something.
A major stumbling block for those interested in mason’s marks is communicating with each other. Except for numbers and letters, these symbols do not have their own typewriter or computer keys, so to report them they must be drawn and transmitted in some way. This lookup table is an attempt to make communication and documentation easier, and to start a list of known marks in America.
The marks on the lookup table are grouped according to the number of lines (a curved line counts as one line). The 9th mark with 6 lines would be mark 6-9. One can search the present document to see, for example, where in America all of the 6-9 marks are located.
Mason’s marks are not always clear-cut because the stone can be rough, and the surface can erode. The light has to be right. Some are hidden under mortar. Sometimes the details of a mark are clear only when it has been found more than one place on a structure. We have found it best to make a rough drawing of each face of a structure, with a rectangle or space for each visible stone, and show the marks on these drawings. In this way one can tell if a new mark has been found, and marks can be compared. Usually, new marks are found at each visit to a site.
This lookup table is only the beginning. It will never be finished. If you find new marks, let us know so we can add them (and the reference or source) to the table and bibliography.
The next stage is to study these marks and compare those on a structure, and those on different structures along a canal or railroad, They are trying to tell us something about the stone masons and construction work. Theories abound. Bon appetit!
How to Observe Masons Marks, from “Masons Marks in Albemarle County,” by Pete Runge, The Magazine of Albemarle County History, V.57, 1999, p. 63.
“I have found that the best time to observe masons marks is in the late afternoon, when the sun is low in the sky, and casts a shadow into the recesses of the mark. I presume early morning works just as well, but I am not exactly a morning person, so I stick to the afternoons!
“If you are looking for them inside an arched culvert or aqueduct, a waterproof flashlight is usually helpful. No matter how shallow a creek or river is, there is always several feet of cold water inside the arch, since the current is funneled into a narrower-than-normal channel. Be sure you watch for sudden drop-offs while you are wading under the arch.
“It sometimes takes a few minutes to find the first mark or two, but once your eyes adjust to what you are looking for, they will suddenly start popping out all over the place. Try looking at different angles from the stone, as a mark invisible or indistinguishable from one angle, may be very clear from another.”
Canal in Blue Ridge Gorge (Trout 2001:73): 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-7, 3-8, 4-1, 4-3, 4-6, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, 4-27, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-27, 5-28, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-12, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-17, 8-2, 9-2, 11-1, M, C, H, HL, WHUF (?), DBL. More details are in “Masons’ marks in the Blue Ridge Gorge,” by Mike Starkey in the Summer 1994 VC&NS Tiller, pp. 24-31.
Piers of James River bridge at Bent Creek, 4-28, 5-18, 5-20, 5-22, 6-16, 7-2, 7-11. (Trout, unp.)
Hardware Aqueduct, JR&K Canal, VA (1838), from Minnie Lee McGehee in 1966 and from The Canal on the James, by T. Gibson Hobbs, Jr., Blackwell Press, Lynchburg VA 2009:137: P, F, X, V, BB, III, J, 2-1, 2-7, 3-11, 3-17, 4-2, 4-10, 4-30, 5-19.
Tidewater Connection Locks (1854), on stones removed for storage, 4-3, 4-17, 7-2, P, A, DW. These stones also had a “code” marked in red paint (covered by mortar) indicating N or S wall of lock, and course. See “Cracking an Engineer’s Code,” American Canals. **.
Beaver Creek Aqueduct, JR&K Canal, marks found by Tom Hahn in 1981: 2-1, 3-6, 4-18, 4-19, M, Z, S, D, III. (Hahn mason’s marks notebook, in Trout collection, includes English and French canal marks)
Warren Canal Culvert (Ballinger Creek) (Runge 1999): R, 6-25, 3-1, 3-16, II, B, AH, C.
Kent’s Branch Culvert, Columbia, 1830’s (Trout 2002:30): 3-1, 4-22, 5-29, 2, I, N, K, JC, J8.
VA Railroad Bridges:
South abutment of NS Bridge 425 over Jennings Creek, Arcadia, VA, has mason’s marks plus course number (A-F) and stone numbers. The North abutment has no marks. Did it have a different contractor? (Trout 2001:54)
Belt Line Bridge, Richmond, 1891 (Trout 1987:24): 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8, 4-10, 4-11, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 6-1, 7-1, 7-2, 7-15, 10-1, 1, 2, 8, D, F, I, K, L, S, T, V, III VE, JB, HA, MT, MM, ME. Shows locations of marks on each pier.
C&O RY Bridge, at Humpback Bridge (Trout 2001:27): 3-1, 3-6, 4-3, 4-26, 5-22, 7-13, 8-4.
Piers, Mouth of Looney’s Creek (Trout 2001:46): 4-5, A, L, M, N, T, II, III.
N S bridge at Arcadia (Trout 2001:54): courses A-F and stone #.
