Benjamin Wright: Father of American Civil Engineering 0784415668, 9780784415665

Citation preview

Benjamin Wright

Benjamin Wright

Other Titles of Interest

Hans Albert Einstein: His Life as a Pioneering Engineer, by Robert Ettema and Cornelia F. Mutel. (ASCE Press, 2014). A chronological walk through Hans Albert’s life and his contributions to our understanding of river behavior. (ISBN 978-0-7844-1330-2) Washington Roebling’s Father: A Memoir of John A. Roebling, edited by Donald Sayenga. (ASCE Press, 2009). Portrays the life and achievements of a legendary engineer through the eyes of his equally accomplished son, with annotations for hundreds of people, places, events, and technologies. (ISBN 978-0-7844-0948-0) Karl Terzaghi: The Engineer as Artist, by Richard E. Goodman. (ASCE Press, 1999). Biographical account of the friendships, conflicts, and enormous successes of the man who laid the groundwork for soil mechanics. (ISBN 978-0-7844-0364-8) America Transformed: Engineering and Technology in the Nineteenth Century, by Dean Herrin. (ASCE Press, 2003). Displays a visual sampling of engineering and technology from the 1800s that demonstrates the scope and variety of the US industrial transformation. (ISBN 978-0-7844-0529-1) Engineering Legends: Great American Civil Engineers, by Richard G. Weingardt. (ASCE Press, 2005). Chronicles the personal lives and professional accomplishments of 32 great US civil engineers from the 1700s to the present. (ISBN 978-0-7844-0808-8)

Benjamin Wright

Benjamin Wright Father of American Civil Engineering

STEVEN M. PENNINGTON, P.E., P.L.S.

Benjamin Wright

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pennington, Steven, author. Title: Benjamin Wright: Father of American Civil Engineering / Steven M. Pennington. Description: Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineering, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Pennington chronicles Wright’s life and varied career from country surveyor to chief engineer of the Erie Canal to his early work on America’s railroads”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020026602 | ISBN 9780784415665 (paperback) | ISBN 9780784483220 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9780784483244 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Wright, Benjamin, 1770–1842. | Civil engineers–United States– Biography. Classification: LCC TA140.W76 P46 2020 | DDC 624.092 [B]–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026602 Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia 20191-4382 www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in US Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an email to [email protected] or by locating a title in the ASCE Library (https://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415665 Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-1566-5 (print) ISBN 978-0-7844-8322-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-0-7844-8324-4 (ePub) Manufactured in the United States of America. 26 25 24 23 22 21 20

1 2 3 4 5

Benjamin Wright

Dedication Neal FitzSimons 1928 – 2000

Neal FitzSimons (at Benjamin Wright’s dedication ceremony, October 1970) Source: The L. Neal FitzSimons Collection, in possession of the author.

Neal was a devoted advocate for the American Society of Civil Engineers and a tireless proponent for the history of the profession. His was a prolific writer of both technical papers and history articles, as well as the recipient of numerous awards, and I considered him a mentor, close business associate, and friend. He always felt a biography of Benjamin Wright was an important undertaking for both ASCE and the profession in general. My desire is for this work to serve, in some small way, as a tribute to his memory.

Benjamin Wright

This page intentionally left blank

Benjamin Wright

Contents

LIST

OF

MAPS

LIST

OF

PHOTOGRAPHS

ix AND ILLUSTRATIONS

xi

PREFACE

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xvii

1

Prologue

2

A Binding Covenant

11

3

Ten Square Chains to an Acre

27

4

The Honor and Fame of Many

43

5

The Era of the Horse Ocean

71

6

Conduct and Confrontation

95

7

Mr. Knickerbocker’s Gotham

109

8

The Machinery of Power

127

9

That Railroad Mania

143

10

Darkness Fell Slowly

163

vii

Benjamin Wright

1

viii

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

11

A Highly Respectable Meeting

185

12

A Social Conscience

199

APPENDIX A RESUME

213

APPENDIX B CHILDREN

217

APPENDIX C RESOLUTION

221

APPENDIX D EXTRACT OF ENGINEERS

FROM

1869 LIST 223

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

INDEX

239

ABOUT

THE

AUTHOR

Benjamin Wright

253

List of Maps

Surveying activity within New York state

30

Area of WILNC operations and Wood Creek Navigation activity

46

The route of the Erie Canal

54

Canal activity in Connecticut and Rhode Island 73 Canal activity in the Mid-Atlantic Region

76

The route of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal

84

The route of the Delaware and Hudson Company (canal and railroad)

98

The route of the Croton Aqueduct

121

Various route configurations for the Welland Canal

149

The route of the New York and Erie Railroad

152

General locations of railway work on the Island of Cuba

156

The corridor of the James River and Kanawha Canal

175

ix

Benjamin Wright

This page intentionally left blank

Benjamin Wright

List of Photographs and Illustrations

Neal FitzSimons (Wright dedication ceremony–1970)

v

Benjamin Wright (circa. completion of the Erie Canal)

3

Plat of a Portion of the Town of Mexico (Vera Cruz) by Benjamin Wright

33

George Huntington

38

DeWitt Clinton

52

Profile of the Erie Canal

54

Genesee River Aqueduct at Rochester

58

Staircase Locks to traverse the Niagara Escarpment at Lockport

59

Canvass White

61

John Jervis (younger in life)

62

Horatio Allen

101

John Jervis (later in life)

119

Stephen van Rensselaer

134

Amos Eaton

135

David Hosack

137

xi

Benjamin Wright

xii

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Eleazar Lord

147

Charles Ellet Jr.

151

Claudius Crozet

166

Joseph Carrington Cabell

169

John Hartwell Cocke

170

James K. Finch

191

Entry gate, New York Marble Cemetery

192

View of the lawn, New York Marble Cemetery

193

Benjamin Wright (later in life)

209

Extract of Press Release – Wright Declaration Resolution

222

Extract from 1869 Invitation List

224

Benjamin Wright

Preface

The career of Benjamin Wright bridged a period in American history spanning from the dawn of the new republic into the era of Manifest Destiny. Wright’s career encompassed the better part of fifty years, from 1790 to 1840. During that time, he was often involved in more than one project at a time, possibly even different technologies, such as canal and railroad. Thus, in an effort to offer a manageable focus, his career is presented in defined areas of his life and work while still attempting to keep some sense of chronological order. A summary of his known career and a form of resume are placed in the appendices. Although there are no mathematical processes or analyses presented in the text, there are a good deal of measurement units and dimensions discussed. The use of metric equivalents is not shown because it would detract from the readability of the material. However, a tabulation of colonial measurements and units with their metric equivalents is provided here.

Units of length 1 chain = 66 feet = 20.1 meters 10 chains = 660 feet = 1 furlong = 1/8 mile = 201.2 meters 80 chains = 5280 feet = 1 mile = 1.61 kilometers

xiii

Benjamin Wright

xiv

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Units of area 10 square chains = 43,560 square feet = 1 acre = 4044.1 square meters

Units of volume In masonry work, a quantity of stone was measured in perches. It was a volume of stone with a length of one perch (16.5 feet), eighteen inches high, and 12 inches thick.

1 perch of stone = 24.75 cubic feet = 0.92 cubic yard = 0.7 cubic meters Earthwork was undertaken in terms of the cubic foot and cubic yard. The above relationships for a perch of stone provide a correlation for these units. Direct quotes are often presented in the text. They are shown as they were written with no corrections for grammar, punctuation, or word choice. In Wright’s day, a good deal of liberty was taken in written correspondence and at times the material seems disjointed. As a case in point, there are many occasions in which paragraphs and sentences seem to go on longer than they should, only broken up with a short dash. Also, the use of the shortcut “M. Wright” serves as a substitute for “Mister Wright.” The only editing done was to truncate the quote enough for brevity and still convey the intended thought. There are individuals mentioned in the text, a good number of them, in fact. In each case there is brief biographical information about the person, either in the text proper or in the notes following. In all cases, their birth and death dates are included in the notes. Regarding the accepted presentation of the name “Van” in those names with Dutch lineage, the following example explains. For the name Martin van Buren, when his name is written in full the “v” in “van” is in lower case. When his last name only is written the “V” in “Van” is capitalized. The same would be true with Stephen van Rensselaer as another example. To avoid confusion within the text, a brief mention should be made regarding the transition of history committee activities within the organizational structure of ASCE. In 1964, the society established the Committee on History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering (CHHACE). The committee maintained this name throughout the period of Benjamin Wright’s consideration and eventual dedication. Since that time, the committee name has changed. About 2013 the committee was renamed with the title, the ASCE History and Heritage Committee with the acronym HHC. However, the use of the acronym CHHACE is used here, as it was the accepted committee name during period of Wright’s resolution. One thought in closing: With any study of historical figures, there is always additional research that can be undertaken to gain further knowledge of their lives and the period within which they worked. This study of Benjamin

Benjamin Wright

PREFACE

xv

Wright is no exception, and as a biography, it should not be considered the last word on his life and work. Like the knowledge base of civil engineering itself, there will always be further study— in professional practice, academically, and historically. To the benefit of all, this continued study helps frame our understanding of who we are as engineers and provides a basis on which to understand what we have become as a profession.

Benjamin Wright

This page intentionally left blank

Benjamin Wright

Acknowledgments

There is an African proverb that says it takes a village to raise a child and the same message is no different here. There were many people who took the time to provide a wide assortment of assistance, support, and encouragement along the way. First, I want to extend a warm thank you to my wife, Joan, and our family for their heartfelt support during this process. Without the gentle nudge from family the path would have been much rockier than it was. Joan (Penworx Studios) deserves an additional word of thanks for the nicely rendered map illustrations. Her research and preparation of the map images forms an important and necessary addition to the book. Several of my fellow civil engineers were a constant source of encouragement throughout this journey. Once I got into the Wright project, Gary Burch, retired division administrator with the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, always put things in simple perspective for me when he would repeatedly tell me to “keep writing.” I have had the honor of sharing the podium on more than one occasion with Dr. Jerry Rogers, former professor at the University of Houston, and current chair of ASCE’s History and Heritage Committee (HHC). He, along with Dr. Frank Griggs, former vice president and dean at Merrimack College, and a prolific author of papers relating to the history of the profession, were both ardent

xvii

Benjamin Wright

xviii

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

supporters and a source of research as this project unfolded. Don Falken, senior program manager with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Paul Swanson, former principal with Facility Engineering Associates; Jim Hyslip with Hyground, a division of Loram; the late Jay Padgett, former president of Geo Services Corporation; and Doug Christie, associate with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, were all supportive in differing ways as the journey evolved. To all I extend a word of thanks for their kindness. The staff at ASCE Press has been helpful throughout it all. Donna Dickert, senior acquisitions editor, and her predecessor, Betsy Kulamer; Michie Gluck, production manager; and Kevin Higgins, marketing manager, all possess the gift of patience when coping with the demands of producing the ever-expanding library of publications at ASCE. To all four, I want to offer my thanks for their assistance in guiding me through the process. I also want to offer my gratitude to three individuals who offered their time to perform peer review of the draft manuscript. As is the procedure at ASCE Press, their identities go unnamed, but their comments and suggestions were more than helpful. A word of gratitude is also extended to a couple of individuals who, for reasons they may not realize, instilled in me how important the written word can be, and for that, thanks are extended to Harry Bagdasian and Ernie Joselovitz. Along the way, there were several individuals at libraries and organizations who aided in obtaining documents and photographs. They include Graham Dozier at the Virginia Historical Society; Dana Puga and Meghan Townes at the Library of Virginia; Karen Gray, volunteer librarian with the National Park Service; Jenifer Monger in the Archives Division of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Ashley Maready at the Erie Canal Museum; and Lori Chien at the Jervis Library in Rome, New York. Their time and assistance are much appreciated. I have been grateful for the opportunity to interact with family descendants of Benjamin Wright. John Hughes in California and John Twist in Michigan, both direct descendants of George Smith Wright, Benjamin Wright’s youngest son, were kind enough to offer source material and support throughout the preparation of the text. Anne Brown and her brother, Francis Wright, both in Maryland, are direct descendants of James, Benjamin Wright’s third son. Francis was kind enough to offer permission to use a copy of Benjamin Wright’s portrait, which was taken about the time of completion of the Erie Canal. Anne and her husband, Stovy, welcomed me into their home on several occasions, where Anne shared material about the family. Anne also serves as trustee emeritus of New York Marble Cemetery, and her shared stories about his life and place of burial has been quite helpful. To all, I wish kind regards. My colleagues, Pierre Gouvin, President and Kenny Campbell, business development director, both of Geo Instruments, along with Jim Hussin,

Benjamin Wright

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xix

director of corporate marketing, and Tanner Blackburn, vice president of engineering, both of Keller North America, were generous in allowing me the freedom to complete the manuscript. Their kindness is much appreciated. The same thought is also extended to several advocates for the study of engineering history. Robert Vogel, former director of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Division at the Smithsonian, was a constant source of insight into the study of the history of technology. Jerry and Lenora Sutphin, both formerly with the Huntington District of the Army Corps of Engineers, offered shared knowledge about river history and navigation. The late Neal FitzSimons gave me my first lessons in the heritage we all share through his “Benchmarks” columns in Civil Engineering Magazine. Neal’s son, Gray FitzSimons, with whom I worked closely in earlier years, is now a principal with GGF Historical Consultants, a firm active in the preservation of engineering technology. He, along with Neal’s wife, Rebecca, were kind enough to offer me much of the material in the collections of both Neal and James Finch. During this journey I enjoyed good conversation with other authors from which in return I received guidance and reassurance. Greg Lalire, senior editor with HistoryNet; Dan Larkin, former professor of history at the State University College, Oneonta, New York; Richard Goodman, former professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at University of California at Berkeley; the late Emory Kemp, former director of the Civil Engineering Department at West Virginia University; and the late Richard Weingardt, former principal with Richard Weingardt Consultants, structural engineers, all went out of their way to offer encouragement in the undertaking. To all, I express my gratitude. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Henry Petroski, the Aleksandar Vesic Professor of Civil Engineering and professor of history at Duke University. On more than one occasion it was a pleasure to enjoy an evening of good conversation over dinner with him and his wife, Catherine. With both being authors of historical biography, their encouragement, along with guidance and shared experiences, is much appreciated. To both, I offer a warm thank you. In closing, there are a couple of people I wish to mention. First, I want to thank Bernie Dennis, retired program manager of the Natural Hazards Group at the US Department of State. Bernie has spent a good portion of his career as an activist in the preservation of engineering history, and I owe him a warm thank you for his continual guidance and his persistence in keeping the proverbial fire lit under me to complete the work. I want to also extend many thanks to Dr. Robert Kapsch, former head of the Historic American Engineering Record and senior historian with the National Park Service. I have enjoyed Bob’s friendship over the years, and it is with him this journey began. While the two of us were having lunch several years ago, he suggested I consider writing this book. Looking back on the conversation,

Benjamin Wright

xx

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

I have often wondered if it was a suggestion or a directive. During this process, if Bernie Dennis kept the fire lit under me, it was Bob who controlled the temperature. To both and to all, I owe deep gratitude for everything they have done.

