Historic Highways of America/Volume 14/Chapter 2
CHAPTER II
EARLY PROMOTERS AND THEIR DREAMS
THE honor of originating the plan of a canal from the Great Lakes to the Hudson will forever lie with the brilliant, visionary Gouverneur Morris. The idea must have suggested itself to other minds even if it occurred to Morris originally; this cannot be disproved; but Morris's shoulders were broad enough for an honor too great for many, and his persistent labors in behalf of the project are altogether consistent with this verdict of a century. In 1777 Morris was known to have hinted of what we know as the Erie Canal. In that year he was sent to General Schuyler's army at Fort Edward, then slowly retiring before Burgoyne's advancing regiments. Morgan Lewis, then quartermaster, later governor of New York, leaves this testimony, in a letter dated May 26, 1828: "One evening in particular, while describing in the most animated and glowing terms the rapid march of the useful arts through our country, when once freed from a foreign yoke; the spirit with which agriculture and commerce both external and internal would advance; the facilities which would be afforded them by the numerous water courses, intersecting the country, and the ease by which they might be made to communicate; he announced, in language highly poetic, and to which I cannot do justice, that at no very distant day the waters of the great western inland seas would, by the aid of man, break through their barriers and mingle with those of the Hudson. I recollect asking him how they were to break through these barriers. To which he replied, that numerous streams passed them through natural channels, and that artificial ones might be conducted by the same routes."[1]
In his diary for October, 1795, Morris describes his feeling on viewing the Caledonian Canal in Scotland; "when I see this," he writes, "my mind opens to a view of wealth for the interior of America, which hitherto I had rather conjectured than seen."[2] In a letter to Mr. Parish in January, 1801, he observes, after seeing a number of ships riding at anchor in Lake Erie, "Hundreds of large ships will, at no distant period, bound on the billows of these inland seas. At this point begins a navigation of more than a thousand miles [to the extremity of Lake Superior]. Shall I lead your astonishment up to the verge of incredulity? I will. Know then that one-tenth of the expense, borne by Britain in the last campaign, would enable ships to sail from London through Hudson's River into Lake Erie."[3]
"The merit of first starting the idea of a direct communication by water, between lake Erie and Hudson's river," wrote Simeon De Witt to William Darby, February 25, 1822, "unquestionably belongs to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The first suggestion I had of it was from him. In 1803, I accidentally met with him at Schenectady. We put up for the night at the same inn and passed the evening together. Among the numerous topics of conversation, to which his prolific mind, and excursive imagination, gave birth, was that of improving the means of intercourse with the interior of our state. He then mentioned the project of tapping Lake Erie, as he expressed it himself, and leading its waters, in an artificial river, directly across the country to Hudson's river. To this I very naturally opposed the intervening hills and valleys as insuperable obstacles. His answer was in substance, labor improbus omnia vincit, and that the object would justify the labour and expense, whatever that might be. Considering this a romantic thing, and characteristic of the man, I related it on several occasions."[4] J. Geddes wrote William Darby, February 22, 1822, as follows: "In the year of 1804, I learnt for the first time, from the surveyor-general [Simeon De Witt] that Mr Gouverneur Morris, in a conversation between them in the preceding autumn, mentioned the scheme of a canal from lake Erie across the country to the Hudson river. The idea of saving so much lockage by not descending to lake Ontario made a very lively impression on my mind."[5]
With canal building going on in other portions of the country, it was inevitable that the suggestion made by Morris could not down. The opportunity offered here in central New York was so favorable, that a people with only half the ambition and ability of New Yorkers would have profited sooner or later by it. Having studied the tremendous tasks undertaken by the Marylanders and Pennsylvanians, it can be understood why the Erie Canal was under consideration at a comparatively early date; the Mohawk offered a gateway through the northern foothills of the Alleghenies, and beyond lay lakes and rivers in the direct route to Lake Erie. There could be no question of water supply at the summit level; the waterways to be crossed, however, might cause the engineers no little trouble.