O&A RR James River, bridge, Daniel’s Island (Trout 2001:82): 2-2, 3-1, 3-6, 3-13, 4-2, 4-8, 4-28, 5-9, 5-23, 7-14, 8-5, C, D, H, L, R, P, T, U, V, X, II, JP, MI, IS, ISENE. Many stones have the height in inches. The abutment has 3U, N-5U+2-7, U43-2, 3U, D; the U’s are on the upriver side and the D’s on the downstream side. Some numbers indicate the course above the water table course (course sticking out).
N&W, (NS) bridge in New River Trail State Park VA (Trout 2003:35): 3-1, 1-3, 01; at Walker’s Creek VA (p.61), C7N5, C6N2 (course 7, stone 5, etc.); at Ripplemead VA (p.61), stone height in inches.
Richmond & Danville Staunton River bridge at Altavista (1876) (Trout Roanoke Atlas *:45): XVI [2-1], GH XVII, PA, [3-6] P, 18C, etc. Height of stones in inches plus a mark.
NS bridge over the Big Otter near Evington (Trout Roanoke Atlas p.48): A18, W, 16D, T, R. Height of stones in inches.
Franklin & Pittsylvania RR bridge over Pigg River near Toshes (Trout Roanoke Atlas p.135): [5-7] W + M, 6-20, B, F, 16, 14.
CSX at Charlottesville Woolen Mills (see map in Trout 2002:9A from Runge 1999): west abutment: 4, C, 4-10, P, 7-12, K, XX, XV, V, 6-24, 3-19; Central and East Pier: H, A, 1-1, 2-1, 3-12, 4-29, 4-3, 3-5, M, E, 8-2, 5-31; Middle Pier: ARUNDALE FEB. 27, 1901. West pier: 3-16, 3-1. Office Building, 4-10.
CSX at Franklin St., Charlottesville, 0.4 mile W of Woolen Mills (Runge 1999): H, XXX, W, B, 3-6, E, B+H, 1878, 7A.
NS bridge over North Fork Rivanna (abandoned route, river mile 4.3) (Runge 1999): Baylor Simpson, L, C.W.I.I., H, XX, F.
NS bridge over North Fork Rivanna (active route, river mile 5.7) (Runge 1999): IIIVX, XV!!!, +T.P.B, T8, 14-1, X-VIII, 18, P or 4-1, 18, R, C.W, XVI8(?), 8-8.
NS bridge over South Fork Rivanna (Runge 1999): 20, 18, 16, 14, 5-9, LO, XVI.
Abandoned 1850’s abutment of C&O RY bridge over Jefferson’s Mill Canal spillway channel, Rivanna mile 34.14, (Runge 1999): R.E.L.M. LES.
C&O RY west abutment over Rivanna, mile 35.65, below I-64 bridge (Runge 1999): “4+ FEB.11 L.E.G. 90.”
VA Road Bridges:
Free Bridge Piers (Rt.250 over the Rivanna in Charlottesville) (Runge 1999): 5-6, T, M, ANNO.
Williamsburg VA: When the foundations of the Governor’s Palace were excavated in 1994, of the 160 stones dug up, 113 had “mysterious mason’s marks on the underside.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 10, 1994). Dr. Thomas H. Taylor Jr., archaeological collections manager, was looking for more information about these marks, which may have been made when they were cut in England.
Lock 2, Patowmack Canal at Great Falls, VA. “Great Falls of the Potomac, Great Falls Park, Virginia,” flyer has 3-9, 5-8, 5-16, 5-30, 6-21, 7-7, 7-8, 8-1. See also Barto 1980.
Douglas, Paul H., and W.K. Jones, Sandstone, Canals and the Smithsonian, The Smithsonian Journal of History, Spring 1968, pp. 41-58. p.43 has photos of two marks on the Potomac Canal at Great Falls, VA, 4-13 and 8-1.
West Virginia:
C&O, bridge at Sandstone WV (Trout 2003:79): 2-1, 3-6, 4-1, 5-24, 5-25, 6-18, 6-20, 8-6, P, H; p.82, culvert at Meadow Creek WV, 2-5; p.89, Fayette Station bridge WV, 2-2, 3-14, 4-1, 5-9, 5-26, 7-12, A, L, R, [3-5] and [sic] F, F and F, T.D; p.107, Second Creek Tunnel WV (1855): 2-1, 2-4, 3-15, 5-8, B, L, E, R, T, LH, LM.
Salt Rock Bridge, Guyandotte River WV (Trout 1988:12): “H” in stone from 1898 abutment, under present bridge, cut by Curtis D. Harbour to indicate which stones he cut in 1898. One of the few marks where the maker is known.
The Canal society of Ohio Newsletter, January 1999, p.1, has a note on marks on Locks 21, 29, and 44 on the canal in and near the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, with Roman numerals. Includes a photo of mark 4-30. Readers are asked to send more examples to Brad Bond, 101 Hillside Way, Marietta, OH 45750, 614-374-6715, for a later article in the Newsletter.