Benjamin Wright

1 Prologue

I am most pleased to be here today in Wethersfield to speak for the 64,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to help honor this remarkable civil engineer, Benjamin Wright, whose accomplishments were of prime importance to the development of this nation.1 Thomas M. Niles, President The American Society of Civil Engineers Wethersfield, Connecticut October 17, 1970 The year 1970 put a unique imprint on the timeline of history. The continuing war in Vietnam, the breakup of the Beatles, and the safe return of Apollo 13, to mention just a few, were all events that contended for people’s emotions that year. In Connecticut that October, amid all the headlines and current events, members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) came together to honor one of their own. With little fanfare, the town of Wethersfield became the backdrop as Benjamin Wright was designated the “Father of American Civil Engineering” on what was the bicentennial of his birth. On that October day in 1970, President Niles,2 on behalf of the society, presented a plaque of dedication.

1

Benjamin Wright

2

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Also sharing the podium was William Wisely, ASCE executive director, who offered some additional remarks: I am indeed pleased to be here in Wethersfield today at this most noteworthy occasion – the historic observance of the Bicentennial of the birth of Benjamin Wright, “Father of American Civil Engineering.” It is particularly gratifying to honor this civil engineer who played such an important role in the growth of our country.3

However, these remarks were not the first by the society in recognizing Wright’s contributions to civil engineering. Some eighty-eight years earlier, in 1882, Ashbel Welch,4 serving as ASCE’s twelfth president, spoke before the members at a meeting in Washington: The skill and good judgment, which was shown by this father of American engineering, the few errors into which he and his still more inexperienced assistants fell, the great effects produced by them with the means at their command, and the adaptation of their works to the circumstances of the time, are absolutely wonderful.5

Welch’s remarks provide further credence to the society’s action in 1970 and, on review of Wright’s career, the accolade is a fitting honor and one done so for several reasons. The formal resolution by the Board of Direction established eight justifications, but from them three are prominent.6 First, he was the chief engineer on America’s first great public works project, the Erie Canal, a project that helped America transition from colonialism, into the age of Manifest Destiny, and beyond into the Industrial Revolution. Second, many civil engineers who would later have notable careers gained valuable experience with his mentorship. Prior to 1900, any enumeration of engineers would contain the names of many who either worked with, worked for, or were exposed to Wright’s professionalism to one degree or another. Third, he served on an organizational committee during early efforts to create a professional civil engineering society, some years before the formal creation of ASCE. His life and work had a direct effect on the profession, through his accomplishments, his mentoring of younger associates, his professional integrity, and the quality of his character in general. In many respects, this set of qualities, and all that evolved from them, encapsulate the birth of American civil engineering. Wright was born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, on October 10, 1770. America had reached the brink of revolution in Boston seven months earlier, as British soldiers fired on angry citizens. The Revolutionary War was a conflict in which his father, Ebenezer, and his uncle, Joseph Allyn Wright, both fought, serving with units of the Connecticut infantry. When he was ten years

Benjamin Wright

PROLOGUE

3

Figure 1: Portrait of Benjamin Wright (circa. completion of the Erie Canal). Source: Francis Wright, used with permission.

old, Benjamin’s hometown of Wethersfield was the site of the strategy conference between Colonial commander Washington and French commander Rochambeau.7 It was a meeting that culminated in the alliance of the two armies and helped bring the war to a successful conclusion. The two brothers were among those fortunate to return home after the war, whereby several years later, Ebenezer moved his family into upstate New York. However, eighteen-year-old Benjamin remained in Connecticut to live with his uncle, Joseph, and pursue an education in mathematics and surveying, such that around 1790, Benjamin, at age twenty, rejoined his family and began his surveying practice. During the postwar years, large parcels of land were being transacted in what was considered the frontier regions of New York. These parcels were used as grants to soldiers or were sold to speculators, and young Wright’s services were in demand throughout the northern part of the state. As such, he became involved in different activities: surveying and subdividing large parcels, laying out and supervising construction of interconnecting roads, and becoming

Benjamin Wright

4

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

acquainted with local court procedures. With maturity and his accumulated knowledge of land transfer, associated property laws, and the legal system, he served several terms as a local judge and state assemblyman, all activities that brought him into contact with New York politics. With an established surveying career, twenty-eight-year-old Benjamin journeyed back to Connecticut in September 1798 to marry Philomela Waterman, the daughter of a Congregational minister. Following the ceremony conducted by her father, the newlywed couple began life together in New York, where over the coming years they would have nine children: seven boys and two girls. Three of the boys would, at one time or another, work alongside their father as his assistants on various projects. Benjamin Wright’s transition from country surveyor to civil engineer would come at a time when a couple of new phrases were entering American conversation, internal improvement and regional connectivity. Improvements in transportation brought improvements in the flow of commerce and New York became one of the first states to seize the opportunity. With his skills as a surveyor and knowledge of the land, Wright found himself assisting in surveys for navigation improvements on various streams and rivers in the state. All these led to a turning point when his career made the transition from surveying to engineering with his selection, in 1817, as one of three divisional engineers for construction of the Erie Canal. With the successful completion of his middle division, he later moved up to serve as chief engineer for the entire work, bringing the canal’s length from Albany to Buffalo to completion in 1825. The 363-mile canal was a project completed with grand ceremony. It was the dawn of the Canal Era in America and throughout the country, several projects were either underway or in the planning stages, and they seemed to be just about everywhere. State legislators as far west as Illinois were even looking at canal technology to link Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River. Collectively, they were all efforts for improving transportation with the hope of reaping the economic benefits that were expected to follow. In and among all the requests for his services and his work commitments, Wright made the decision in 1825, now at age fifty-five, to move his family from upstate into the heart of New York City. The demand for his skills brought him engagements with proposed developments throughout New England as well in other regions. However, with all the enthusiasm, canal proponents were slow to grasp the impact of something that happened in England the same year in which Wright moved his family—the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.8 It would soon be his engagement with the Delaware and Hudson Canal where Wright got his first exposure to the newly emerging technology; although not under his tenure, it would be America’s first attempt to implement a railway locomotive. With time, he embraced the potential of railway engineering, but it was a technology that he was at first reluctant to endorse.

Benjamin Wright

PROLOGUE

5

With successful completion of the Erie Canal, New York City evolved into one of America’s formidable centers for commerce, transportation, and finance, surpassing Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston. As with other cities, New York City experienced increased growth and grappled with developing a suitable source of fresh water that would be both plentiful and healthy. At various times, Wright was retained to conduct surveys and perform water supply studies in the effort to find a source that best met the city’s needs. The city would choose to utilize the watershed of the Croton River as the primary source. It would be one of Wright’s former assistants, John Jervis, who would serve as chief engineer for construction of the Croton Aqueduct, a project completed just a few months after the former’s passing. Wright’s career took him in varied directions with each project that he undertook. The Erie Canal was a project to improve regional transportation with the hope of economic benefit through better flow of commerce. Wright embraced a good deal of the responsibility for the successful completion of the Erie Canal and in that role, he saw firsthand the benefits that followed. He was convinced that linking the eastern and western regions through a system of internal improvements was vital. To that end, Wright was outspoken about the importance of completing another of his projects—the James River and Kanawha Canal—in Virginia. Wright understood the mechanics and connectivity of how politics and economics manifested themselves as the power base of social order. He realized how important it was to get southern commodities—primarily sugar, cotton, and tobacco—to northeastern markets, and even into Europe. Virginia made strides to improve transportation, but the state’s own regional geopolitical climate was cause for concern. “I fear,” he wrote to a friend, “we are destined to a separation of the Union and no one can tell the evils that are to follow.” Early in his career, there was a need, as Washington pointed out, for internal improvements to link East and West. However, as his career progressed with time, the shifting cultural norms created a change and any idea of regional connectivity for East and West was evolving into a greater need for internal improvements to link North and South.9 ******************** A generation earlier, the British engineer Sir John Smeaton,10 notable for, among other things, the Eddystone Lighthouse,11 became the first practitioner to refer to himself as a civil engineer. It was a moniker intended to distinguish his work from that of military engineers, and Wright, along with other practitioners in America, did the same. The necessity for an organization of practicing engineers in America to stimulate technical, business, ethical, and professional attitudes brought a group together to create such an idea in 1838. From this initial meeting in Augusta, Georgia, an outcome was a call for an organizational meeting scheduled for Baltimore in 1839.

Benjamin Wright

6

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Wright was invited to join his peers in Baltimore where organizational efforts were put in motion and, although advancing in age, he journeyed nonetheless and offered to participate on a committee to draft an organizational constitution. This first organizational attempt proved difficult, and although the idea would not become a reality until after his death, he thought enough of his chosen profession to offer his time to participate. When looking retrospectively, the creation of ASCE, and all the organization has become, ranks high on any list of Wright’s legacies. Another vestige of Wright’s influence on the profession was his interaction with younger engineers. With each project, a group of assistant and resident engineers was require, and exposure to his mentoring, his shared experience, and his professional conduct were attributes carried through their careers. Many of his collaborative efforts with other engineers at a parallel level also created similar experiences. Simon Bernard,12 an older engineer who served with Wright on the Board of Engineers for the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal remarked in 1828, “ : : : Wright is an accomplished engineer and a great man.”13 In addition to the span of his professional career, while mentoring younger engineers and working alongside engineer associates, he compiled a long list of accomplishments. Work that he stood behind in the face of both acclaim and criticism received many compliments but just as many disparagements. The latter were predominately contradictory opinions regarding costs, feasibilities, designs, and plans for projects. Politics played a role in just about every project he undertook, and with many of his engagements the press often took an interest to which he offered a rather philosophical comment in 1839, I shall expect newspaper attacks and misrepresentations of acts and motives, these I shall submit to as well as I can, believing that in my time of life and with a character as [an] engineer well known I shall not suffer much and certainly not long in this life.14

Wright was often engaged in projects considered high profile for the day and his declaration as the father of the profession is for reasons that transcend just a tabulation of his accomplishments. His letters to John Jervis, a younger protégé, show communication as an engineer, mentor, and leader communicating on technical matters of surveying, elements of design, and construction. Writing to his friend, John Cocke, a Virginia plantation owner, a side of Wright’s character is revealed embracing sensitivity and compassion. Throughout his life and work, Wright’s personal connections were politically, socially, and technically far-reaching. Politically, he was a Federalist, and he held concern about the economic health of the young nation. He opposed the policies of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, disapproving

Benjamin Wright

PROLOGUE

7

of the direction they were steering the country. Federal involvement in public works projects was a new phenomenon and political leaders such as Jackson and Van Buren tended to interpret the Constitution as they saw fit. When they considered a decision for possible federal participation, the usual outcome tended to be negative. In the eyes of Wright, it affected his source of livelihood, but their policies were detrimental to the nation. Writing in 1834, he did not hold back with his feelings about Jackson: : : : they [merchants] have been seriously injured by the course pursued by General Jackson and the corruption and bribery by office and money which is now apparent to any man who will not shut his eyes — makes me tremble for the Republic.15

At a personal level, he possessed a strong sense of faith. As a devout Presbyterian, he often voiced his feelings about the morality and wellbeing of mankind. America was amid the religious fervor resulting from the Second Great Awakening. Coupled with his deep faith and sensitivity to social issues, he believed that God controlled certain elements of human destiny; disease and death are but two. However, people alone controlled much of their own destiny; politics and economics are examples, but Wright reserved his strongest convictions for two others—things for which humanity had no one else to blame—the consumption of alcohol and the institution of slavery. During Wright’s time the country was amidst the cultural evolution of Manifest Destiny, coupled with the idea that America no longer needed the guiding hand of Europe for help. For the first time the young nation was standing independent on its own terms and beginning to command respect from the rest of the world. However, with all that posturing there was still a void. America should also no longer look to Europe for trained engineers, yet the question remained, Where would they come from, a question to which he remarked : : : The call for them (engineers) in all parts of the Union is great and they are not with us. We have this only course left, to make them from our own people. There is no difficulty in doing it. Only take a man of good sound mechanical mind and good common sense and you have the stuff that with a little experience will make a first rate engineer.16

The civil engineering profession in America did evolve and institutions of higher learning developed to help fill the void so that Wright’s “first rate engineers” could go a step further and gain knowledge of basic principles of mathematics and science. “The engineer has been, and is, a maker of history”,17 wrote the late James Finch, former Renwick Professor of Engineering at Columbia University.18 Time is an enemy to just about everything, and there is very little that can become timeless. The accomplishments

Benjamin Wright

8

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

of engineers (bridges, buildings, and the rest of the infrastructure of civilization), along with the arts and literature, can offer perhaps something approaching timelessness. Thus, engineering works and those responsible provide inspiration, becoming constants in the dynamic world environment. Looking through the archives of ASCE presents another perspective on Finch’s comment. The society originally formed in 1852 but sat dormant through the years of the Civil War. To renew the organization, a call went out in 1869 to known practicing civil engineers to join the society. Tucked away in a cardboard storage box in the archives is a document of several pages—the original 1869 list of invitees to join the society. The list contains 229 names, including the twelve members present at the original November 1852 meeting in the Croton Aqueduct office. This is the first known compilation of civil engineers in America and done so for recordation of potential members in the society. The list is handwritten and the pen and ink calligraphy is well executed with an informal elegance. Among those listed are many recognizable today, but others have faded from memory. The list, from one perspective, provides purpose for all the society represents, for the names are more than ink on a page; they serve as a constant. After all, the underlying sentiment of ASCE, when the layers are removed, is about people, and from the shared knowledge and experiences of those 229 individuals stems the heritage for all who have followed.19 For some engineers, the name Benjamin Wright is not that familiar, and for varied reasons. The means and methods of engineering work in his time and much of the culture that surrounded him have all changed. Much of his career centered on an all but forgotten transportation technology, the canal. Nonetheless, his was an impressive career and the fact he was from an earlier era does not detract from his position within the profession. He was a skilled practitioner with knowledge gained from both education and experience. In his Story of Engineering, Finch says of Wright: : : : a remarkable group of frontier surveyors and assistants planned and completed the Erie and graduated, it is said as full-fledged engineers. In fact, it has been called the first American engineering school : : : . When Governor Clinton : : : got the work underway, a frontier lawyer, judge and surveyor, Benjamin Wright was appointed chief engineer of the Erie : : : 20

Wright is deserving of his place within the ranks of civil engineering in America not for any one great achievement but for his more human contributions. Civil engineering history is not so much about the accomplishment itself but rather the knowledge gained, and experiences learned in the achievement. To be an engineer is to create history, and with that journey come the lessons learned.