"I have not been able to trace," Mr. Watson leaves record, "any measure, public or private, tending towards this great enterprize, till the 27th October, 1807, when an anonymous publication, under the signature of Hercules, appeared in the Genesee Messenger of Canandaigua, which is attributed to Jesse Hawley, Esq. now [1820] collector of the port of Rochester."[6] It is affirmed that these communications were not inspired by the prophetic words of Morris;[7] they were fourteen in number, and were contributed weekly from October, 1807, to March, 1808. Hawley had thought out his problem with great seriousness and detail, and had splendidly planned a canal from Buffalo to Utica, where improved navigation on the Mohawk was to be depended upon. The cost he estimated at five millions. It is not at all unlikely that Hawley's attention was the more quickly attracted to this subject because of the celebrated message of President Jefferson to Congress in this fall of 1807, just when Hercules was writing his articles.
It was probably the general discussion of this great theme, more than the result of any one influence, which led to the crystallization of the movement, when on February 4, 1808, Joshua Forman, a member of the New York legislature, from Onondaga County, offered the following bill:
"Whereas the President of the United States by his message to Congress, delivered at their meeting in October last, did recommend that the surplus money in the treasury, over and above such sums as could be applied to the extinguishment of the national debt, be appropriated to the great national objects of opening canals and making turnpike roads. And whereas the state of New York, holding the first commercial rank in the United States, possesses within herself the best route of communication between the Atlantic and western waters, by means of a canal, between the tide waters of the Hudson river and Lake Erie,—through which the wealth and trade of that large portion of the United States, bordering on the upper lakes, would for ever flow to our great commercial emporium. And whereas the legislatures of several of our sister states, have made great exertions to secure to their own states the trade of that wide extended country, west of the Alleganies, under natural advantages vastly inferior to those of this state. And whereas it is highly important that these advantages should as speedily as possible be improved, both to preserve and increase the commerce and national importance of this state:—Resolved, (if the honourable the senate concur herein) that a joint committee be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of exploring, and causing an accurate survey to be made of the most eligible and direct route for a canal to open a communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and Lake Erie; to the end that congress may be enabled to appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the accomplishment of that great national object." In the general appropriation bill now passed the sum of $600 was allotted to a survey of this proposed canal and the work was done by James Geddes, whose report, at a later day, became important.[8]
Mr. Forman's motion passed, but amounted to nothing. In 1810 Thomas Eddy, the treasurer of the old Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, called on General Platt, a member of the New York senate, and the two conversed seriously about the great plan which was slowly coming more and more to the front. Platt affirmed that he would offer a resolution in the legislature looking toward increasing public interest in the great dream of the farthest-seeing men of New York. Perhaps the two drafted this resolution; at least, the very next day Platt handed De Witt Clinton a draft of a resolution. Clinton liked it. Its author thereupon offered it in the senate and Clinton supported it and it passed, March 13, 1810. It began: "Whereas, the agricultural and commercial interests of the state, require that the inland navigation from the Hudson river to lake Ontario and lake Erie, be improved and completed on a scale commensurate to the great advantages derived from the accomplishment of that important object: And whereas, it is doubtful whether the resources of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company are adequate to such improvements:
"Therefore resolved, that if the honourable the assembly consent herein, that Gouverneur Morris, Stephen Van Rensselaer, De Witt Clinton, Simeon De Witt, William North, Thomas Eddy and Peter B. Porter, be and they are hereby appointed commissioners for exploring the whole route, examining the present condition of the said navigation, and considering what further improvements ought to be made therein; and that they be authorized to direct and procure such surveys as to them shall appear necessary and proper in relation to these objects; and that they report thereon to the legislature, at their next session, presenting a full view of the subjects referred to them, with their estimates and opinion thereon."[9] On April 5 following $3,000 was appropriated for the expenses of the surveys called for in the above resolution.[10]
Accordingly the commissioners named explored the country between the Hudson and Lake Erie through which the prospective waterway would run, in the summer of 1810 with Jesse Hawley's contributions of 1807–08 in their hands. At the next meeting of the legislature they presented an elaborate report. It would seem that the committee had passed over the route of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company from Schenectady to Lake Ontario; James Geddes, the experienced engineer who had given some little study to the region under survey, made a map and a few rough estimates. The report opens with the declaration that the idea of making small rivers navigable had long ago been exploded in Europe; this was a polite way of saying that the days of the Lock Navigation Company were fairly numbered. The report affirms that a canal parallel with the rivers improved by the Navigation Company (Mohawk, Wood Creek, and Oswego) is practicable as far as Oswego Falls (Rochester). The twelve remaining miles to Lake Ontario might well be covered by a railway.