Canada:
“Z” on Shubenacadie Canal, Nova Scotia, in Shubenacadie Canal Guide, Shubenacadie Canal Commission, 1989, p.24.
Toward a Bibliography of American Mason’s Marks
Virginia:
Runge, Pete, 1999, “Masons Marks in Albemarle County,” The Magazine of Albemarle County History, V.57, 1999, pp.56-63. Illustrations of many marks. Copies of V.57 are for sale on the Albemarle County Historical Society web site, www.albemarlehistory.org.
Trout, W.E. III, May 1979, “Mason’s marks on the Smaller Stone Archway under Reynolds’ Metals’ 3th Street Bridge,” Richmond, VA. Shows locations of marks. Page inserted in the ** Tiller. 2-1, 3-6, N, T.
Trout, W.E. III, James Moore III, and George D. Rawls, 1987, Falls of the James Atlas: Historic Canal and River Sites on the Falls of the James, Virginia Canals & Navigations Society, 1987, 1995.
Trout, W.E. III, 1988, The American Canal Guide Part 4: West Virginia, Kentucky and the Ohio River, American Canal Society, 1988. Online on www.americancanals.org.
Trout, W.E. III, 2001, The Upper James Atlas: Rediscovering River History in the Blue Ridge and Beyond, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society.
Trout, W.E. III, and Peter C. Runge, 2002, The Rivanna Scenic River Atlas: Historic Sites on the Rivanna Navigation, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, 1992, 2002.
Trout, W.E. III, 2003, The New River Atlas: Rediscovering the History of the New and Greenbrier Rivers, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, 2003.
Trout, W.E., III, in progress, The Roanoke/Staunton River Atlas, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, in press.
Trout, W.E. III, in progress, The Holston, Clinch and Powell’s Rivers Atlas, Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, in preparation 2010. page C-12, N&W bridge at Thompson’s Creek, BII, DIV, EV, A, PII, CIII (I, II, etc. is course of stone from bottom).
General:
Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, “Masons’ and Freemasons’ Marks” being Chapter XXIV of a history of masonry, 16 pages . Excellent study of mason’s marks and their history. Examples are shown, but none in America, but we had the same types. Online on http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/marks/freemasonsmarks.html. An edited version is in Chapter XLVIII of Mackey’s History of Freemasonry, by Robert I. Clegg, V.3, The Masonic History Company, NY, 1921.
Barto, Stephen, and Paul O. Weinbaum, Stone Marks in America and their Origin, 1790-1860, North Atlantic Region Curatorial Paper, National Park Service, November, 1980. Marks from Fort Wood (1844), now the base of the Statue of Liberty, has 2-1, 3-2, 3-6, 3-18, 4-2, 4-6, 5-9, 6-10. Fort Tompkins, NY has 2-3, 4-8, 5-10, 6-12, 6-20, MMD, 3-3, XIXX, I [4-24]; Lock 2, Potomac Canal at Great Falls VA has 3-17, 8-1, 2-2, 5-18; Richmond-Petersburg RR Bridge s XIX, 8-1, 6-14.
Barua, B.M., “Old Buddhist Shrines at Bodh-Gaya: Inscriptions,” Indian Historical Quarterly, March 1930, pp.1-31, online on http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/bar.htm.
Smith, J.A. Two dense pages of marks from Melrose Abbey and others in the UK, from an exhibition by J.A. Smith, are online at http://ads.ac.uk/catalog/adsdata/PSAS_2002. From the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Wallace, Jefferson, The Marks of the Members of Temple Chapter No. 32, Royal Arch Masons, Richmond, Virginia, V.1, 1892-1902, Richmond, 1922, pp.V-XII, shows many marks in Egypt, Syria, Europe, Britain, and India. These essentially include those found in America.
Other types of marks:
Eberlein, H.D. and R.W. Ramsdell, The Practical Book of Chinaware, Lippincott, 1925, 1948. Some of the simple marks are similar to mason’s marks: 2-1, 3-6, 4-8, 4-10, 4-24, 6-20.
A chart of 45 Hobo Signs and Symbols is available from www.railroadcatalog.com and railway museum shops. Some are similar to mason’s marks, such as 2-6, 3-1, 4-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5.
Jonathan Prown of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation found a mark in an early (perhaps pre-1800) cupboard in CW’s collection from Amherst County (Acc. # 1990-249) which is similar to a masons’ mark. The top of the mark is a diamond with a T in it; the bottom is a diamond with a horizontal bar and a dot; the diamonds are connected by a bar.
Emrich, Duncan, The Cowboy’s Own Brand Book, Dover, 1954. These brands have some components similar to mason’s marks (diamond, square) but are otherwise distinct.
Masonic Symbols in American Decorative Arts, Lexington, MA, Scottish Rite Masonic Museum of Our National Heritage, 1976. Articles by Barbara Franco, etc.