Benjamin Wright

PROLOGUE

9

Endnotes 1 2

Niles, 1970. Thomas McMaster Niles became president of ASCE in 1970, the 101st president. For a good part of his career he served as a partner in the environmental engineering firm, Greeley and Hansen. 3 Wisely, 1970. 4 Ashbel Welch (1809–1882) became president of ASCE in 1882. He worked on various canal projects including the Delaware and Raritan and renovations to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in the 1850s. He served as vice president of the Camden and Amboy Railroad in 1862 and devised the block signalization system that came into standard practice for railway train movement. 5 Welch, 1882. 6 ASCE, 1968. 7 Rochambeau (1725–1807) was commander of the French Army in America during the Revolution. His complete name was Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochhambeau. In his early years, he was being groomed for the church, but with the outbreak of the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), he took a cavalry commission. He spent the remainder of his career in the military where, in 1780, he took command of the French expeditionary force sent to America. The Wethersfield Conference with Washington took place in May 1781. 8 The Stockton and Darlington Railway made its first run on September 27, 1825, bringing coal from mines southwest of Durham, north of Yorkshire. The primary route was between the coal fields and Darlington and on to Stockton on the River Tees. The route was designed by George Stephenson, with assistance from his son, Robert, and the locomotives were from their locomotive works in Newcastle. 9 Ibid. 10 John Smeaton (1724–1792) was one of Britain’s early prominent engineers. He is most noted for his design and construction of the Eddystone Lighthouse on the rocks in the English Channel just off Plymouth, completed in 1759. Along with his designs for numerous bridges and several river and canal projects, he is considered the first to study the science of engineering. He was instrumental in the formation of the first engineering society, The Society of Civil Engineers, in 1771. 11 Eddystone Lighthouse in the English Channel south of Plymouth, is a series of lights built over the years. The original lights were destroyed by fire and the elements until Smeaton’s tower. Begun in 1756, it was completed in 1759 and stood fifty-nine feet tall and twenty-six feet at the base. The outer walls were dovetailed granite blocks with the inner structure made of limestone and Portland cement. It stood until 1877, when the rock foundations began to erode, and the tower was dismantled.

Benjamin Wright

10

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

12 Simon Bernard (1779–1839), born in France. He served with Wright on the board of engineers for the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and consulted on the early planning for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. He worked on numerous coastal and defensive fortifications for the Corps of Engineers and is responsible for the design and construction of Fort Monroe at Hampton Roads in Virginia. 13 This quote by Bernard is taken from a newspaper article in The Savannah Georgian, May 30, 1828. 14 Wright to Cocke, April 8, 1839. 15 Wright to Cocke, November 4, 1834. 16 Ibid, March 27, 1825. 17 Finch, 1960, p. xxvii. 18 James Kip Finch (1883–1967) graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Civil Engineering in 1906. He returned to the school in 1910 as an instructor, eventually becoming Renwick Professor and head of the Department in 1932. In 1946, he became dean of the Department of Civil Engineering and remained in that post until 1950, when he retired but retained the Renwick Professorship. During his career, he was a frequent speaker on the subject and published numerous articles on all aspects of engineering history. In 1967, he became the first recipient of ASCE’s Civil Engineering History and Heritage Award. 19 ASCE, 1869. The alphabetized hand-written list of names is included within this document. 20 Finch, 1960, p. 264.

Benjamin Wright

2 A Binding Covenant

Whereas in the Providence of God, we whose names are underwritten are becoming inhabitants together on the Mohawk River : : : and being ourselves Christian professors : : : do for the purpose of preparing the way for the effecting the same, mutually agree to have our names enrolled : : : both of persons in full communion and those that are in covenant : : : 1 Willett and Mary Ranney Thomas and Martha Wright Ebenezer and Grace Wright Joshua and Zeruiah Willes Daniel W. Knight Original Church Covenant Rome, New York 1793 Benjamin Wright’s ancestry traced along the line of his paternal grandmother has its roots in Elizabethan England. While Queen Elizabeth I reigned, between 1558 and 1603, a culture of religious tolerance allowed people from all levels of society to come together and worship as they pleased. However, when King James I followed Elizabeth as the royal monarch, religious freedom was no longer an accepted practice and all religious worship had to conform to the tenets of the Church of England.

11

Benjamin Wright

12

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Thus, early in the seventeenth century, groups unwilling to conform began to meet in secret and, in effect, separated themselves from the church. Fear of religious intolerance grew to a point where they sought a solution, culminating with a voyage to America in September 1620. Even though they did not call themselves such, these people, making the voyage for reasons of religious persecution, have historically been called the Pilgrims. Transporting the Pilgrims to the New World was a business venture for the ship and crew as passengers onboard were considered nothing more than cargo. In many respects, that is the way they were treated. Pilgrim passengers originally boarded another ship, the Speedwell in the Netherlands and, before the transatlantic voyage, it would dock again in Southampton prior to final departure. The Mayflower departed London and met the Speedwell in Southampton with the intent that the two would sail to America. After setting off, the Speedwell developed problems and the two put in at Plymouth with the decision that the Mayflower would sail alone. Some Mayflower passengers left the ship in Plymouth and additional Speedwell passengers were taken onboard to fill out the complement of the ship. The people remaining on board the Mayflower were making the trip with different motivations from those of the Pilgrims and were referred to as “strangers” by the Pilgrim passengers. One such group among the “strangers” was the Stephen Hopkins family. Hopkins, from Hampshire, was a merchant, and may have had skills as a tanner. He was travelling with his children and his pregnant wife, Elizabeth, who, along with two other women onboard the Mayflower, was expecting a child. However, Elizabeth would be the lone expectant mother to give birth at sea. Along with the family were two servants, Edward Leister and Edward Doty. Each man was single and in his early twenties. Evidence suggests that Doty’s home was in Lincolnshire, but nothing is known of Leister’s origins.2 The voyage of the Mayflower was by no means smooth sailing. Conditions on board were horrid. Time spent on the open upper deck was restricted and the situation below was unhealthy with inadequate sanitation and a poor diet of questionable quality. Despite these conditions, the ship made landfall in November and the passengers set about making shelter in preparation for winter, to be followed, in due course, with the establishment of a leadership hierarchy along with a system of laws and rules. Edward Doty would be among those fortunate to survive that first winter. He was looked upon as a strong worker but had a quick temper and would stand up to any man who threatened or slighted him. Late in the year following the landing, he was among several making exploratory voyages to the outer reaches of Cape Cod, and earlier, before the first landing, had put his name to the Mayflower Compact. However, he would also find himself, every now and then, facing the rules and laws of the colony. On one occasion in June 1621, his temper got the best of him when an altercation with his

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

13

fellow servant, Edward Leister, devolved into a sword fight. As they both put a dagger in one hand and a sword in the other, they fought each other, injuring the other before being forcibly separated. Both survived the altercation but were punished for fighting. Each was sentenced to individually have their heads and ankles bound together for an entire day. This became so excruciating that Hopkins himself intervened and had the punishment stopped after just one hour. Doty had a resolute character and often had disagreements with his fellow settlers. Questions of slander would come up from time to time, or his failure to make good on transactions. He would use the court to go after a neighbor, or vice versa, seeking compensation for damages created by livestock. Colony rules were strict, and at one point, Doty was brought before the General Court for “dealing fraudlulentlie about a flitch of bacon.” Making matters worse, he was fined an additional fifty shillings for calling his accuser a “rogue.” His habit of disturbing the peace was common, with his most flagrant infraction being an accusation of stolen livestock. Doty was the type of man that acted and, in frontier fashion, carried on the discussion later.3 For all his altercations and legal disputes however, they all resolved themselves through payments to the other party or to the court. Such payments were tendered sometimes as hard currency but often in bushels of corn. With all the altercations and interactions with the court, Doty rose to become one of the more well-established members of the colony. He fulfilled his service to the Hopkins family and by 1633, through his self-reliance, was among a small few required to pay taxes of more than one pound—a testament to both the extent of his holdings and his management skills. Doty married Faith Clarke in 1634 and they had nine children before his death in 1655. Within the line of descendants was a granddaughter, Mary, who married Joseph Allyn. Joseph and Mary in turn had seven children, the third of whom was a daughter, Hannah, born in 1705. Hannah Allyn married Ebenezer Wright and they were Benjamin’s grandparents, placing the younger as a sixth-generation descendant of a Mayflower passenger. ******************** Following the American Civil War, Francis Markoe Wright,4 one of Benjamin’s grandsons, took the time to piece together the Wright lineage along the line of Benjamin’s paternal grandfather. Francis, a New York City physician, along with the assistance of genealogical researchers in London, began to unravel the origins of the family name in England, tracing it back to John Wright of “Kelvedon” in the parish of Essex. Dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII created an opportunity for John to obtain the former monastery, Kelvedon, from the Crown in 1538, an indication the family was of some means. It was four generations later that

Benjamin Wright

14

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Thomas Wright, born in Essex in 1610, emigrated to America sometime after 1634, settling around what is now Wethersfield, Connecticut. While Francis Wright was conducting his genealogical research in the latter half of the nineteenth century, another member of the family at about the same time, was also tracing the ancestral roots of the name in England. Milton Wright,5 a minister of the United Brethren Church, was living with his family in Ohio. Originally from Rhode Island, Milton was also researching the Wright name during his time in Ohio, where, independent of Francis, he was also able to trace his ancestry back to John Wright of Kelvedon in Essex. Milton and his wife Sarah had seven children, five of whom survived past infancy, one girl and four boys, two of whom were named Wilbur and Orville.6 To understand the relationships of the ancestral lines, they originate with John Wright of Kelvedon in Essex. John had five sons and what tends to cloud the picture is that three of the sons were also named John and the other two were both named Robert. The three sons named John are referred to as Elder John, Middle John, and Younger John. For purposes of the discussion here, the first Robert and Middle John are the ancestors in question. Upon the patriarch’s death Elder John took possession of Kelvedon. The first Robert would establish a home called Brook Hall, with Middle John establishing a home at what was referred to as Wright’s Bridge, with both estates in Essex. With these two brothers, Robert and Middle John, the chain of descendance branches off. Robert’s descendant Thomas emigrated to America in 1634, settling in Connecticut. From Robert’s brother, Middle John, the line descends to Wilbur and Orville through Samuel, who also emigrated to America about the same time as Thomas and settled in Massachusetts. Benjamin Wright, the engineer, was a fifth-generation descendant of Thomas. Orville and Wilbur Wright were seventh-generation descendants of Samuel. A great-grandson of Thomas was the Wethersfield settler, Ebenezer, who was born in 1706 and married Hannah Allyn (the Doty descendant); they would become Benjamin’s grandparents. New England residents were subject to a church tax providing funds to support the salary of the ministers and to maintain the place of worship. Ebenezer was educated, having studied for the ministry at Yale College, and with the help of the tax he would have a steady, although small income. His commitment to pursue a career in the ministry required a strong sense of faith coupled with an intellect to embrace biblical history, the tenets of the religious practice, and the philosophical ideals of church doctrine. All of these were attributes enabled by a good education and an environment that nurtured study. Among his other qualities (no doubt an attribute for anyone in the ministry and more so in those days) was a good command of oral and written communication. Clergymen in the colonial period garnered the respect of others for having both the position and the personal commitment. Typically, clergymen were among the better educated, and although

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

15

Ebenezer may not have been a wealthy man, he was nevertheless able to be a good provider. Religious worship in colonial America evolved along well-defined regional boundaries. Virginia held to the beliefs of the Anglican Church, Pennsylvania to Quaker beliefs, and New York to those of the Dutch Reformed Church. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, the dominant church was the Congregational Church, which traditionally held much of the Pilgrim manner of worship. However, it was also a church with a style of worship that placed importance on the social and economic status of members, such as in the very way pews and family boxes were arranged within the worship space of the building floor plan. The church was such an important part of life in New England that Yale College, along with its program of divinity studies, produced clergymen at a high rate, thus, creating a situation in the New England colonies in which churches were so numerous that people found themselves at any given point within proximity to a church. Ebenezer served several churches including that in Wethersfield. He was characterized as a “powerful preacher”7 and, in 1741, delivered the special anniversary sermon for the centennial celebration of the church’s founding in Wethersfield. From his marriage to Hannah Allyn in 1735 he had five children, of whom two were boys— Ebenezer, Benjamin’s father, and Joseph Allyn, his uncle. Ebenezer, the elder (Benjamin’s grandfather), died in 1807 while serving a church in Stamford, Connecticut. ******************** Benjamin’s mother, Grace Butler, was born in 1749 in Middleton, Connecticut and was the ninth child of a ship captain who was lost at sea when Grace was eight years old. It is unclear how they met, but Grace and the younger Ebenezer married in 1768, having a first child, a boy whom they also named Ebenezer. A second child came along in 1770, again a boy, whom they named Benjamin. Benjamin’s father worked as a tradesman with skills in tanning and leatherwork, including the fabrication of saddles, harnesses, and tack equipment. He and Grace settled in Wethersfield and built a home on the north side of town, situated just off the Connecticut River on the road leading to Hartford. Benjamin was born in this home in 1770 and although now gone, the present home became the site in 1970 for the ASCE commemoration and placement of the dedication plaque. Joseph, Benjamin’s uncle, lived in Wethersfield prior to the Revolutionary War. Although he was married, his wife, Abigail, did not bear any children. As younger men, when the call went out for volunteers, both he and Benjamin’s father entered military service, although at separate times. When Joseph first returned home following the war, he and Abigail lived in Watertown, Connecticut; by 1796, they were in Plymouth, Connecticut, where he worked in the mercantile business.

