Reviewed by Michael Riley
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 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
| James River Canal, South Bank | Bypass Canals, North Bank | |||||
| 1775-1796 | 1793-1808 | |||||
| UPPER | CANAL B | |||||
| began at Westham, southside | began at Westham, northside | |||||
| 1 mile long | 200 yards long | |||||
| 2 locks, 8 ft each | 3 locks, 80 ft long & 16 ft wide | |||||
| locks of dry-laid stone | locks of masonry and cement | |||||
| LOWER | CANAL C | |||||
| 3 miles long | 3 & 1/2 miles long | |||||
| ended at Broad Rock (Belle Isle) | ended on Shockoe Hill | |||||
| Basin completed 1790-Manchester | Basin completed 1808 | |||||