Mason’s Mark File, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington DC.
Note- This article is about guide books authored by canal society volunteers which have been printed and distributed in fairly low numbers, which can make them difficult to find if you are not aware of them. “Formal” guides that have been authored, printed and even sold with professional help have not been included.
____________________________________________
One day when I was visiting the Canal Society of NYS Samuel Center in Port Byron, Park Director Dan Wiles was showing me their stacks of society guide books that have been published over the last five decades. He mentioned that as people have passed away, or began to clean and de-clutter, many old guide books were being returned. So it might be an excellent time to reintroduce the guide book to a newer generation as these guides can contain some wonderful information not found in other sources.
If you never have attended a society study tour, you might not be aware of the guides, as they were printed with a limited run and handed out during trip registration. Extra copies were often given away to the tour stop hosts as a thank you, and if there were more, they were sold locally at society events. In this way, these guides often had a publication run of less then 200 or even 100.
As my beginnings were with the CSNYS, I had naturally thought that the guide book was a staple of the society weekend tours. And it was, as at each registration, the participant would receive their name tag, registration materials and the tour guide book It was only when I began to attend tours hosted by other groups that I realized that guide book was not always a given.
So what is a society trip guide book and how does it differ from the typical guide book?
For decades, the biannual canal society field trip, or as Thomas Grasso liked to call them, the “study tour,” was a staple of what most of the state societies did. Each spring and fall, a weekend trip would be planned to make an “on the ground” study of a selected canal section. The trip would cover a selected section of canal with any where from five to nine stops, or whatever was reasonable for an eight hour day. The stops focused on what was present, what was safe, and what could accommodate a bus or a number of cars. Sometimes, the bus would quickly drop people off at a trail and then pick them up a mile or so down the line. As the bus rolled along, the trip host or chairperson would give an quick history and overview of the next stop knowing that most folks would scatter for photos when they unloaded at the stop.
If the hosting organization used them, the guide book could be used to give background and context to the trip. It might have have maps and photos that each person could closely look at instead of having the guide hold up or pass around images. Depending on the author, might might include basic facts such as; maps, canal profile, lock lift, construction and use dates, who was the engineer, and so on. The guides were focused on the sites that would be visited during the tour, and were not always a comprehensive history of the canal. In short, the guide could serve as a recap of the weekend tour.
As with most society publications put out by volunteers, the guides can be divided into two periods which might be titled; “before desktop publishing” and “after desktop publishing.” In short, the power of home computer and publishing software has greatly revolutionized the guide book. In the “before” times, the guide book was often a bunch of single-sided typed pages, and hand-drawn maps and diagrams, some poorly copied photos. These were mostly taken from the hosts knowledge, personal collection, and perhaps what could be found at local libraries and historical societies. They were copied at the nearest photocopier and then stapled together. Over the years these were somewhat improved and expanded by using a local print shop who could offer a bit better quality and bind the books with glue or use plastic spirals.
From the 1970 tour.
Once computers became a part of the household, the authors had a bit more flexibility, and a lot more power, to put out a more complete and professional quality guide book. Images became clearer with higher quality paper, two-sided pages became standard, and later the use of color was introduced. With the internet and resources such as digital newspapers and so on, the author could conduct a lot of research from their home and thus enrich the amount of information included. Given all this, all guide books tend to reflect their authors and their enthusiasm and knowledge of the study area. It can take many hours of study, writing, editing, checking and rechecking, to craft a decent guidebook, and many trip hosts didn’t have the time, or desire, to do the work. All the guides are in the 8.5 x 11 inch format. As most of these societies have hosted trips for more then 50 years, many sites have been visited and revisited. It can be helpful to review all the tour guides to see how sites have changed over the years and what new research has been conducted.
It might be helpful to note that many trips were co-sponsored with neighboring societies, so if you can’t find a guide in the state you are researching, check the state next door to see if they printed a guide.
With all this in mind, I pulled out the many guide books that I have in the ACS archives. Here is a summary of what I found.
Canal Society of New York State – The first guide was printed in 1961 for the tour of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal. The early guides are mostly a road log of stops and hand drawn maps that can be very detailed. Beginning in 1980 the guides featured a geology overview by Thomas Grasso, and the amount of content about doubles with 25 to 30 pages. In 1987 the society printed the first 50 page guide, and in 1990 the guide topped the 100 page mark. The first guide to feature color was with the 2009 Erie Canal Aqueducts tour.
The society also published guides for their out of state trips to the Morris Canal in 2002, the Rideau Canal in 2003, the Portage Railroad in 2006 and the C&O in 2014. All the guidebooks have been scanned but none are available as digital downloads. The society has a fairly complete collection of paper copies available for purchase. A listing of their trips can be found here.