Benjamin Wright

16

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Benjamin was five years old when British troops advanced on Bunker Hill, and within months, both his father and uncle were serving. Both men would be fortunate to return home after their service, and the shared stories would have had the attentive ear of the young boy. However, the stories were more than the adventurous tales of a couple of old soldiers; although the historic significance may not have been understood at that moment, with time it would be put in perspective. Benjamin, no doubt, grew to understand that the two most important men in his young life had unique experiences shared by just a few. ******************** War began in April 1775 on Lexington Green, the defensive stand at Bunker Hill followed in June, and the siege of Boston soon followed. Washington took command of the Continental Army at Cambridge and would, after many months, drive the British from Boston. In July of that year, Joseph received a lieutenant’s commission in a unit of the Connecticut militia. After serving several months on Long Island, his unit went to Boston and joined others, becoming part of Washington’s overall command, and taking part in the siege action. During January 1776, in the period Henry Knox brought the guns from Ticonderoga, Joseph’s unit was transitioned into a unit of the Continental infantry, and with his lieutenant’s commission Joseph became a Continental officer. British soldiers evacuated Boston by boat and landed on Staten Island with intentions of crossing to Long Island and advancing towards Brooklyn. When they evacuated Boston, Joseph’s unit stayed on the outskirts of Boston as Washington took the remaining forces and marched towards New York City. To thwart the British, Washington established a defensive position on the high ground above Brooklyn.8 Ebenezer received his lieutenant’s commission in June 1776 in another Connecticut militia unit while his brother Joseph, served on the perimeter of Boston. Ebenezer’s unit became part of Washington’s defensive action on Long Island, taking up positions near Brooklyn where the British were engaged that August. Washington’s army was forced to retreat across the East River to Manhattan Island where, by mid-September, they took positions farther up the island at Harlem Heights. That same month, Joseph’s unit arrived to participate in the defensive action, and although not necessarily side by side, the brothers, for the first time, were facing the fight together.9 It had been earlier, in July of 1775, that Joseph Wright received his officer’s commission in his militia unit, the Seventh Connecticut Regiment, later to become the Nineteenth Connecticut Continental Infantry. It was July 6, and in the same unit, on the same day, another young Connecticut man received his officer’s commission—Nathan Hale. Hale had graduated

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

17

Yale at the age of eighteen and was under a teaching contract in New London at the time of his commission, a contract which he would sever. Both men entered the Seventh Connecticut as Lieutenants; Hale in the Third Company and Wright in Fourth Company. They served together until a point prior to their arrival at Harlem Heights around September 1, 1776. In the year or more since the two took commissions in adjoining companies, there was no doubt interaction between fellow officers, but when their units reached Harlem Heights, they had become disconnected. By the time the Nineteenth Connecticut arrived, Hale was serving in Knowlton’s Rangers, a detached light cavalry unit of the Nineteenth. It was from this unit that Washington made the request for someone to go behind enemy lines.10 Washington reached out among the officer corps in Knowlton’s unit, but Hale’s acceptance of the task came at Washington’s second request. His first request did not garner any volunteers. At present, research does not reveal any recorded interaction between Wright and Hale regarding the latter’s decision prior to his departure; however, there is evidence that attempts by unnamed friends were made to dissuade him from his decision. Regardless, he left the defensive perimeter on September 12, entering British lines by crossing the East River to Long Island. On September 16, the British forced the Colonial army to retreat up the island and cross the Harlem River into Westchester County. Hale was betrayed by a cousin, captured on September 21, and executed the following day, all of which are well-recorded historical events. However, with Hale, Joseph Wright and the other officers of the Nineteenth Connecticut, having served together for over a year and facing the enemy together, a question can be posed. Joseph Wright served until the end of the war; he was with Washington at Valley Forge and signed the Oath of Allegiance, and at the war’s conclusion, he became part of the select group to take membership in the Society of the Cincinnati. However, beyond devotion to a cause, could there have been something else? It is a speculative exercise, but was Joseph among those trying to dissuade his fellow officer in taking on the assignment? Also, with the unfortunate outcome, at some level, was Joseph’s willingness to serve until the end of the war a desire to seek justice for a friend? The answers to all are maybe, but at the same time there may have been another element at work, somewhat in the background of the intrigue of Hale’s actions. When Ebenezer enlisted and took his officer’s commission in June 1776, there was another man doing the same thing. Both men, Ebenezer and a young Wethersfield schoolteacher, Benjamin Tallmadge, were placed in the same unit. The two were placed as officer’s in the Sixth Regiment of Connecticut Militia. Tallmadge would, with time, advance to a position where he oversaw everything clandestine in Washington’s army. He had a sophisticated network of spies in New York City during British occupation and took an active role in the aftermath of Arnold’s treason, taking control of John André, Arnold’s British counterpart. However, that

Benjamin Wright

18

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

would come later. For the moment, when the regiment, inclusive of both Wright and Tallmadge, arrived at Harlem Heights, they found themselves there at the time of Hale’s decision. It is doubtful that Ebenezer would have had any interaction with Hale, but the situation was different with Tallmadge. Hale and Tallmadge had been classmates at Yale with both becoming teachers after graduation. Hale left his teaching post in New London and took his officer’s commission. Following the siege action at Boston, both he and Joseph Wright were on the perimeter after Washington’s departure to chase the British. It was during this period that Hale gave second thoughts about serving out his commission and considered a return to his teaching position in New London. It would be during some shared thoughts by his friend, Tallmadge, that Hale would change his mind to stay. Writing Hale after the siege action, Tallmadge shares: Was I in your condition, I think the more extensive service would be my choice. Our holy Religion, the honor of our God, a glorious country, & a happy constitution is what we have to defend.

Hale continued to serve and accepted Washington’s request. There may have been friends that tried to dissuade him, but another speculative question poses itself, did Tallmadge talk him into it while they served together at Harlem Heights? Again, the answer is maybe, but then again, when Hale, to a friend, remarked about his decision he offered, “I wish to be useful, and every kind of service, necessary to the public good, becomes honorable by being necessary.”11 War continued, but among the defeats and retreats a revelation occurred regarding the conduct of leadership in the colonial army. Although the British forced Washington’s forces into retreat from Harlem Heights, the actions by leadership revealed an improvement in the quality of frontline military command in Washington’s army. The colonial soldier witnessed for the first time that, if given orders to hold his ground by leadership not willing to bend with the first volley of fire, a formidable defensive unit is created. The two brothers were among that group of officers and as colder weather set in that year, and even further defeat followed, the unskilled farmer-soldier discovered that with discipline, order, and respect for leadership, the British army could be met head on.12 Defeat would come again at White Plains, forcing the small army to cross the Hudson River and traverse New Jersey into the hills of eastern Pennsylvania as winter began in early December 1776. Leadership in Washington’s command, although improved, came to grips with increasingly low morale, while at the same time trying to encourage re-enlistment and discourage desertion. It speaks well of both men, with the task before them, but with low morale across the army, coupled with waning sympathy from the civilian population and enlistment periods running out, something had to happen.

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

19

Emanuel Leutze13 depicted the event in a painting that now hangs in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art and is reproduced in every American history book; in whatever manner it is romanticized, at that moment, for Benjamin’s father and uncle it became a challenge of significant proportion. In that era, considering the number of wagons, horses, cannons, and personnel that had to be mobilized, it was a complex logistical operation, and to add to that matrix, it was conducted under horrid conditions. What they may have said to motivate a group of soldiers to undertake it has gone unrecorded, but regardless they followed and after months of defeat, the direction of the war changed in one night. As six-year-old Benjamin, along with his siblings, slept at home, his father and uncle joined Washington in a small army of 2,400 men and crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night of 1776.14 Among those crossing were two other men—Alexander Hamilton15 and Loammi Baldwin.16 Hamilton, a captain of artillery, served under Henry Knox, and, later in the war, as an adjutant to Washington. Following the war, Hamilton, in his law practice, appears on the fringe of Benjamin Wright’s career. Loammi Baldwin Sr., commander of a Massachusetts unit, was a surveyor and engineer by trade and later would serve as chief engineer on the Middlesex Canal which connected the Charles and Merrimack Rivers when completed in 1803. When Wright accepted his position with the Erie Canal, he was part of a group who travelled to conduct field studies of the Middlesex Canal.17 In the days that followed, Ebenezer continued to serve, and although his unit was not at Valley Forge, he did fulfill his term of obligation and return home. Once back at home by mid-1778, his family had grown to include five children. Joseph, on the other hand, served to the war’s conclusion, was promoted to captain and advanced to the rank of major by the close of the war, still attached to his infantry unit. He was among the officers taking the Oath of Allegiance at Valley Forge. At the war’s conclusion, Joseph returned home to civilian life. He re-established his business affairs and began the arduous process of collecting compensation for his military service. As part of his wages for service, Connecticut granted him the former estate of a British sympathizer. Located in the village of Stamford, the estate included nineteen acres and a dwelling, all of which was property Joseph no doubt sold, spending the remainder of his life in Plymouth. Ebenezer had earlier rejoined his family and resumed his trade. Before the war ended, he was fortunate enough to obtain a government contract to outfit an army cavalry unit with saddles and leather goods. However, it would be his misfortune, as it may have hurt rather than helped his business affairs and, in some ways, it explains why by the late 1780s, he was having difficulty with his creditors.

Benjamin Wright

20

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

In the years following the war, the economic health of the emerging nation was in precarious shape. America went into an economic depression and the value of the newly established dollar collapsed. Obligations of war debt fell upon the various states to manage as individual situations required and, for most states, the solution was increased taxation. This drove many unfortunate people below the poverty line with literally no hope for a change. This was the contributing factor in leading Daniel Shays, a former Massachusetts army lieutenant, to incite people into open rebellion, and Ebenezer found himself on the leading edge of an economic turmoil. He did not participate in any open rebellion, but having been paid in Continental dollars, his work on the cavalry contract put him in much the same circumstance as most of his neighbors. It was a situation in which his dollars were worthless, and it became increasingly difficult to provide for a family. His situation grew dire and, by 1781, the home was sold, and the family left Wethersfield for the community of Sharon in northwestern Connecticut, but Benjamin stayed behind to live with his uncle, Joseph, and pursue an education. Within a few years of the family’s taking up residence in Sharon, the younger Ebenezer, Benjamin’s older brother, journeyed into upstate New York near the Fort Stanwix area. Some families had already made the journey and newspaper advertisements provided further enticement. Such an ad appeared in The Litchfield Weekly Monitor: “To be sold, ten lots of excellent land on both sides of the Mohawk River : : : near settlements made by people from Middletown (Connecticut).”18 Ramparts at Fort Stanwix, strategically located by the British during the French and Indian War, were situated on the drainage divide between the Mohawk River flowing toward the Hudson River and Wood Creek flowing toward the Great Lakes. During the Revolution, the site would become a battleground in the days prior to the events at Saratoga, but in the years that followed, with British surrender at Yorktown still a fresh memory, a wave of westward migration began in earnest owing to the availability and potential of the frontier. For Benjamin’s father, the prospects of Fort Stanwix was something to consider and could present an opportunity for a chance to restart, and move beyond, his earlier financial difficulties. Located at a crossroads for travel between Lake Ontario and points eastward, Washington himself endorsed the potential for the land, both for settlement and for the topographic position of straddling the divide. Joseph Wright had a proud war record and even accepted membership in the Order of the Cincinnati. Later in life, he was active in civic and local political affairs, serving four terms as a deputy in the Connecticut legislature. He served as a local voting official and was both town clerk and treasurer for Plymouth. His grasp of the fundamentals of law did not go unnoticed by his nephew as the younger began to pursue training in surveying. It was during this period that The Litchfield Weekly Monitor provided an opportunity that

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

21

presented Benjamin with the germinal idea for a suitable career. It was an advertisement appearing over a four-week period in the early spring of 1786: Young Gentlemen, who are desirous of being instructed in navigation, surveying, or in any branch of the mathematics, may be directed to an experienced instructor, (who will teach them upon reasonable terms) by applying to the printer of the Monitor.19

