Ohio's Grand Canal: A Brief History of the Ohio & Erie Canal

1. Planning and Construction

1  1  The Beginning The canals of Ohio, once the mainstay of the state’s transportation system, shunted Ohio products out of the state and necessities for the good life in. In just a little more than twenty-five years, these artificial waterways—and the men and women who lived and worked on or near them—transformed the state of Ohio from an isolated frontier, where farmers were unable to afford to ship their harvests to market, into a prosperous and influential agricultural and industrial power. As per the Greenville Treaty of 1795, the western boundary of the United States was drawn south from Lake Erie along the Cuyahoga and Tuscarawas Rivers before veering to the west. The Treaty of Fort Industry in 1805 pushed that boundary even farther west into Ohio. Now, floods of settlers rushed into the “new west,” which included western Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and beyond. The first thing these new settlers did upon arriving in Ohio was clear a tract of land, build a cabin, and plant crops. Then, a few short years later, they were confronted with the problem of how to get their produce to market. The roads of the day, particularly those through the mountains to the eastern markets, were impassable quagmires in the spring and axle-breaking obstacle courses during the rest of the year. The rivers were a little better if a spring freshet could be caught just right. A farmer would work and plan for months. He would then load his surplus product on a homemade flatboat, wait for the spring rains to PlanningandConstruction 2 ohio’s grand canal raise the water high enough to cover most of the snags and rocks, and float down the Tuscarawas, perhaps, to the Muskingum and Ohio and finally out onto the broad Mississippi to New Orleans. There he would sell his cargo, break up the boat and sell the lumber, and then make the long journey back home—usually on foot. The problem was that nearly everyone in the “West” went to New Orleans on the same freshets. They all tried to sell the same goods to the same buyers at the same time. Often a cargo would be left on the docks to rot for want of a buyer. And for those fortunate enough to sell at a good price, there was still the long, perilous journey back home through territory rife with robbers. Ohioans wanted a better transportation system—one that was reliable, available most of the year, and connected to eastern markets.1 Agitation for improved transportation in Ohio began in 1803, the year Ohio became a state. In that year a scheme was proposed to improve the channels of the Cuyahoga River, which flowed north into Lake Erie, and the Upper Muskingum (Tuscarawas River) and main Muskingum River, which flowed south to the Ohio River. The Cuyahoga and Tuscarawas Rivers were to be connected at their closest point by a seven-mile wagon road. The first state legislature authorized a private company to hold a lottery to raise the necessary $64,000 for the project. Unfortunately, there were not enough people in the state then with ready cash to raise such a stupendous sum. After a few years, with the work not even begun, the project was abandoned. In 1807 Thomas Worthington, the U.S. senator from Ohio, introduced a bill directing the secretary of the treasury, Albert Gallatin, to investigate and report back to Congress on a plan for developing a system of federally sponsored canals and highways to link the “West” with the East. On April 4, 1808, Gallatin presented his now-famous “Report on Roads, Canals, Harbors, and Rivers.” In it, he approved all the popular projects under consideration and suggested others that would have benefited nearly every state in the union. Gallatin believed that the whole scheme could be paid for in 10 years out of normal government revenue. Conditions were changing, however, even while the various states lined up to get their share of the money. The U.S. Embargo Act, which had closed the nation’s ports to foreign shipping in retaliation for having its ships stopped by foreign vessels at sea, was beginning to hurt U.S. Planning and construction 3 commerce. Congress didn’t believe it would be prudent to undertake large projects and expenditures at such a time. Gallatin’s recommendations were not followed. Political conditions soon escalated...