Canal Society of Indiana – The society has been hosting study tours since 1982, however, the first published guide was in 1998 with the tour of the Wabash and Erie. Even then, not every trip has a guide. The guides have benefited greatly by having Carolyn Schmidt as the sole editor, and the results are a very uniform style and appearance from trip to trip. These guides are simply fantastic resources and should not be overlooked as they are very comprehensive in what information they contain.
The society has also hosted or co-hosted trips into Ohio eleven times and each of these has a guide. The guides are available online as digital downloads on the website with quite a nice organization by year, county, and canal.
Canal Society of Ohio – I could only find a few copies of guidebooks from the CSO in the American Canal Society archives. So I reached out to Michael Morthorst, CSO president, to see how often the society printed guidebooks for the study tours. He reports that the CSO did print guidebooks for their trips and his own collection dates back to 1988.
In the guides that I have I see the typical variation of quality and content. For example, the 2019 Spring Tour (Circleville to Chillicothe) is quite detailed with 108 pages that include history, maps, and photos. The guide was printed in cooperation with the Chillicothe Restoration Foundation and the quality of the guide certainly reflects that partnership. The other guides in the ACS collection follow the typical format of; introduction, tour stops, maps and references. These have plastic covers, wire or plastic spiral bindings, and average 15 to 30 pages.
Michael notes that there is no central repository for the back issues, however, the CSO website states that reprints of some guides are available by request.
Pennsylvania Canal Society – The PCS and the CSNYS share founding members and thus share some guide book history. Early examples of the guides include a list of stops and some helpful “explainer” drawings/maps. All the examples I have are in the typical 8.5 x 11 inch format. I have not found a comprehensive listing of trips or guides available, although I would expect that the National Canal Museum in Easton has most copies.
Other canal groups and societies have tackled the question of a guide book in the more traditional manner by publishing a comprehensive guide of the entire canal. These guides are usually printed in greater numbers and can be sold at book stores and museums, thus they receive a bit more attention, although you are unlikely to find then on Amazon. But they can still reflect the local knowledge of the author and in that way be very useful to the researcher.
The Virginia Canals and Navigations Society has published 21 “atlases.” These are in a 8.5 x 14 inch format that allow for a very nice presentation of the maps, which are the main feature of the guide. Most of the information is presented as by using topographical maps, overlaid with text blocks and arrows pointing to numerous sites.
The information found between the map pages contains articles on history, people, boats, geology, suggested highway markers, historic articles and recollections and a lot more. These guides were written mostly by Dr. William Trout and include wisdom from his lifetime of study.
The Middlesex Canal Association has a very good canal guide authored by Burt VerPlank. The guide uses a 8.5 x 5 inch format and takes the reader along a tour of the 30 miles of canal from south to north. Large fold out maps make this guide very easy to read and understand as you seek sites hidden in the urban environment of the Middlesex.
In conclusion, these small production study tour guide books can be a rich source of information that might not be found elsewhere, and most come with a decent list of references that could also be useful in directing further research. However, finding them, or simply finding a listing of them, can be a challenge. Be sure to seek them out by contacting the state canal society, local historical societies, libraries and archives.
Also note that the authors of the guide books typically would publish more in depth articles in the society’s newsletter. Be sure to check those as well.
The ‘doings’ of the Lessees, those 21 or 23 men who “administered” to the canals from June of 1861 into December of 1878 has always been a bit nebulous. And just where was the demarcation line between the duties of the State Board of Public Works and the Lessees? They both had Board Members and they both had Resident Engineers. These next two columns on the Saga at Sandyville will do nothing to clear things up. You will see, perhaps, that even those ‘on the scene’ were absolutely confused.
In the meantime, now that Spring is here, it is time to get out along the canal routes and find those artifacts and structures that you always felt, “the next time I get out in the field I’ll find it”. Lock 29 on the western division of the S. & B., is featured in the next two columns. That site I’ve found, and lost and found, and, . . .but you get the idea.
SAGA AT SANDYVILLE
James Kelly of Cuyahoga County, had been a prolific contractor on the Sandy & Beaver Canal on all three of its divisions. Then, after the collapse of the Cold Run Reservoir embankment in early 1852, he was hired by the canal company for the unenviable job of “trouble-shooter,” to pay off the ever increasing number of creditors with the ever decreasing amount of incoming funds.
By mid-1853, it had become obvious that no miracle concerning the Sandy & Beaver Canal Company was forthcoming. All the surplus real-estate with any value had already been sold. All that remained was the canal right-away itself and a few unencumbered water rights. Kelly had done what he could by spreading the smaller and smaller amounts of cash that canal tolls brought in from time to time to squelch the screams of the more voracious creditors.
Kelly had probably taken on, and completed, more contracts in building the canal than anyone else. More than half of his payments had been in “company bonds.” Kelly, in his current position was well aware that the canal company was going under and decided that if he wanted anything from the collapse he had better get it quickly.