Benjamin began his studies and apprenticeship in surveying, and gained, with his uncle’s mentorship, a basic understanding of the rules of law. His life was one of education by reading, practical training, and observation. Yet, he also kept aware of things at home where, during this period of separation, an unfortunate episode occurred. Joseph Webb, a resident of Wethersfield and one of Ebenezer’s creditors, went to court in May 1788 to retrieve monies due. Webb was a merchant in Wethersfield, but he was not just any merchant. He lived in a house sitting across Main Street from the Congregational Church meeting house, the same church where the elder Ebenezer served in the pulpit. Webb was also a neighbor of another town merchant, Silas Deane.20 Deane had served on the Committee of Correspondence for Connecticut and represented the colony as a delegate to the First Continental Congress. He, along with Charles Lee and Benjamin Franklin, formed the delegation in Paris to negotiate French assistance during the Revolution. Culminating in the famed Wethersfield Conference in 1781 at which Washington and French commander Rochambeau met, a meeting that took place in the first-floor parlor of the Joseph Webb house.21 Webb had provided trade goods on credit and filed a court petition against Ebenezer to retrieve the debt. At the same time as Webb filed his petition, Ebenezer, by then living in Sharon, received word from the court that a petition he had submitted the previous April was denied for what amounted to a declaration of bankruptcy. Taking efforts to protect himself from his creditors, Ebenezer resubmitted his petition later during the fall court session. Benjamin was eighteen while this was going on, and he would hear that his father’s petition was approved but denied again when it was discovered it had been filed too late. By January 1789, the elder Wright received word that the court had ruled he would be protected from arrest until the next court session, due to convene that coming May, when at such time, a determination would be made if in fact arrest would be necessary, or just the attachment of his assets, or both. Outcomes from any litigation are unclear, but Ebenezer and his family appeared in the upper reaches of the Mohawk Valley by 1790.22 An examination of the elder Wright’s business difficulties is not done to pass judgment, but rather to recognize the effect it may have had on Benjamin, for the son’s having witnessed his father’s misfortunes may have

Benjamin Wright

22

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

contributed to character traits and attitudes about the management of finances in both his business and personal affairs. As Benjamin Wright matured and his career evolved, he was both a businessman and an engineer. He pursued business ventures alongside his engineering engagements, and his management approach in both cases stemmed from a fundamental sense of frugality combined with a scrutiny for delivery on budget. ******************** Around 1790, Ebenezer and Grace took the remaining children and joined other families to make the journey from Connecticut. Benjamin would soon follow. Within the initial group there were several families, including Ebenezer’s brother, Thomas, his wife Martha, and their children. Upon reaching Fort Stanwix, the families advanced a short distance farther up the Mohawk River and began clearing land, taking the cut logs for cabins, and building shelter. Things progressed at a brisk rate in the little settlement. By 1793, the first post roads were pushing themselves westward from the Hudson Valley. By 1795, the first mill was erected on the waters of Wood Creek and in 1796, the first tannery and shoemaking operation was underway. Earlier, in 1794, Hamilton College was established, named for Alexander Hamilton; the school encouraged enrollment from those in the local Native American population. Thomas Wright, with the help of his sons, erected the first dam across the river in 1800 for a grist mill and a sawmill. Further, just as cabins were built, they made provisions for religious worship. Drawing several families from among those early settlers, they came together and shared their faith journeys and professed a desire to gather in worship. Recognizing the common bond between them and a need to evolve into a formal church, five families came together in 1793 to organize themselves. They first met in the home of Ebenezer and Grace and placed into words shared beliefs and the desire to become a church. The document they created was titled, “The Original Covenant of 1793.” These five families converged with differing occupations and from differing congregations within the Church of Christ. Along with Ebenezer and Grace came Thomas and Martha Wright. Martha was Grace’s sister and Thomas was Ebenezer’s brother. Joshua and Zeruiah Willes also joined, along with Willet and Mary Ranney. Mary was also a sister to Grace and Martha. Willet Ranney had carpentry skills and would build several of the houses and stores in the community. Daniel Knight was the last cosigner, unmarried at the time and a war veteran, having fought in the battle at Fort Stanwix just prior to the battle at Saratoga.23 Benjamin departed Connecticut in the early 1790s to rejoin his family near the site of Fort Stanwix. He had studied surveying, mathematics, and law under the mentorship of his uncle and would settle in the heart of the

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

23

New York wilderness eager to begin his career. Upon arriving he found the community growing, with its first school instructing more than fifty children. He brought with him his equipment and soon found he was spending time away from home surveying; he was twenty-three-years old.

Endnotes 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

Cable, 1993, p. 31. The Mayflower voyage was not the first trans-Atlantic trek for Hopkins. He had been aboard Sea Venture bound for Jamestown in 1610. While en route, a severe storm shipwrecked the vessel and passengers made their way to Bermuda. He eventually made it to Jamestown, returning to England in 1614. The voyage of Sea Venture, its shipwreck, and survivors landing on Bermuda became the inspiration for Shakespeare’s The Tempest, written in 1611. Reference to Edward Doty’s activities in Plymouth Colony, including his duel, the Mayflower Compact, and the trip to explore the Cape can be found in Willison, 1945. Details of some of Doty’s interactions with the court system can be found in the same on p. 322. Francis Markoe Wright (1830–1874) was a physician in New York and a son of James, Benjamin’s third son. Milton Wright (1828–1917) had been born in Indiana and joined the United Church of the Brethren in 1846, spending much of his career in the Midwest. He was drawn to the church owing to its stance on alcohol and the abolition of slavery. His wife was the former Susan Catherine Koerner. The chain of ancestry for Wilbur and Orville Wright can be found on the internet: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_ Facts/Wright_Family/Wright_Genealogy/Wright_Genealogy.htm. The chain of ancestry for Benjamin Wright is found in papers of familyconducted research in the possession of the author. The reference to Ebenezer Wright having been thought of as a “powerful preacher” is found in one of a series of articles written for The Rome Daily Sentinel, dated 1878. Transcribed copies are in the possession of the author. Joseph Wright received his lieutenant’s commission in the Seventh Connecticut Militia on July 6, 1775, followed by his commission into the Nineteenth Connecticut Continental Regiment. He would transition into various commands until the end of the war, eventually reaching the rank of Major. Reference to the enlistment of Ebenezer Wright can be found in records of the Connecticut Historical Society, Vol. viii. His enlistment date is given as June 20, 1776. His unit arrived on Long Island on July 18, 1776.

Benjamin Wright

24

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

10 Reference to the enlistment of Nathan Hale is found in Boatner. He was commissioned in the Seventh Militia on July 6, 1775, followed by commission into the Nineteenth Continental Regiment on January 1, 1776. He crossed enemy lines in September 1776 and was betrayed by his Tory cousin, Samuel Hale. 11 The Battle of Harlem Heights took place on September 16, 1776. Hale departed four days earlier, prior to the battle. Hale’s comment is taken from Boatner, 1994, p. 475. Tallmadge’s letter to Hale is taken from Seymour, 1941. 12 A reference to the quality of war leadership during the engagement between the colonial army and the British at Harlem Heights can be found in a letter from Nathanial Greene to William Ellery, October 4, 1776, and is quoted in McCullough, 2005. 13 Emanuel Leutze (1816–1868) was a German-born painter. His first version of Washington’s crossing was done at his own expense in 1850. It was damaged by a fire and restored, only to be destroyed in Allied bombing during World War II. A second version had also been commissioned shortly after the first version. It had been requested by a French art dealer for display in his New York art gallery. That second version is now owned by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. 14 Details of the two units as part of Washington’s command during the crossing can be found in Fischer (2004). Outlines of the entire complement of men can be found in Appendix F. Ebenezer’s unit was part of the Sixth Battalion of Sargents’s Brigade under the company command of John Chester. Joseph’s unit was part of the Nineteenth Regiment of Glover’s Brigade under the company command of Charles Webb. 15 Alexander Hamilton (c.1756–1804) served in the Revolutionary War as an aide to Washington. Following the war, he practiced as an attorney and served as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. He died as a result of a wound received in a duel with Aaron Burr. 16 Loammi Baldwin Sr. (1745–1807). 17 In 1816, a group, with Wright among them, along with several of the canal commissioners, visited the Middlesex Canal to observe operations and its construction. 18 The Litchfield Weekly Monitor, January 1786. 19 Ibid, February and March 1786. 20 Silas Deane (c.1738–1789) was a delegate to the Continental Congress and a diplomat to France. He was instrumental in obtaining the services of Lafayette, de Kalb, Pulaski, and von Steuben. He, along with Franklin and Charles Lee, were successful in obtaining French assistance. Unfortunately, he had a checkered diplomatic career and suffered from various intrigues. His career ended in controversary. 21 The Webb house was built for Joseph Webb Sr. in 1752 and inherited by his son Joseph Webb Jr. upon the elder’s death in 1761. It was the

Benjamin Wright

A BINDING COVENANT

25

younger who hosted the meeting. There is some evidence that although Washington was staying in the Webb house, the actual meeting between the two generals took place in the barn behind the house. However, for such a high-level meeting, it is doubtful it would have taken place in an outbuilding. 22 State of Connecticut Records, May 1788 and January 1789. Ebenezer Wright’s financial affairs are also discussed in Collier’s Weekly Monitor, April 1788 and May 1788. 23 Cable, 1993, pp 31–32.

Benjamin Wright

3 Ten Square Chains to an Acre

Compasses of all kinds, both for sea and land, surveyor’s scales, and protractors, gauging rods, walking sticks, silver and plated buttons, turned upon horn; also, clocks and watches made and repaired : : : .1 Newspaper advertisement from The Connecticut Journal Isaac Doolittle, Jr. a Connecticut instrument maker 1781 Victory in the Revolutionary War was soon followed with an awakening as the young nation began the advance toward the era of Manifest Destiny, and families journeyed westward. Westward migration brought opportunities for skilled craftsmen and tradesmen as cabins, churches, stores, schools, sawmills, blacksmith shops, and flour mills sprang up across the frontier. However, prior to any settlement, the land was explored and surveyed, developing the lots and parcels for sale and speculation, all of which required the skills of a surveyor. While in Plymouth living with his uncle, Wright apprenticed with a local surveyor and assimilated the fundamentals of law, politics, and business with his uncle’s mentorship. His instruments were both rugged and portable. For measurement of distance, he used a chain, sixty-six

27

Benjamin Wright

28

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

feet in length, developed about 1620 by the English mathematician Edmund Gunter.2 British legend describes farmers plowing fields in furrows having lengths such that a team of oxen could pull the plow without stopping, at which point the team would rest, turn around, and come back the other way. Farmers would then partition their fields, with a length being one furrow long. With time, the phrase was shortened to one furlong. Britain in the seventeenth century standardized units of measure and established the furlong at 660 feet. Gunter’s chain at sixty-six feet provided a suitable means for measuring the field ten chains in length. When describing the field, a fundamental English unit of measurement for area was set out as a farm field, with one furlong in length by one chain in width. The resulting area of the field would be ten square chains, or the more common unit, one acre. Some traditional English and early American survey units and equivalents are 1 chain = 66 feet = 4 rods 1 rod = 16.5 feet 10 chains = 1 furlong = 660 feet = 1/8 mile 80 chains = 5280 feet = 1 mile 10 square chains = 1 acre = 43,560 square feet 640 acres = 1 square mile For measurement of direction, Wright used a surveyor’s compass. David Rittenhouse3 took the traditional compass in the 1780s and augmented it with a Vernier scale, thus allowing for measurement of a more precise angle, as well as correction of the needle for magnetic declination. Design of the face plate of a traditional American surveyor’s compass reads counterclockwise when looking at the compass face, with the letter “N” engraved at the top, the letter “W” on the right, and the letter “E” on the left. Such a configuration allowed the needle to point at the actual bearing of the observer’s line of sight. An English compass is reverse of this and reads clockwise. Optical surveying instruments in Wright’s era were for astronomical and geodetic work. Zenith sectors and theodolites are examples, both being quite large, difficult to move, and for fixed use to determine astronomic position or in triangulation. The theodolite is of European origin and enables the observer to measure both horizontal and vertical angles. Jesse Ramsden’s theodolite of 1787 was the first successful example of the instrument, enabled by his innovative dividing machine used in the manufacture of the engraved circles.4 Zenith sectors are an optical instrument with a telescope six feet in length and when set up the telescope is directed vertically towards the observer’s zenith. It requires the observer to lie on the ground to capture transiting stars as they pass the observer’s meridian. These measurements are necessary for determination of latitude and longitude. Several years prior to Wright’s birth, Charles Mason5 and Jeremiah Dixon6 utilized the entire range of surveying

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

29

instruments to establish the boundary between Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Referred to as the Mason and Dixon Line, it was a survey designated in 1977 by ASCE as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark.7 Wright’s surveying career began about twenty years after the work of Mason and Dixon, and his choice of the career was driven in part by expectations of potential opportunities that a trained surveyor could have on the frontier, but it was a life, as he put it: “ : : : affected by hard living and traveling the wilderness surveying new land : : : ”8 Including a somewhat primitive lifestyle: “ : : : I made my camp after the fashion of Indians and ate my salt pork and bread : : : . ”9 So, about 1790, at twenty years of age, he began his career and journeyed into the remote regions of New York. He had the fundamental tools of his trade and found himself, in short order, traveling the frontier, surveying those new lands, and living that hard life. Before the Revolutionary War, the colony of New York was primarily the area in and around New York City, and what is now considered upstate formed part of the colony of Massachusetts. The economic turmoil following the war caused Massachusetts to reduce its war debt by releasing title to all land in what is now upstate. Thus, in 1788, much of the land reverted to the new state of New York, except for a portion west of a North–South meridian line running between the border with Pennsylvania northward to Lake Ontario. Originating from a point eighty-two miles west of the Delaware River on the border with Pennsylvania, this meridian line was designated the “Pre-emption Line.” On the behest of the state, a survey of the line was completed in 1789 by Colonel. Hugh Maxwell,10 a surveyor and former Revolutionary War army officer. Land west of this meridian line was sold for speculation by Massachusetts and the land east of the line was transferred to New York. Two Massachusetts businessmen, Oliver Phelps11 and Nathaniel Gorham,12 purchased the entire western portion, an area comprising more than 6,000,000 acres. Intent on obtaining Native American quit claims, it was their objective to develop the land for speculation. However, things did not go as well as planned with their Native American affairs. By 1790 they had only obtained development rights to less than half the entire holding and were having difficulty gaining complete title to lands in that portion west of the Genesee River. Financial difficulty began to set in, forcing the two to turn over everything that remained. Using a North–South line of demarcation approximating the route of the Genesee River, the two turned back everything west of the line to Massachusetts. Everything east of the demarcation line back to the pre-emption line, except for a parcel referred to as the Mill Yard Tract, was sold to Robert Morris,13 a New York political figure and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Mill Yard Tract, along the west bank of the Genesee River, had been previously titled to the Iroquois by Phelps/Gorham for the Native American tribe to establish mills to process

