Canal Prism - Shape of the Canal

Right Side: Canal Boat Pulled by Mules
NPS

Left Side: Empty canal prism in Great Falls
NPS/ E. Cowan

 

America's Canal Dream

Back when George Washington was the President of the Potowmack Canal Company he supported short skirting canals around unnavigable parts of the Potomac River. These canals made 218 miles of the river navigable when the conditions were right. Ironically, the Potomac River itself was the reason why the skirting canals didn't work out. Often times the river didn't provide a reliable water level needed to operate the Lift Locks safely, which made using these skirting canals unreliable and even dangerous.

Learn more about George Washington's influence on the C&O Canal:
George Washington - Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

Learn more about the Potowmack Canal Company:
Potowmack Company Canal and Locks (U.S. National Park Service)(npshistory)

Illustration of constructing the C&O Canal
NPS/ Harpers Ferry Center

The start of the C&O Canal Company

During the early 1820's, Virginia and Maryland sought for the establishment of a new canal company which would unite the Potomac and the Ohio by means of a continuous canal. As early as 1820 the State of Virginia authorized its Board of Public Works to conduct surveys of the land between the Potomac and the southern branches of the Ohio for a possible continuous canal to connect the two rivers. In his report of the first survey, Thomas Moore, the Civil Engineer of Virginia, confirmed the opinion that such a 2 connection was practicable and estimated its cost at about $1,114,300.

In 1820, the Potowmack Canal Company transferred their rights to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. The C&O Canal Company planned to undertake this challenge of creating a continous canal. Their plan to overcome the Potomac River was to dam up the river in multiple sections to ensure there would be a supply of water for the canal to rely upon.

Upon hearing Thomas Moore's report, the movement for a continuous canal gathered momentum. President James Monroe and Congress endorsed the project by providing $30,000 for a detailed survey of the proposed route. The United States Board of Engineers made a preliminary report on February 14, 1825. This new report untimately secured that this project would be an ultimate success. Congress shortly thereafter chartered the canal company in a measure approved by President Monroe on March 3, 1825.

Empowered about thier promising future, the C&O Canal Company was eager to accept subscriptions for the purpose of financing the construction of an artifical waterway. The route beginning in the District of Columbia to the highest point of permanent navigation on the Ohio River at Pittsburgh, PA. 100 miles of the canal were to be completed and put into use within 5 years, and the entire project was to be completed in 12 years.

While supporters of the project promptly plunged into the campaign for public support, a full report of the Board of Engineers issued in 1836, dealt a temporary set back.The report agreed that the project was practicable, but estimated the project cost based on its proposed enlarged dimensions at $22,375,429.69.

Groundbreaking ceremony for the C&O Canal
NPS/ Harpers Ferry Center

This new estimate alarmed Congress and requested John Qunicy Adams to submit the conflicting estimates made by the state engineers and Board of Engineers to a review by experienced canal builders. The President appointed James Geddes and Nathan Roberts, both of whom had worked on the Erie Canal in New York. They hurried surveyed the eastern section of the proposed canal route from Georgetown to Cumberland, and estimated the cost of construction at slightly more than $4,000,000, which was about half the Board's estimates for the same section. Geddes and Roberts made three estimates and the third estimate recieved a great deal of attention. They called for an enlarged canal trunk, "where practicable by cormnon excavation, to 60 feet at the surface, with a proportionate breadth at the bottom, which is computed to be 42 feet; and 5 feet depth of water."

The C&O Canal Groundbreaking

Heartened by the reduced estimates of Geddes and Roberts, the canal supporters were successful in urging Congress to pass an act subscribing $1,000,000 of the public funds to the stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.On July 4, 1828, ceremonies marking the formal inauguration of the canal project were held at the Powder Magazine near the head of Little Falls where President John Quincy Adams dug the first spadeful of earth from the canal. This affair, held on the 52d anniversary of American independence, was highly successful and focused national attention on the canal project, and the canal's sponsors confidently expected that it would soon be carrying a heavy volume of commerce between the Potomac and the Ohio River valleys.

 

Building the C&O Canal

The C&O Canal Company and those involved had high hopes for success, but many unaccounted for  factors resulted in the canal's closure just under a 100 years later. What happened?

Construction from Georgetown to Harpers Ferry: 1828-1833

As full-scale construction began, the progress of the canal was repeatedly hampered by problems growing out of the actual work despite the issuance of the detailed reports. Many of these early trials closely foreshadowed the future obstacles to the successful completion of the waterway:

1. The shortage of labor was felt early in the construction period.
2. Land disputes plagued the canal company as local proprietors sought to extract the maximum benefit from the loss of their lands.
3. The company itself soon became involved in financial difficulties arising from other problems and from its own enthusiasm to enlarge the canal dimensions.
4. On top of all these distractions, a legal controversy developed out of a dispute with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company over the right-of-way in the Potomac Valley and an injunction obtained by the railway directors prohibiting the construction of the canal above Point of Rocks.