Therefore, in early 1853, James Kelly initiated a law suit against the Sandy & Beaver Canal Company for his back wages. An avalanche of claims followed and the Sandy & Beaver Canal Company declared bankruptcy on June 28, 1853. On March 6, 1854, at a master commissioner’s sale in New Lisbon, that portion of the Sandy & Beaver Canal within the State of Ohio was divided into 82 Parcels and auctioned off.
As payment for his suit against the company, Kelly asked for, and was awarded, parcels 80, 81 and 82 of the Sandy & Beaver Canal. This line ran from two rods above lock 29 in Sandyville to the junction with the Ohio & Erie Canal in Bolivar, which was approximately six miles in lenght. The deed for this land and water-rights was transferred to Kelly on March 7, 1856.
Sandyville had prospered during its brief encounter with the active Sandy & Beaver Canal. The grist mill at the southern edge of town powered by the canal was a receiver and shipper on the canal, as were several coal mines that had sprung up in the area. A group of local citizens set about to get their link to the outside world reattached. A man by the name of William Nelson appears to have been the spokesman for the group. Shortly after Kelly had received his deed, or perhaps even before, Nelson had contacted the State’s Board of Public Works to ascertain if they had any interest in obtaining that six miles of the S & B as a “feeder” to the Ohio Canal. Their only stipulation was that the State maintain the waterway so it could carry traffic into and out of Sandyville. Kelly sold his S. & B. canal lands and water-rights to the group from Sandyville for $5,000 on August 2, 1856.
The 1912 Topo map. The Ohio and Erie can be seen running through Bolivar.
The Board of Public Works had the waterway examined and surveyed. They reported that the wooden aqueduct across the Tuscarawas River leading to the junction with the Ohio Canal at Bolivar, and the lock at the head of the long slackwater pool below Sandyville, were both in poor condition. In addition, the canal banks had been cut in several places by local residents wishing to regain access to their lands cut off by the canal. After some deliberation, the Board agreed to take over the canal if the banks were first repaired. On December 29, 1856, for the sum of $1.00, the western-most six miles of the Sandy & Beaver Canal became a feeder to and part of the Ohio & Erie Canal.
The final description of the portion of the S & B that became part of the State’s canal system, however, only included that portion from below Lock 29 in Sandyville to Bolivar. That was a small shortening of a bit over 2 rods, but it placed the Sandyville terminus approximately a quarter of a mile below the warehouses in the village. Either that discrepancy went unnoticed or the actual foreshortening didn’t seem that important at the time.
There was some business on that portion of the canal after the turnover. The Public Works report for 1859 stated that up until August of that year the Sandy & Beaver feeder had carried 33,000 bushels of wheat, 41,000 feet of lumber, and 3,213 tons of coal out of the village and 278 barrels of salt, lime and fish and 91,400 feet of lumber into it. The shortened boating season was the result of a collapse of a portion of the wooden aqueduct at Bolivar. A statement from a boatman’s diary in 1863 indicates that at least one trip was made into Sandyville that year.
So Sandyville was connected to the outside world via the Sandy & Beaver Feeder. BUT, in 1868 the following resolution was offered in the Ohio State Congress, . . . . .
“H.R. No. 111: Whereas the citizens of Sandyville and vicinity petitioned the Ohio Legislature authorizing the State of Ohio to adopt, as part of the public works, that portion of the Sandy & Beaver Canal which lies between Bolivar and Sandyville as a navigable feeder to the Ohio Canal; and whereas an Act was passed the 9th. Of April, 1856, adopting it on condition that the owners of said canal should put that part of the canal in good repair, and whereas, in pursuance of the inducement held out by such Legislative Act, and the construction put on it by the people of Sandyville and vicinity, they, for the purpose of having communication with the Ohio Canal, expended $7,000 in buying the right of way, paying (wages?) and putting said feeder in good repair; and whereas, afterwards the Board of Public Works, in their resolution of acceptance, only accepted that portion of the canal between Bolivar and the lock at the head of the slackwater pool, and so construed the law so as not to include the said lock and, whereas, by reason of such constriction the work is entirely valueless to the people of Sandyville and vicinity, as they have no connection with the Ohio Canal and derive no benefit from the expenditure of said money, therefore, “Resolved” – That the committee on Public Works be and is hereby Instructed to inquire into the justice and validity of said claim, and report to the House by Bill or otherwise”.
Such a Bill was rendered by the House during the 1869/70 Session to repair Sandyville Lock just above the Sandy & Beaver feeder and make it passable for canal boats. The Bill also authorized an amount of ‘up to’ $3,000 for the repair of the lock.
The group of Sandyville citizens that had bought that canal section from Kelly and handed it over to the State 14 years before, legally, still owned that section containing the lock that the State had not accepted. The canal above the lock belonged to owners of the Sandyille grist mill. They should have been a part of the current group agitating to repair the lock. Subsequent events, however, proved that wasn’t true. So what came next is an extremely convoluted, though interesting, story – and the subject of a future column.
i Maretta College, Special Collection, transcribed by George S. Hackett, December 05, 2003.