Benjamin Wright

30

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 2: New York surveying activity. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

their corn and grain. Phelps/Gorham also titled 100 acres along the river to a developer for the purpose of establishing a mill with the condition it would be available to the Iroquois as well. The small village that would follow as the mill established itself would become the city of Rochester. For its portion, Massachusetts also sold the western portion to Morris. So at that point Morris owned all the remaining Phelps/Gorham holdings west of the Pre-emption Line. By 1792, Morris had sold all the holdings between the Genesee demarcation line and the Pre-emption Line to a British investment group. For the land west of the Genesee, Morris kept for himself 500,000 acres, a strip running North–South from Pennsylvania to Lake Ontario. He sold the balance—the entire western end of what is now New York State— to a Dutch banking conglomerate colloquially referred to as the Holland Land Company, an organization that would soon play a role in Erie Canal development. Morris had his home in the area near Geneva at the north end of Seneca Lake and bordering on the Pre-emption Line. With the survey of Hugh Maxwell, Morris was unhappy with the position of the line in relation to

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

31

Geneva. He was concerned that his home and community fell east of the line and became part of New York with his remaining land holdings west of the line. According to the Maxwell survey, the line was west of the town by a mile or more. To satisfy his concern, Morris engaged Andrew Ellicott14 to conduct an independent survey, which he completed during November and December of 1792. Ellicott did find the line’s position to be in error with an alignment running east of the town by about the same amount as it was originally positioned west of town. When Maxwell’s records were examined, it was found that much of his survey was in error and run along magnetic north rather than true north, thus accounting for the deviation. Ellicott’s survey, referred to as the “New Pre-emption Line,” was accepted as the true position thus creating a slender pie-shaped sliver through the state from North to South. Locally described as “the gore,” it has created issues with land title transfer into modern times. Ellicott, from Maryland, was a prominent early-nineteenth-century surveyor. Among his work, he was responsible for numerous state boundaries including the historic north Florida boundary and the perimeter boundary of the District of Columbia. Wright returned from Connecticut to begin his surveying career, and although younger at the time of Ellicott’s work on the pre-emption line, he would soon become aware of Ellicott and his work in a tangential way. When Phelps and Gorham purchased the land west of the Pre-emption Line, New York took control of the land east of the line and, in short order, partitioned off approximately two million acres, for subdividing into large parcels. These parcels, as large as 600 acres, were used for titling to war veterans as payment in lieu of cash. To partition the tract, it was divided into twenty-eight towns,15 with each containing one hundred lots of 600 acres. Given the title of the Central New York Military Tract, it comprised an area below Lake Ontario, west of Oneida Lake, and encompassing the Finger Lakes. Fieldwork to delineate the tract began in 1789 under the direction of Simeon DeWitt,16 the state surveyor general. The western boundary followed the east shore of Seneca Lake, whereupon reaching the northern tip of water, the boundary followed the Pre-emption Line northward. Ellicott’s survey was not completed until December of 1792; however, his survey line was established as the proper boundary for purposes of lot configuration. The partitioning into lots began in 1791, taking the better part of eight years to complete. Assisting in the surveys was a former Army officer, Abraham Hardenberg, a war veteran and native of Fort Stanwix. Hardenberg had a lengthy surveying career and retained Wright to assist because the younger man had just arrived to rejoin his family. With the Pre-emption Line serving as a common boundary between the Military Tract and the Phelps Gorham Purchase, any retracing of the line brought Ellicott’s work and his reputation to the awareness of Wright.

Benjamin Wright

32

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Excluding the area of the Central Military Tract, New York took the balance and made it available for private speculation. One acquisition south of Lake Ontario, tucked along Oneida Lake’s north shore and bordering the Military Tract, was a piece of about 500,000 acres, purchased from the state by a partnership organized by Nicholas Roosevelt.17 Roosevelt, the great granduncle of Theodore, the president, had married the daughter of his business partner and friend, the senior Benjamin Henry Latrobe, architect and engineer. It was a relationship which included Latrobe’s bringing in Roosevelt to design the pumps used in the former’s plans for Philadelphia’s Fairmont Water Works. However, their land development plans, although well thought out, now suffered financial difficulties. To avoid defaulting on the purchase, George Scriba,18 one of the investment partners, purchased the holdings of the others. Scriba was a first-generation German immigrant, coming to America during the war and making his start in business by trading in munitions to support the colonial cause. To Scriba the land was a commodity and when he made the purchase, his intent was to obtain a profit by developing his holdings. To achieve that, he retained Wright in what was to become quite a successful engagement for the young surveyor. Scriba’s property, historically described as “Scriba’s Patent,” reached from Oneida Lake northward to Lake Ontario, and Wright’s duties included establishing the perimeter boundary, subdividing the larger tract on paper, and then laying the parcels out in the field. Taking on a non-survey role, he also served as Scriba’s agent for the sale of the parcels, but to execute all his responsibilities, the youthful surveyor did experience hardship. He lost his assistant at one point after the man took sick and died, leaving Wright alone to continue until a replacement could be found. However, he did manage and, following initial surveys, the property was subdivided. Larger towns were further subdivided, and villages were established at locations of good geographic position and water courses. Locations with more favorable conditions generated faster sales, and in turn, these villages required additional surveying for development of blocks and streets. Scriba used a common theme for the names of towns and villages by replicating the names of foreign places. Mexico, Vera Cruz, and Constantia, along with Palermo, Rotterdam, and others, are among the names selected, many of which are extant today. Among his early assignments, young Wright was to select a route for a proposed road between the village of Vera Cruz in the town of Mexico, on Little Salmon Creek at Lake Ontario, with Rotterdam on Oneida Lake. He was able to gain some assistance in route selection from a local Native American who offered Wright information about both the terrain and a suitable trail suggestion. The road’s western terminus was at the mouth of Little Salmon Creek on Lake Ontario, northeast of present-day Oswego. It was at this location where

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

33

his career expanded to include pure speculative business, becoming an entrepreneur in the village. He felt that with time the location would evolve into a prosperous community, and to that end, he took ownership of several lots and began to capitalize his investment, where there is evidence that he had taken up residency by 1796. At various times, he served as school commissioner, town clerk, and justice of the peace. His title as “judge” was one carried for the remainder of his life. Wright was also assessed for taxes on his holdings in Vera Cruz, a log dwelling, a store, a barn, a sawmill, and a blacksmith shop. His work was demanding and physical and the “hard life,” as he termed it, brought him a level of success. At the age of twenty-eight while building his career, he journeyed back to Connecticut to marry a young lady he had met while living in Plymouth with his uncle, Joseph—Philomela Sarah Waterman. Eunice Hall, Philomela’s mother, was the youngest child of Colonel Benjamin Hall of Connecticut. His title as “colonel” was honorary, and he

Figure 3: Plat of portion of the town of Mexico (Vera Cruz) by Benjamin Wright. Source: Courtesy of Maritime History of the Great Lakes.

Benjamin Wright

34

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

was both a British sympathizer and a strong advocate for enforcement of the Stamp Act. When she came of age, Eunice married Simon Waterman, a Yale theology graduate with Federalist leanings and religious beliefs embracing the “New Light”19 movement. Simon’s divinity studies at Yale immersed him in languages and literature. Poetry may or may not have been in the curriculum, but to intellectuals such as Waterman, the name John Gay20 would have been familiar. Gay, a seventeenth-century English poet and playwright, was a close associate of Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope and most noted for his Beggar’s Opera, written in 1728. However, prior to 1716, Gay composed Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London, a poem in three books. Upon review of a stanza from “Book II” of the poem, it may well be a coincidence, or then again it may not, but it is intriguing, nonetheless. (The underscore has been added):21 : : : The Waterman, forlorn along the shore, Pensive reclines upon his useless Oar, Sees harness’d Steeds desert the stony Town, And wander Roads unstable, not their own; Wheels o’er the harden’d Waters smoothly glide, : : : ‘Twas here the Matron found a doleful Fate; Let Elegiac Lay the Woe relate, Soft as the Breath of distant Flutes, at Hours, When Silent ev’ning closes up the Flow’re; Lulling as falling Water’s hollow noise; Indulging Grief, like Philomela’s Voice.22

Philomela was born in 1776 and was the fifth of Simon and Eunice’s eight children. Her name originates in historical legend from Greek mythology. As the daughter of Pandion I, King of Athens, the story tells of a family intrigue, whereby Philomela and her sisters are turned into birds, with Philomela becoming a nightingale. Simon was serving a Congregational Church in Plymouth and presided over his daughter’s marriage in September 1798. Settling into Wright’s cabin in the village of Vera Cruz on Lake Ontario, Philomela gave birth to their first child in October 1799, a boy whom they named Henry. Life in the small village had its difficulties and Wright’s work took him away from home for periods of time leaving Philomela alone with a young child. Winters along the Great Lakes were harsh, and that first winter proved even more so. The winter of late 1799 and early 1800 was severe and created widespread hardship, bringing the village to near starvation. It is unclear whether Wright was at home, but as desperation set in the community formulated a plan to

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

35

procure food and supplies. A boat builder in the village had an available schooner and volunteered, along with another villager, to set out across Lake Ontario in the hope of reaching Kingston, Ontario. Time elapsed with no word from the two, and a second boat embarked to procure the needed supplies and learn the fate of the others. After they set out, a gale enveloped the area and the second boat floundered with all seven on board drowning, all within eyesight of the village. The loss for the small village was substantial, leaving two adult male inhabitants surviving, Wright being one. In the months that followed the village declined such that by the following spring and summer, he moved his young family back to the family settlement near Fort Stanwix, building a cabin near his parents.23 The community around Fort Stanwix had designated itself the village of Rome as Wright brought his family to the community and joined his parents in the newly established church. Almost as soon as they arrived that summer, Philomela received a letter from her father. Simon was planning a trip the following September into the frontier regions of New York for missionary work and asked if he could visit. Upon his arrival, he was asked to examine the character of the original church covenant. Upon his review of the original 1793 document, Waterman assisted the group with developing a new church covenant and a name designation, The First Religious Society of Rome, New York. Both Wrights—father Ebenezer and son Benjamin, along with Grace and Philomela—signed the new covenant in 1802, with Benjamin elected a trustee and a committee member for planning and construction of the first church building. Church records attest to the level of success for the young surveyor. He contributed $100 for construction of the new building, and an eight-dollar contribution towards the salary of the first church pastor. He also offered his technical skills to prepare building plans: “ : : : to build a church or meeting house on a lot situated on the westerly side and adjoining the public square in the dimensions of 42 by 55 feet : : : ”.24 Wright’s design for the church had a vestibule with two entry doors and a floor plan in the traditional style of a Congregational meeting house. A lower floor contained two aisles, with family boxes on two sides surrounding a central area of seventy-two pews and an altar centered in front. An upper floor contained galleries on three sides forming a balcony with a cupola steeple on the roof. Construction was complete in 1808.25 Church records with births and baptisms reveal the growth of the community. Among those on the membership roll of the church was George Huntington, a Connecticut native and the same age as Wright. He operated a store in Rome in partnership with his brother, Henry. Another group in the congregation was the Timothy Jervis family. Jervis, a carpenter by trade, along with his wife Phoebe and their young son, John, had traveled from Long Island to Rome in 1798.

Benjamin Wright

36

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

In the years following Wright’s engagement with George Scriba, the young surveyor undertook work for a new client, the property of Alexander Macomb. It was a large parcel having a common boundary with the Scriba Patent, and he began work in the latter part of 1800. He undertook the new assignment that took him into the northern tier of New York along the Saint Lawrence River and the Canadian border. Alexander Macomb,26 a businessman with shrewd instincts, began in the Midwestern fur trade along the Great Lakes in an area centered near presentday Detroit. His warehouses contained any number of commodities for sale or trade to the native peoples as well as settlers. Fur pelts were obtained in trade for quantities of rum, blankets, cooking utensils, cloth, or whatever the native peoples might want in exchange. However, any success he experienced came by way of some business dealings that were considered unscrupulous and reprehensible, as evidenced by inclusion of scalping knives with handles made from deer antlers on his list of trade offerings. Any logic behind the practice stemmed from fear, as the Revolutionary War began to reach Detroit, and it was never certain which side the native peoples were aligned with. Just as tenacious as he was in conducting his fur trade operations, Macomb managed to take possession of 3.5 million acres in northern New York, for the mere price of eight cents per acre. Comprising almost 12% of the state, the property included parts of the present-day counties of Saint Lawrence, Franklin, Jefferson, Lewis, and Oswego.27 However, no sooner had Macomb’s business enterprise grown than it all evaporated in the country’s 1792 financial collapse. He tried to divest himself, but his actions were not quick enough, and he found himself in prison. His holdings were seized and put in the hands of a trustee, William Constable. Constable, another individual with questionable character, was at one point an associate of Benedict Arnold. The two were involved in doubtful business dealings in Philadelphia when Arnold served as military governor of the city. In his role as trustee, Constable managed Macomb’s Purchase, utilizing Wright as a surveyor, and at various times, Alexander Hamilton for legal issues. It was the land transfers within Macomb’s Purchase that led Benjamin Wright’s name to appear numerous times within Hamilton’s law papers. At Constable’s death in 1803, all original Macomb holdings reverted to Hezekiah Pierrepont (also sometimes spelled Pierpont),28 Constable’s sonin-law. Pierrepont began business in the mercantile trade but moved to Brooklyn and bought a brewery which he converted to a distillery. At the time he acquired the land holdings in upstate New York, he was also involved with warehousing on the Brooklyn shore of the East River. The warehouse operations were primarily dealing with the importation, storage, and distribution of sugar and molasses. He achieved considerable wealth and his ventures would later expand to include the ferry system running between Manhattan and Brooklyn. By the mid-nineteenth century, his ferry operation