High Inflation

As early as May 1829, many contractors were having financial difficulties. Some of these problems stemmed from the fact that the bids made by the contractors the previous year were too low to pay the prevailing level of wages and prices for materials. Even had the bids been high enough to cover these construction costs in 1828, some difficulty would have arisen from the general inflation which followed. In the first year, the actual costs of construction greatly exceeded the estimates of Geddes and Roberts for lumber, stone, hydraulic lime, and labor. For example, hydraulic lime used in walling exceeded its estimated price by 200 to 300 percent because of the necessity of transporting it over bad roads or by the often-obstructed river. The rate of wages also nearly doubled between 1828 and 1832. As a result, some contracts for sections were abandoned and relet, while others were subdivided into several parts in order to expedite their completion.

Property Damage from Blasting

Other early unforeseen developments in construction tended to increase costs for the contractors. The excavations above Georgetown revealed great quantities of gravel, hardpan, and granite below the surface which had not been expected from the surface surveys. The cost of excavating these sections was nearly double the original estimates. The blasting which was necessary because of the rocky nature of the ground resulted in much property damage and public relations problems with the local populace. The concussion of the explosions and flying rock damaged several buildings, and the terrified citizenry often scurried for cover when the signal for the beginning of blasting was given. To lessen the problems caused by blasting, the canal board announced on September 4, 1830, that: it would no longer pay for damages arising from blasting accidents. The board ordered the use of smaller charges and required that the blasting be covered with brush that was to be procured from the opposite side of the river at the expense of the company. The net result of these policies was more delay and increased costs.

Harsh Winters

The weather was responsible for other costly delays in digging the canal. The winter of 1828-29 was unusually severe, and many contractors who had begun work were forced to suspend operations until spring. As was to happen throughout the period of construction and operation of the canal, the freshets, which occurred periodically in the fall and spring, often filled the lock pits and canal trunk with mud, debris, and sand bars, further delaying the completion of the work.

Problematic Contractors

Contractors resorted to various expedients to avoid financial losses. The responsible ones sought redress in petitions for the payment of retained money and for increased allowances. When forced to suspend operations due to lack of sufficient funds, conscientious contractors would request monetary advances offering bonds as collateral security. Their pleas often met with the recommendations of the Chief Engineer and favorable action of the board, although the board became increasingly less receptive as the company's financial condition worsened. Other contractors sought to avoid losses by slipshod or fraudulent construction, while others absconded with their monthly payments on the estimates, leaving both creditors and laborers unpaid. There were many cases where contractors would even steal provisions and building materials from other contractors on neighboring sections. This practice, which was prevalent wherever there was suspended work, contributed to growing suspicion and tension along the line of the canal.

Labor Shortage

One of the most critical problems with which the company had to contend during the actual digging of the canal was the shortage of labor. Because of the agricultural character of the Potomac Valley, there were few laborers available to begin with. The harvest season coincided with the best time for construction and made even fewer workers available. It was difficult to attract great numbers of laborers from other areas because of the unhealthy living conditions in summer along the Potomac and the construction of other public works in the East. As a result of these recruitment problems, 2,113 men were working on the line of the canal in June 1829 while it was estimated that 6,000 were needed in order to complete the canal in the time specified in the contracts.

To alleviate the scarcity of labor, the company considered the employment of Virginia slaves for a limited period. Efforts to work out this arrangement proved futile, and the company soon began efforts to encourage the migration of workers from all parts of the United States and from various countries in Europe, particularly Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Advertisements were placed in English and Irish newspapers, and agents were sent across the Atlantic to recruit working men under a system of indentured labor, much like the system that had flourished in the early colonial period.

The Company's Promising Promise

At the time, England was in the midst of a political and economic crisis marked by widespread unemployment, rising inflation, and unrest among its working classes. Under these conditions, Irish, Welsh, and English workers were receptive to the terms offered by the canal agents. These terms, as outlined by President Mercer, were in part: "meat three times a day, a plenty of bread and vegetable, with a reasonable allowance of liquor and eight, ten or twelve dollars a month for wages."

The experiment in using indentured servants proved to be expensive and failed to solve the labor shortage in the long run. The canal company found it difficult to enforce the agreements under existing laws. There were numerous lawsuits over the rights of the emigrants, and the local citizenry resented the influx of these foreigners, a hatred engendered in part by strong nativist elements in the valley. Nevertheless, the use of imported laborers succeeded in momentarily stabilizing the rate of wages on the canal. The total working force on the line rose from a low of about 1,800 in the summer months to over 3,100 by November 1829.