I am a family genealogist, and recently I was happy to inform my wife that Alfred Noble, the man who oversaw the construction of the Weitzel lock at Sault Ste. Marie, and was on the board that recommenced the use of locks on the Panama Canal (instead of digging a sea-level canal), was the nephew of the wife of her second great-grandfather. You can imagine her excitement when she said, “Who and who?”
This revelation came about as a happy accident due to my interest in creating family trees of the people who are my research topics. I like to use timelines when researching a topic or a person, and in the last few years, I have begun to construct simple genealogies for my main subject. Using my Ancestry.com subscription, I can create as many family trees as I want. As the family tree is developed and more info is added to a person’s profile, a very usable timeline is created, and then Ancestry suggests possible hints about records that can help add to the life story of my subject. In addition to all this, I can then upload and make available records and facts that might be usable to other genealogists.
So, over the years I have created a few canal engineer family trees and here are a few examples. These are in no way extensive, but hopefully show what else can be found by taking a deeper dive into the family tree.
The Gill family. If I say Gill, most will think of Edward Hall Gill, who worked on many canals including the Sandy and Beaver, Schuylkill, and James River and Kanawha. Edward was the son of Valentine Gill. Valentine had moved the family from Ireland to Nova Scotia in 1814 to work as a surveyor on the Shubenacadie Canal. While there, he wrote this letter to President Thomas Jefferson that can be found on the Library of Congress website;
“Sir, The eminence of your character, your philosophic and scientific genius and your ability to promote and reward merit, has prompted me to seek at Monticello, the retreat of its bountiful donor, that patronage, for want of which oft times fair science droops, and ability remains unnoticed and unrewarded; “And many’s the flower that’s doom’d to bloom unseen, And waste its fragrance on the desert air.” Your universal knowledge and love of science will plead the excuse for the intrusion of an adventurer, an exile of Erin, whose hopes there once flattering, is now without pain to be remembered no more, I have been regularly bred to the Engineer department, Surveying in its fullest extent, leveling and conducting Canals &c. My drawings of Maps Plans &c, will be found not inferior.
I was brought in here while on my way to your inviting shores, where I have been employed but not to the extent of my wishes, the first desire of my heart, is to become a resident of your land of liberty! as a friend to science and humanity, say can I hope for employment there; I have a small family companions of my adventurous fate, prudence forbids my leaving this without a Knowledge of where I should take them; with diffidence I humbly solicit this mark of your condescension, which should I be so fortunate to attain, my gratitude shall ever remain unabated, Your general knowledge of the country, and intimacy with its conductors might point out employment for me, at some of its public works, or your extensive domain would perhaps afford a field sufficient to found my introduction.
I have the Honor to be Sir, with every mark of Respect & esteem your most Obedient Honorable Servant &c,” (signed) Valentine Gill
There is no record if that letter resulted in any job prospects, but we do know that the family moved to New York in 1817 so Valentine could help survey the Erie Canal. Valentine is noted in canal history for his advocacy of the southern canal route that would have had a summit 90 feet higher then Lake Erie. (He lost and the canal took the northern route.) There is a mention of two children of a Valentine Gill who died when they fell into a cistern when the family lived in the Cooperstown area. He later moved to Rochester, NY, where he drafted a map that he said was compiled from “correct surveys.”
As noted, the well-known Edward Hall Gill was a noted engineer for many canals, apparently working on two canals at the same time. In 1980, the Pennsylvania Canal Society published an excellent bio of Edward Gill in their Canal Currents newsletter. Edward never had children, so few people actively research his life beyond his work.
A brother of Edward, Washington Gill, also went into the surveying and engineering trade. He often found work with his brother and then later as the first civil engineer of Richmond, Virginia. He later moved to St. Charles, Missouri, where he superintended the construction of the first bridge over the river at that place. Interestingly, it is said that Washington Roebling was named after Washington Gill.
The Whitford/Noble family- Anyone who has read any history on the Erie Canal has likely read a bit about Noble Whitford. Nobel wrote the two-volume 1905 state report that has become the “bible” of canal research. He later followed up with a 1922 history of the Barge Canal.
A young Noble Whiteford.
An interesting tidbit about Noble is that in one of his later in life interviews, he related how he and his sister narrowly escaped death in 1874 when the floor of the Central Baptist Church of Syracuse gave way during a strawberry festival that the two were attending. Many were killed and over 200 were injured.
Noble was the son of David Earl Whitford and Sarah Noble. David was also an engineer on New York’s canals. It was reported that David began his employment in 1853 as a “tape-man” in the Syracuse weighlock. David oversaw many projects during the enlargement of the Erie. He died in 1913, but we can say that he was able to witness all three canal eras of New York.