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

37

allied itself with other shipbuilding and warehousing businesses in opposition to the proposed East River bridge conceived by John Roebling.29 With Pierrepont now as trustee, Wright continued his responsibilities, even preparing what can be characterized as marketing reports summarizing the land’s character and resources. His reports extolled the development potential of the various towns and served as a favorable insertion in the prospectus for investment. He grasped the suitability of the land and his reports reveal an understanding of the relationship between business potential and important physical features beyond just mere boundary dimensions. One example is his report for the town of Watertown—the same town to which he journeyed back later in his life, and in the process, reflected in retrospect on having eaten his salt pork and bread. The Watertown report in 1801 is illustrative: Along the river there is some pretty good land, and some that is broken and rocky. The river (The Black River) is amazing rapid and rocky; some falls along the river which may be made into good mill seats and some excellent pine timber along the river : : : . A very fine soil and pretty well watered with small streams, and some large ones : : : To speak generally, I think this to be an excellent township, and : : : Will settle very fast, if laid in lots and sold to settlers. Contains 26,804 acres : : : .30

Pierrepont was resolute and lobbied to have the federal government construct a road through his properties. Cloaked as a military necessity to provide a secure means of transport to counter any British threat from Canada, the road did more to encourage settlement and, in turn, profit. Traversing the upper reaches of the territory, the road was chartered in 1810 as the Saint Lawrence Turnpike, with Pierrepont among those on the list of incorporators. Commissioners were designated to determine terminus points and offer a conceptual alignment for the road with Wright and Charles Broadhead among the group. The two would also work together seven years later when they were chosen as division engineers for the Erie Canal.31 Wright was developing good instincts for the land—both the limitations and potential for development—and his career was nearing a transition. It was a transition brought about by his friend back in Rome, George Huntington. Being active in civic affairs, Huntington served on the Board of Directors of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, chartered to develop an all-water passage across the topographic divide, near Rome. The divide separated the Mohawk River from Wood Creek, a stream leading to Oneida Lake with connection to the Great Lakes. William Weston,32 a British engineer, was originally engaged as the company’s engineer, owing in part to his formal European training and experience. Late in 1798 Weston, for unexplained reasons, did not return to

Benjamin Wright

38

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

continue the work. With the need for continued improvements to the river, the company was forced to consider a replacement, a situation made difficult at the time because of the lack of technically trained engineers in America. Yet, such talented men as Wright, with knowledge gained through practical experience, did not go unnoticed. His friend George Huntington serving on the board endorsed Wright’s capabilities to his fellow directors at a meeting of the board, a meeting described in rather dramatic, late-nineteenth-century language by the historian Charles B. Stuart.33 Addressing the board, Huntington broaches the subject: “Have you not a leveling instrument? There is no mystery about the matter of using a level.” To which Philip Schuyler, the company’s president concurred: “ : : : I am sure there must be ability enough at home to make these simple examinations and we need not send to England.” Concluding, Huntington proposed, “Put your (leveling) instrument in my hands, and I will have the work done for you in a satisfactory way. I will not do it myself, but I will find a man who will do it.” Huntington took the level and in approaching his friend suggests: “I have pledged myself to have a map and profile of Wood Creek made, and you are the man to do it.” With that, Wright took the level in hand, disassembled it to understand the workings, conducted a trial level run, and proceeded with the work assignment. It was 1802; he was thirty-two and in the words of Stuart: “It was Wright’s first work as an engineer.”

Figure 4: George Huntington. Source: Courtesy of the Jervis Library, Rome, New York, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

39

Endnotes 1 2 3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

The Connecticut Journal, June 7, 1781, recounted in Bedini, 1964, p. 45. Edmund Gunter (1581−1626) was an English mathematician and astronomer. David Rittenhouse (1732−1796) was a both clockmaker and surveyor in Philadelphia. He was responsible for the survey of the boundary between Pennsylvania and Delaware and successfully calculated the transit of Venus in 1769. He along with his brother Benjamin were both instrument makers. Jesse Ramsden (1735−1800) was an English mathematician and scientific instrument maker. He is best known for his development of a dividing apparatus whereby precise angles could be partitioned for various types of instruments, including transits and theodolites. Charles Mason (1728−1786) was an English astronomer and was Assistant Astronomer at the Greenwich Observatory between 1756 and 1760. He was sent to Sumatra by the Royal Society in 1761 as part of an international effort to observe the transit of Venus, all done to gather data for calculating the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Unfortunately, the ship was delayed, and he was forced to make his observations from the Cape of Good Hope. Jeremiah Dixon (1733−1779) was an English astronomer and surveyor. He had assisted Charles Mason, who, under of the authority of the Royal Society, observed the transit of Venus in 1761. ASCE designated the Mason−Dixon Line as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1977. Wright to Cocke, January 30, 1827. Ibid, March 9, 1831. Hugh Maxwell (1733−1799) was a Revolutionary War veteran and surveyor. Later in life he became involved in an export business shipping horses to the West Indies. On a return voyage he became ill and died at sea. Oliver Phelps (1749−1809) served as a Deputy Commissary during the war. He served briefly in the House of Representatives and ventured into land speculation. Nathaniel Gorham (1738−1796) was a merchant by trade and had been a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He served at the Constitutional Convention and was a signer of the US Constitution. Robert Morris (1734−1806) was a delegate to the Continental Congress and a signer to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution. Andrew Ellicott (1754−1820) was a Maryland surveyor and astronomer. He is remembered for his survey of the boundary of the District of

Benjamin Wright

40

15

16

17

18 19

20 21 22

23

24 25 26

27

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Columbia, the north Florida boundary, and various state boundaries of New York and Pennsylvania. The term “town” is one used to establish political division since much of the area had not been partitioned into counties. It is not to be confused with “township” in the rectangular survey systems of the Midwest. Simeon DeWitt (1756−1834) was a surveyor and geographer. He served as Surveyor General to the Continental Army during the war and later as Surveyor General to the State of New York. The latter was a position he held until his death. Nicholas Roosevelt (1767−1854) was an inventor and real estate investor. He was a close associate with Robert Fulton and is credited with the implementation of the vertical paddle wheel for steamboats. George Scriba (1752−1836); see the text for brief biographical information. The New Light Movement is a descriptor for those in a congregation who, with time and evolving attitudes, take on changing beliefs on sin, atonement, and other morays of the faith. John Gay (1685−1732) was an English poet born in Devonshire. A source for information about John Gay can be found at http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/john_gay A source for information about Trivia: Or, the Art of Walking the Streets of London (1716), Book II can be found at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/encap/ skilton/poetry/gay01b.html The story of the tragedy in the village on Lake Ontario is recounted in History of Mexico, p. 5; it does mention by name that Wright was a survivor. The same reference also provides detail as to Wright’s property and business holdings, among which is a dwelling for which he paid taxes. His decision to take a young wife into the frontier can be questioned but in his letters to George Scriba he expressed his strong feeling as to the development potential for the location, no doubt thinking that growth would soon follow. Reference to location and size of the planned church can be found in Cable, 1993, p. 41. Details of the church structure can be found in Cable, 1993, p. 43. Alexander Macomb (1748−1831) was a fur trader, merchant, and land speculator. His fur trading practices were reprehensible and in land speculation he did, in fact, do well in North Carolina. Thinking he could make a greater profit, he made the purchase in upstate New York. However, sales did not go well and he ended up in debtor’s prison. The trading practices of Macomb, his brother William, and their relationships with the British and provision of trade goods to Detroit warehouses are described in newspaper articles by David Dill in The Watertown Daily Times.

Benjamin Wright

TEN SQUARE CHAINS TO AN ACRE

41

28 Hezekiah Pierrepont (1768−1838) was a Brooklyn merchant. He reverted to the original spelling of his last name Pierrepont rather than Pierpont. 29 Reference to ferry and shipbuilding business along the river can be found in McCullough, 1972, p. 106. 30 Hough, 1854, p. 65. 31 An interesting scenario during Wright’s engagement with the Macomb Purchase is the possibility that Wright and Washington Irving may have met in August 1803. Irving had been clerking for the attorney Josiah Ogden Hoffman and, along with his cousin, Thomas Ogden, their party, including Irving, travelled into the northern regions of New York to inspect their properties. Their destination was Oswegatchie (present day Ogdensburg) in Saint Lawrence County where they arrived that August. Irving claims to have spent his time drafting deeds and the chance of he and Wright meeting seems likely. An account of these activities can be found in Jones, 2008, pp. 23–25. 32 William Weston (c.1752–1833) was a British engineer coming to America about 1793. He worked on the Middlesex Canal and various other canal and navigation improvements before taking a position with the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company. He departed the company for England around 1800 for reasons that are unclear and did not return to America. 33 Stuart’s reference to the Huntington remarks can be found in Stuart, 1871, p. 52.

Benjamin Wright

4 The Honor and Fame of Many

: : : and after tears of rapturous joy that suffused the cheeks of the multitude of spectators at Utica, Rome and along the line of the canal who witnessed the successful result of your labors : : : 1 Jesse Hawley to Benjamin Wright July 17, 1835 Jesse Hawley, a merchant in western New York, was outspoken in early efforts to build public and political interest in what became the Erie Canal. Following its completion in 1825, he lobbied political and civic leaders, including Wright and others in the engineering group, to position himself as the sole originator of the germinal idea for the waterway. History is somewhat cloudy as to the exact point of origin, but Wright for one never considered himself in that role. The idea’s origin, in many ways, can be traced back to George Washington and even into the prewar era. Following the war, George Washington visited New York in 1783 at Philip Schuyler’s2 invitation. Travelling through upstate New York, the two journeyed up the Mohawk River valley to the former site of Fort Stanwix,3 crossing Wood Creek and venturing onward to Oneida Lake. Washington offered encouragement “ : : : (for the) vast inland navigation of these United States, would to God we have wisdom enough to improve it : : : ” stressing

43

Benjamin Wright

44

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

further the importance of linking East to West. Adding further: “ : : : Extend the inland navigation of the eastern waters : : : and we shall not only draw the produce of the western settlers, but the peltry and fur trade of the lakes also to our ports.” In many respects, and for the country in general, Washington is due some of the credit for any idea of improving links between East and West, and for New York it was an easier task than for other states.4 Topography was the formidable barrier preventing westward access to the Ohio River or the Great Lakes, but for New York the possibility was not quite as daunting. As the 500-foot topographic contour is followed from Georgia northward, a significant physiographic feature becomes evident in New York. Running up the Hudson Valley, the line continues northward and takes an abrupt turn westward upon reaching the Mohawk River, following the Niagara escarpment westward. Among the first recorded descriptions of New York’s unique physiographic feature was that of Cadwallader Colden.5 Christopher Colles,6 another New Yorker, prior to emigrating to America from Ireland, had taught mathematics and had some canal engineering background. He proposed the idea in 1785, and was authorized by the state legislature to conduct a survey of the Mohawk River and evaluate the feasibility for removal of obstructions to allow boat passage. His report garnered favor with the legislature and authorization was made so work could proceed with recommended improvements to the river. The legislature was not providing money but just the right to remove river obstacles, construct locks, condemn land as necessary, and grant permission to collect tolls and charges. However, Colles was not able to raise the necessary investment and the project faltered. Nonetheless, the idea did have merit and others would later take up the cause for improvements to navigation.7 Elkanah Watson8 of New York had been a diplomatic courier during the war, traveling between Benjamin Franklin in Paris and the Continental Congress. In the years following the war, in the winter of 1785, he travelled into the southern states including Virginia, and visited Washington at his home, Mount Vernon. Staying a couple of days, he listened as the soonto-be president elaborated on the details of improvement activity to the Potomac River and plans to enhance commerce with territory to the west. Recounting from notes that he took during the visit, he shared some of Washington’s remarks: Both Virginia and Maryland have reciprocally incorporated a canal company, of which Washington has accepted the presidency. Preparations are now in full train to commence operations the ensuring spring; not only to open a free navigation of the Potomac, but eventually to remove obstructions in such branches of the Ohio as point towards Lake Erie : : :

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

45

Further adding : : : so as not only to give a direction to the fur trade from Detroit to Alexandria, but also the produce of those vast intervening countries which lie as yet in a state of nature. To demonstrate the practicability of this, and the policy of preserving a commercial intercourse with those extended regions, especially should the Mississippi be opened, was his constant and favorite theme.9

Washington shared with Watson data suggesting that Alexandria, Virginia, as a port for the fur trade from Detroit was closer than if the fur trade was brought to port in Montréal. A question that was no doubt on Watson’s mind may have been, could New York strive for something similar? After departing Mount Vernon and visiting various navigation improvements farther south, he returned to Albany in 1788. Somewhat later, while conducting some business in Massachusetts, he decided to extend his trip with travel into the interior of upstate New York, visiting Fort Stanwix and examining the Mohawk River and Wood Creek areas. Although his trip was cut short owing to bad weather, he came away convinced that the area would lend itself to favorable navigation improvement. In 1791 Watson gathered some friends and associates and conducted a second trip into the New York wilderness. This time it would be a more extensive trip up the Mohawk River, to travel over the divide concluding in the village of Geneva at the north end of Seneca Lake. Upon returning, Watson prepared a report that he shared with Philip Schuyler later that year, thus, setting in motion the germinal idea of what became the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company (WILNC). Schuyler lobbied the legislature and was able to gain authorization for the preparation of surveys and cost estimates, whereby Abraham Hardenburgh was retained for that undertaking. In the years prior, Hardenburgh, with the help of Wright, had performed surveys for the Central New York Military Tract, and so in this case he did the same and retained Wright to assist. The two conducted field work that fall, and their findings presented a favorable outcome such that by March 1792 a charter was granted to improve the Mohawk River and create a link with Wood Creek. Philip Schuyler became president of the company, with George Huntington among the company’s board of directors. Initially Schuyler did the planning for channel improvement by combining rock removal with a series of bypass canals around falls and rapids. To make the connection across the topographic divide a short canal would be necessary to link the two watersheds. The first significant work was for bypass work around Little Falls, begun in 1793. Comprised of five lift locks for an elevation change of about forty feet, the total distance was just under a mile. Although the lock chambers were constructed of wood, a common practice