Learn more about those who worked on the canal:  
Workers Who Built the Canal - Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)  

High Cost of Land

Another major obstacle encountered in the construction of the canal resulted from the unexpected high cost of land. Many of the local landholders insisted on holding out for the highest possible prices, and others refused to sell their land under any conditions. Condemnation efforts were resisted by calling for new hearings and other delaying tactics. The landowners were often under the influence of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the archrival of the canal. The effect of all this was to obstruct the progress of the canal and increase the costs of construction.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad

Perhaps the greatest deterrent to the westward progress of the canal after 1828 was the legal controversy between the canal company and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad over the right-of-way from Point of Rocks to Harpers Ferry. The rail road held ground-breaking ceremonies in Baltimore on the same day as the canal in 1828, and both companies were eager to exploit the trade potential of the trans-Allegheny region. A series of court injunctions in 1828 prevented both the canal and the railroad from building beyond the Point of Rocks through the narrow passes along the steep banks of the Potomac River, thereby inhibiting the progress of both works.

After slow and costly legal proceedings, the Court of Appeals of Maryland in January 1832 reversed an earlier decision by the Chancery Court of Annapolis and confirmed the canal company in its claim to the right of prior location. When it received the official copy of the decision, the canal board ordered contracts to be let on February 23, 1832, for the 12 miles between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. In August the directors reconsidered their action and authorized the president to make contracts for the 2 miles immediately above Point of Rocks without the usual public advertisement. These 2 miles included some of the narrowest of the disputed passes, and the haste with which the board contracted for these sections indicated an intent to exclude the railroad from the Maryland side of the river.

Despite the favorable court decision, the Baltimore and Ohio Rail road continued to agitate against the canal company. The Maryland legislature requested the canal company to consider joint construction of the rail road and the canal from Point of Rocks to Harpers Ferry. Despite its misgivings, the canal company (because of its deteriorating financial condition) was not in a position to ignore this proposal. In the final settlement, the railroad company agreed to subscribe to 2,500 shares of canal comaany stock in return for permission to construct its tracks from Point of Rocks to Harpers Ferry. Thus, the canal company begrudgingly undertook the actual construction of both works through the precipitous passes at which they came together.

Construction from Harpers Ferry to Cumberland: 1833-1850

The insecure financial position of the canal company forced the directors to make a number of difficult decisions to expedite the construction work above Harpers Ferry. In late 1832 unsuccessful attempts were made to secure loans from Eastern banks. Appeals to Congress and the Virginia state legislature for aid were also rejected, but the State of Maryland agreed to subscribe to an additional $125,000 of canal company stock in March 1834. At the end of 1834, however, the canal company treasury was again depleted. By this time, the engineers had revised their estimates of construction costs. According to their revised figures, an additional $2,000,000 would be required to complete the canal to Cumberland, making the total cost for the eastern section in excess of $6,500,000. In this situation, the State of Maryland again came to the aid of the virtually bankrupt canal company by authorizing a $2,000,000 loan to the canal company in 1835.

When this sum failed to be sufficient, an additional appropriation of $3,000,000 was authorized the following year to purchase stock in the canal company, thus making the State of Maryland the majority stockholder in the company. Although these appropriations breathed new life into the operation, the latter sum was in the form of state government bonds which proved difficult to negotiate, especially after a major economic depression hit the country in 1837. The credit of the State of Maryland was undermined by 1839, and few were willing to purchase the state bonds. When they were finally negotiated with banks in Baltimore, Washington, New York, and London in late 1839, it was at a depreciated value, the total loss to the company from the transactions amounting to more than $1,000,000. Needless to say, work along the line of the canal proceeded at an irregular pace into the early 1840s, reflecting the financial fluctuations of the canal company.

Recurring strikes and clashes among workers continued to mar the construction of the canal above Dam No. 5 for several years. Much of the unrest was caused by the generally unsatisfactory living facilities set up for the laborers. Their working conditions were difficult and often dangerous, and their discontent was compounded by the inability of the canal company to meet its payroll at times because of its financial difficulties. This led to strikes and further rioting until the canal board took effective steps to curb the violence and remove the troublemakers. After a number of disturbances near the Paw Paw Tunnel in July and August 1838, the company suspended work along some sections of the canal and ordered the dismissal and blacklisting of disorderly persons. Although isolated incidents continued to occur, these forceful measures, together with the use of strikebreakers, appear to have been effective in restoring order.