My interest was tweaked when I was rereading “The Path Between The Seas,” and was reminded of the American civil engineer Alfred Noble (not Alfred Nobel for who the Nobel Prize is named.) Of course this raised the question as to any possible connections between Alfred Noble and Noble Whitford, since the mother’s maiden name is often used for her children. Looking back over the generations, I found that both families came from Westfield, Massachusetts. From there it was simply a matter of how many generations back I would find the common ancestor. It turns out that Alfred Noble and David Whitford were of the same generation, although the grandfather they both share was some six generations removed!
However, in the research I saw that Alfred was from Livonia, Michigan. And, in one of his obituaries, I saw a mention of his close friend, Judge Edgar Durfee. This was indeed odd as I had researched Judge Durfee after my mother-in-law had asked me about her memories of a judge in her family from Michigan. As it turns out, Judge Durfee and Alfred Noble were first cousins, and as a result, my wife is a closer relation to Alfred than Noble Whitford was!
The Watt family- David A. Watt was one of the lead engineers on the New York State Barge Canal, and the designer of the Mohawk dams. But he found work on many river canalization projects around the country in the late 1800s. These include the Fox, Green, Big Sandy, Kentucky, and other rivers. He also co-authored “The Improvement of Rivers,” with Benjamin Franklin (B.F.) Thomas. He also oversaw the construction of the coffer dams around the battleship Maine in 1911 when the ship was being recovered from Havana harbor. David was born and trained in England and came to America with his family as one of the early settlers in St. Petersburg, Florida. His brother, John Marshall Watt, was also a civil engineer and worked on the Panama Canal. Like many of these engineers, David never had children.
In spite of being one of the later engineers, I have only found one photo of David in the Barge Canal Bulletin which is a bit of a puzzle as David was certainly a self promoter. However, he did leave his papers to the Florida Historical Society, and his accounts of camping and boating along the Gulf Coast were used for an article in 1980 by Kay Tapley. David and his wife Josephine Abercrombie left their home to the city and it is now Abercrombie Park in St. Petersburg.
Benjamin Franklin Thomas – Benjamin, or as he was always known, B.F., was the co-author of “The Improvement of Rivers,” with David Watt. Benjamin using “B.F.” might be the reason that David used D.A. as his name. Benjamin was 12 years older then David and likely a mentor. Both men worked in the Army Corps and were assigned to the work along the Big Sandy River in Kentucky. B.F. was the principal engineer for the dam and lock at Louisa, which was the first needle dam to be built in the states. Benjamin would remain as the engineer on the Big Sandy for years, unlike his protēgē who would travel extensively in his work. Benjamin was born in May 1853 in Ironton, Ohio, and died in Catlettsburg, Kentucky in 1923.
Both Benjamin and David were active promoters of the movable dam and many of the Chanoine wicket type dams that were built along the Ohio and other rivers was due to their influence.
The Hutchinson family- Holmes Hutchinson’s name is so entwined with the history of New York’s canals that he almost doesn’t need an introduction. His 1834 maps of the Erie are still used today to locate canal structures all across the state. He began work on the Erie in 1819, and he spent a majority of his life working on canals across the state. But, as with many of the engineers of the period, they went where the work was. In 1825, Holmes was employed as the Chief Engineer of the Connecticut River Company, and later he became involved with the construction of railroads to the point where he was named as president of the Oswego and Syracuse Railroad in 1851. He visited the Morris Canal in 1834 to study the inclined planes likely to study their possible use on the Black River Canal. His father, Amaziah, was a surveyor and helped to lay out many villages in the central New York area. In 1788, Amaziah plotted Owego, NY, and later moved to Union and then to Ithaca. He set up a ferry service across Cayuga Lake in 1802 near Genoa, which is where Holmes was born, before moving west to Dublin, Ohio.
Holmes lived in Utica and had a number of children, one of whom was Charles Webster Hutchinson. In 1875, Charles was elected mayor of Utica and then in 1876, became a founder of the Oneida County Historical Society.
The Schillner family- And, like Holmes Hutchinson and his maps, George Schillner is associated with his 1896 maps of the Erie Canal. But unlike the other folks I have researched, he was more a surveyor and draftsman, rather then being an engineer. So his time was mostly spent in the employ of the state working on various surveys and mapping projects. The Schillner family was part of the large German population who settled in the Utica and Rome regions of New York. Some of the family found early employment as boaters on the Erie before settling down for more permanent occupations in Utica. And, apparently the family had some musical abilities as they are often mentioned as part of the Rome Cornet Band and the Rome Musical Association.
A note for any genealogists out there. The trees I create are not up to the genealogical standards. These simple trees give me a sense of the lives lived and sometimes, a surprise such as a church collapse is found. I use what is available online and through Ancestry and Family Search. By creating the tree, I hope that others can use it as hints for their research, but as I caution, they need to be checking and holding to their own genealogical standards. They can be found on Ancestry.com.