However, the committee had another plan, that of building the canal straight west from the Oswego to Lake Erie, avoiding Lake Ontario's winds and waves entirely. Certain interesting commercial questions were here involved. Even with the advantages offered by the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, New York and Albany could not hold their own in competition with Montreal. Freight rates down the St. Lawrence were marvelously cheap; fifty cents a hundredweight, only, was charged by descending boatmen from Kingston to Montreal—one-half the early rate from Buffalo to New York on the Erie Canal when it was at last built. The rate of freight up the St. Lawrence was only one dollar per hundredweight. If any point east of Niagara Falls was made the terminus of New York's canal, it was feared that Montreal would profit by it more, perhaps, than the cities it was intended to build up and benefit.
Mr. Geddes favored the direct route to Lake Erie by way of the "Tanawanta" River. He advanced the following rough estimate of distances in the direct route:
| Miles | Descent (feet) | ||
Mouth of Tanawanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
10 | 5 | |
Genesee River (about) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
68 | 34 | |
Seneca Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
46 | 23 | |
Cayuga Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
6 | 3 | |
Rome (summit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
66 | 33 | |
Little Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
38 | 19 | |
Schoharie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
38 | 19 | |
Summit between Schenectady and Albany (about) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
24 | 12 | |
Hudson River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
14 | 7 | |
Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
310 | 155 | |
The actual descent would be 525 feet. Mr. Geddes's plan included aqueducts across the Genesee River twenty-six feet high and one hundred and fifty yards long, across the mouth of Seneca Lake eighty-three feet high, and across the mouth of Cayuga one hundred and thirty feet high. As a detailed survey had not been made, it was impossible to estimate accurately the expense.
Agitation of the great question was the only tangible result of this investigation. In 1811 Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton were added to the committee, and a report was made to the legislature, March, 1812. This report showed that the friends of the great waterway had resolved to exhaust all resources before relinquishing the work. They applied to Congress through Morris and De Witt Clinton for "Co-operation and aid in making a canal navigation between the great lakes and Hudson's river, which, in the opinion of the Legislature of New-York, will encourage agriculture, promote commerce and manufacture, ficilitate [sic] a free and general intercourse between different parts of the United States, tend to the aggrandizement and prosperity of the country, and consolidate and strengthen the Union." The legislatures of the various states were likewise asked to lend sympathy and aid—to co-operate and aid New York in opening the communication between the Great Lakes and the Hudson. " . . The general advantage to the whole nation," it was urged, "is of such preponderating influence, as to render the present object of principal, if not exclusive, concern to the national legislature." The ways of help suggested were pecuniary assistance in the form of loans or gifts, and a friendly voice in favor of the project in Congress. A letter to President Madison expressed the hope that in his annual message to Congress he would in every consistent way urge the plan of national assistance. Accordingly in Madison's message, dated December 23, 1812, he enclosed the act of the New York legislature and said: " . . The particular undertaking contemplated by the state of New-York . . will recall the attention of Congress to the signal advantages to be derived to the United States, from a general system of internal communication and conveyance. . . As some of those advantages have an intimate connexion with arrangements and exertions for the general security, it is a period calling for these that the merits of such a system will be seen in the strongest lights." Thomas Eddy wrote Simeon De Witt January 9, 1812 " . . accounts from Washington this days post say that the expectations of our committee respecting aid from Congress are very flattering—the project of a Canal from Erie to the Hudson has many friends West of the Allegany—We are full of the news that De Witt Clinton will be president and Munro Vice p——— —this is the united wish of all parties in this City except Madisonians."
