Reviewed by Mike Riley
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.
Sincerely, Andrew