A great, comprehensive plan of national aid to local improvements was proposed, by means of giving grants of land in Michigan to a large number of improvement schemes in various states. Article seven read: "And be it further enacted, That four million acres of land, part of the tracts above mentioned, shall vest in and belong to the said state of New-York, so soon as a canal shall be opened from lake Erie to Hudson's river, not less than sixty-three feet wide on the top, forty-five feet wide at the bottom, and five feet deep (and, if practicable, along an inclined plane, descending not more than six feet in a mile,) to Hudson's river, or a bason within four miles thereof; on condition, nevertheless, that no tax, toll, or impost, shall be levied or taken for the passage of boats not exceeding sixty feet long, eighteen feet wide or drawing more than three feet of water on the same canal, other than such as may be needful to pay the annual expenses of superintending and keeping the same in repair."[11]
The war which now came on drove all plans of internal improvement from men's minds until the struggle for honor and independence was won. The bill quoted was never passed by Congress; a law passed by the New York legislature in 1812, authorizing the canal commissioners to borrow five million dollars on the credit of the state, was repealed in 1814.[12] These had been hard years for New York.
In the autumn of 1816, Judge Platt, while holding court in New York City, was in consultation with Clinton and Eddy concerning the canal project, which had temporarily dropped from public attention. Though the outlook was gloomy and discouraging, these men determined to revive public interest in the project if it was in their power. An advertisement was placed in the papers calling for a public meeting at the City Hotel to consider asking the New York legislature to attack the great problem anew. A similar call was issued at Albany for a meeting to be held February 7, 1816, at the Tontine Coffee House, signed by ten friends of the movement.
William Bayard was chosen chairman of the New York meeting, and the speakers were Platt, Clinton, and Swartwout; Clinton, Swartwout, and Thomas Eddy were appointed a committee to prepare a memorial for the legislature. This document was drafted by De Witt Clinton and marks a brilliant crisis in the long, wearing struggle this brave coterie of men had made for their favorite project. New York was recovering from the devastation and prostration caused by the war. The awakening courage of a brave people was stirred by the appeal of Clinton's; it was so "comprehensive a view of the immense advantages that would be produced to the state by the completion of the canal, that copies sent throughout the state were eagerly signed by thousands, and carried full conviction to every mind. The project immediately became popular, and it was the means of rousing the legislature, and produced several successive laws in prosecuting this great work. A system of finance was drawn up by De Witt Clinton which with some trifling alterations, was adopted by the legislature and is now [1825] in successful operation."[13]
This memorial, in which the Erie Canal was born, and which throws much light on the whole problem of early transportation, is given in its entirety in the following chapter.
- ↑ Sparks, Life of Gouverneur Morris (Boston, 1832), vol. i, pp. 497–498.
- ↑ Id., p. 498.
- ↑ Id., pp. 498–499.
- ↑ Laws of the State of New-York relative to the Canals (Albany, 1825), pp. 38–39.
- ↑ Id., p. 42.
- ↑ History of the . . Western Canals in the State of New York, p. 67.
- ↑ M. S. Hawley, Origin of the Erie Canal, p. 20. Clinton gave Hawley great credit for his part in promoting the Erie Canal idea—p. 21.
"He [Hawley] was at Colonel Mynderse's office in 1805, attending to the shipment of some flour to market, by the circuitous and uncertain route then in use. Himself and Colonel Mynderse conversing upon the necessities for better facilities, Mr. Hawley said: 'Why not have a canal extend direct into our country, and benefit all—merchants, millers, and farmers.'" Hawley then pointed out on a map that Lake Erie could be made a head of water. "A change having occurred in Mr. Hawley's business, he spent the winter of 1806 and 1807 in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and not knowing when he would return to Ontario county, he sketched the first essay, and to preserve it from oblivion, as he said, he procured it to be published there, on the fourteenth day of January, 1807, in the newspaper called the Commonwealth."—Origin of the Erie Canal, pp. 23–24.
- ↑ Id., pp. 69–70.
- ↑ Public Documents relating to the New-York Canals (New York, 1821), pp. xlix–l.
- ↑ Laws of the State of New-York relative to the Canals, p. 47.
- ↑ Id., p. 67.
- ↑ Laws of New York, 1814.
- ↑ Public Documents relating to Canals, pp. li–lii.