Benjamin Wright

46

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 5: Area of WILNC and Wood Creek navigation activity. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

where wood was plentiful, they required frequent maintenance. Nonetheless, the work progressed, and the bypass was completed in the fall of 1795. Philip Schuyler had performed much of the planning and design work at Little Falls, but to continue the program of additional canals the company needed an engineer and turned to William Weston.10 Weston, a British engineer who came to America in 1793, worked with Loammi Baldwin11 on the Middlesex Canal in Massachusetts, and earlier, on the Schuylkill and Susquehanna Navigation, a precursor to the Union Canal in Pennsylvania. At the time he was contacted by WILNC he was working with Washington on the bypass canal around Great Falls on the Potomac River. He accepted the company’s offer and arrived in the latter part of 1795. His first order of business was to rebuild some of the locks at Little Falls and, by the spring of 1796, work was also underway on the canal to cross the divide near Fort Stanwix. The bypass canal at Rome was under two miles in length with two locks constructed of brick and completed in the fall of 1797. Weston had the peculiar notion of using brick for the masonry on his canals, a practice not

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

47

well-suited in areas where stone was available. Bricks required manufacture and kilns would be necessary at each lock site—a costly undertaking but construction, although slow, did advance. In the months that followed, he moved on to the canal at German Flats, a project which he completed in the spring of 1798—the same year Wright brought Philomela to New York. Weston, for reasons that are unclear, left the company that same spring, after completing the work at German Flats. Disagreements with Schuyler may have been a factor, as he was known to be a somewhat tyrannical manager, or it could have been other demands for his services. Regardless, whatever the reason, he returned to England sometime after 1800. Seventeen years later, Weston was offered what was for the time an enormous sum of $10,000 to return and take the chief engineer’s position for the Erie Canal, an offer he turned down. However, work was still incomplete for the WILNC, and Schuyler convened the Board of Directors, setting in motion George Huntington’s proposal. The latter suggested using local talent to fill the company’s engineering needs, thus giving Wright an opportunity to take the company’s level and continue the work. With Weston’s work finished on the canals at Rome and German Flats, all that remained for Wright were the locks on Wood Creek and completion of the link to Oneida Lake. In a letter to David Hosack12 written many years later, Wright described some of the plan: : : : In 1802, the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company determined upon improving the navigation of Wood Creek from near Fort Stanwix to a small tributary stream six miles westerly, called Little Canada Creek. In this distance there was a descent of nearly twenty-four feet, and the navigation very indifferent and troublesome. The plan decided upon was by means of dams and locks, of which they constructed four in the distance above mentioned : : : 13

Beyond Oneida Lake the conceptual plan had the route branching in two possible directions: one following the Oneida River and north on the Oswego River to Lake Ontario, and the other continuing down the Oneida River as far as Seneca Lake, the westernmost of the Finger Lakes. The task before Wright was to complete improvements to the Wood Creek corridor with a chain of locks and dams, intended to overcome a lack of water for the draft of boats travelling upstream from Oneida Lake. Termed the Upper Wood Creek Navigation, four locks were proposed, all to be constructed of timber. Work began in May 1802 with a dam creating a deep pool and a timber lock to allow passage up and down. He completed the work in the following year, but not without challenges. The general concept was a small version of a lock and dam technique in which Wright had to implement a dam across the main channel with a bypass channel around the dam and an associated lock structure. Timber locks on Wood Creek were covered with

Benjamin Wright

48

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

wooden roofs, much like covered bridges. The roof served two purposes: first, it provided lock protection from the elements and second, it created lateral bracing to counter earth pressures on the wooden walls. Design of the remaining three locks was modified to support the walls by placing timbers across the lock chamber supported on timber piles. The cross timbers were placed under the floor planking and although the whole design was a costeffective measure, wooden locks proved otherwise as they began to rot, and within a short amount of time replacement was necessary. Wright’s involvement with the WILNC ended with his completion of work on Wood Creek and he shifted to other survey work. In the following months, the company began experiencing financial difficulty, such that by 1808 plans were abandoned to develop improvements west of Oneida Lake. He pursued his engagement with Macomb’s Purchase along the state’s northern border, but his successful completion of the work on Wood Creek becomes significant due to the impact on his career. Some historians have suggested that when he took his position with the Erie Canal he had never seen a canal before, but his work on Wood Creek, the requirements for earthwork, and locks, all provided Wright with substantial experience. It was a complement of work that positioned him for what was to come on the Erie Canal. Work completed by the navigation company, if nothing else, placed in the minds of people the real possibilities of linking the Atlantic to the Great Lakes, and adding further support of the idea was a report prepared by Albert Gallatin, then serving as Secretary of the Treasury in Thomas Jefferson’s administration. Gallatin,14 a Swiss immigrant, had been a member of the House of Representatives and as Secretary was authorized by Congress in 1807 to “ : : : prepare a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of Congress, to the purposes of opening roads, and making canals : : : ”. Submitted in 1808, Gallatin’s report was well executed with an immense amount of detail. In the words of one historian: “ : : : Gallatin rests his case on the principle that improved transportation is an indispensable condition for increasing national income and wealth : : : ”.15 His report was quite specific about projects to improve transportation, and as a resource, Gallatin sought insight from respected men of the day including Robert Fulton16 and Benjamin Latrobe.17 He also consulted George Huntington about prospects in the western part of New York for a canal to link the Hudson with Lake Erie. Writing Huntington in 1807, Gallatin asked about “ : : : the practicability of opening a water communication, by canals only and without using the natural bed of creeks or rivers, from the tide water of the Hudson to Lake Ontario and from Lake Ontario around Niagara Falls to Lake Erie.”18 Gallatin also posed a question to Huntington: Should the canal link the Hudson River with Lake Erie and avoid a bypass around the falls, or should the canal link the Hudson with Oneida Lake and connections northward to Lake Ontario, thus bypassing involvement with the Holland Land Company?

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

49

The motive in either alternative was improvement to the flow of commerce, along with diverting business away from Canada, a big part of which was western fur trade originating from Detroit. At the same time however, and more critical, was anticipated improvement to the flow of two other commodities, both vital to the American diet: flour and salt. Where furs were an item of luxury, the latter two were necessary for everyday existence almost everywhere. James Geddes,19 another New York surveyor, was also engaged in business as a merchant dealing in salt mined from large deposits near present-day Syracuse. One evening in 1805, while staying with a relative in Geneva, Geddes became involved in discussions over dinner, some of which included the idea for a cross-state canal. Geneva sits at the northern tip of Seneca Lake halfway between Syracuse and Rochester. In the home that evening and party to the conversation was a boarder, Jesse Hawley. Years later, Hawley would claim the idea for a cross-state canal was originally initiated by him and formed the basis of the conversation between him and Geddes that evening. As an outcome, Hawley became an outspoken advocate for a canal, culminating in a succession of newspaper articles in The Genesee Messenger written under the pen name of “Hercules.” Jesse Hawley20 was a local merchant in Geneva dealing in warehousing and transfer of flour, a commodity originating in the western end of the state and destined for the principal market, New York City. Efficient transport of flour was vital in Hawley’s business and any idea which avoided an overland route in favor of an all-water route was the best alternative. During the following year, Hawley departed for Pittsburgh to escape his creditors because of a default by his business partner. He did, however, return to face his obligations and was imprisoned for twenty months in the state prison at Canandaigua. It was during this period, while evading his creditors and then serving his prison sentence, that he wrote the series of articles and essays published in The Genesee Messenger. Written to promote an all-water concept, his rhetoric took on a rather dramatic tone: The trade of almost all the lakes in North America, the most of which flowing through the canal, would center at New York for their common mart. This port, already of the first commercial consequence in the United States, would shortly after, be left without competition in trade : : : 21

His first essay was published in January 1807 during his time of evasion in Pennsylvania, and in another essay, he remarked With due deference to the president of the United States (Jefferson), and the committees appointed by the national legislature, who now have the subject under consideration, I will presume to suggest to them, that improvement which would afford the most immediate, and consequently the most expensive advantages which any other

Benjamin Wright

50

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

in the United States can possibly do. It is the connecting the waters of Lake Erie and those of the Mohawk and Hudson rivers by means of a canal.22

Hawley’s further essays offer detail about the means and methods of achieving his ideas. Construction techniques, cost estimates, the politics of federal participation, and even the quantities of water required are all outlined. However, to the present day it remains somewhat of a mystery as to how he obtained his research material while incarcerated in debtor’s prison at Canandaigua west of Geneva. Back in Albany, while Hawley was serving his twenty-month confinement, Wright and Joshua Forman23 were sharing a room in a local boarding house. The two were serving in the General Assembly— Wright from Oneida County and Forman from Onondaga County. Wright had first been elected to the Assembly in 1797, and it was nine years later when the two were spending an evening discussing an article in Ree’s Cyclopedia,24 a copy of which had just arrived. Paying attention to the section on canals, Forman later described the evening’s discussion: : : : In reading, at my leisure, in the article “canal”, an account of the numerous canals and improved river navigations in England, I soon discovered the relative importance of the former over the latter : : : it occurred to me, that, if a canal was ever made to open a communication from the Hudson to the western lakes, it would be worth more than all the extra cost : : : Sitting, at the time, in the room with Judge Wright : : : I immediately broached the subject : : : At first, Judge Wright objected, that it would be a folly to make canal 150 miles abreast of a good sloop navigation in Lake Ontario. To this I replied, that the rich country through which it must pass would, of itself, support a canal : : : The subject was freely discussed. Judge Wright gave in to the plan, and it was agreed : : : that the project was of immense importance : : : 25

Forman’s mention of Wright’s initial objection to the idea is interesting. Wright’s motivation may have been somewhat personal, because he still held title to lands at the mouth of Little Salmon Creek on the shore of Lake Ontario. Commerce originating from the lake moving towards the Hudson would no doubt have brought him benefit, but nonetheless he supported the idea and offered additional insight into that initial conversation: Judge Forman and myself were subscribers to Rees’ Cyclopedia, and we received that winter (1808) : : : the sixth volume of the work, containing the article “canal”. We also read a long and able report published in a newspaper, made by a committee of the legislature of Pennsylvania, wherein it was recommended : : : that the state

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

51

should make a : : : road : : : between Philadelphia : : : and the north line of the state (boundary with New York) : : : Upon reading this, Judge Forman observed that something ought to be done to prevent the people of Pennsylvania from drawing away the trade of our state : : : 26

Forman suggested introducing a measure on the floor of the New York legislature, a resolution to build a canal creating an all-water route between the Hudson River and Lake Erie. Wright added “ : : : after conversing a while, he (Forman) proposed a resolution which he would introduce, and I agreed to second it.”27 Legislation was introduced, seconded by Wright, and after debate, the measure was approved in April 1809, authorizing $1,000 to conduct a feasibility survey for an all-water route across the state. Both men would in later years say they knew nothing of Hawley’s essays. Even though Forman admitted he was in possession of several of them, he admitted he had not studied them in detail. As Forman’s resolution was working through the legislature, the Gallatin report, released the previous year, offered specifics regarding certain internal improvements throughout the country including the route from the Hudson River up the Mohawk Valley. To achieve unified support of the plan, one additional element was essential. With the state’s ratification of the resolution in addition to Gallatin’s report, all that was necessary was Holland Land Company’s concurrence. Because the company owned the entire western end of the state, their support was critical if the effort was to succeed. Joseph Ellicott,28 manager of the company’s holdings, cast a favorable eye on the proposal and encouraged the route. Ellicott, Andrew’s brother, was a surveyor himself, and years earlier had been retained by the Dutch banking group to conduct a survey for some of their holdings in Pennsylvania. Once he completed that work, they engaged him to execute a survey of their purchase in western New York. It was an assignment that took him two years to complete, and in short order, he became the company’s on-site agent and manager. Ellicott looked upon the cross-state waterway with favor and supported a route concept that would avoid connection with Lake Ontario, and instead, connect with Lake Erie. His decision was motivated from purely economic reasons. A Lake Ontario terminus would funnel trade to and from Montréal, whereas a canal drawing trade from the Midwest would travel through lands of the Holland Land Company, bringing direct benefit. Simeon De Witt,29 the state surveyor general, supervised the feasibility survey in the summer of 1808, using James Geddes for the fieldwork. Work was completed late that year and the resulting report presented favorable prospects for an all-water route across the state. Using the De Witt–Geddes report, legislators in the western end of the state lobbied

Benjamin Wright

52

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

for the state to consider the entire East–West route. However, the overall idea for a cross-state waterway had Federalist origins, and what was necessary for a successful lobbying effort was for the Federalists (Republicans) to enlist the help of a Democratic-Republican (Democrat). The man sought out to wrangle with the necessary political maneuvering was DeWitt Clinton, who agreed to lend his support. Clinton soon found that not all was smooth political lobbying. By 1810, Joseph Ellicott was making a reversal and changing his mind, arguing for a route connecting with Lake Ontario and concluding that a better market for the region’s trade goods was, in fact, Montréal and not New York City. With that, Ellicott became an obstacle. Another hurdle was the legislature, but with Clinton’s lobbying effort, the legislature created a commission with funds to conduct exploratory surveys of the entire route for which Geddes and Wright were retained—work they completed in 1811. As the War of 1812 enveloped the country, Ellicott still favored the Lake Ontario route. However, the war became a substantial lobbying tool as Clinton swayed public interest with a rather stark reminder, a waterway connecting with Lake Ontario would aid any advance of the British threat from Canada.

Figure 6: DeWitt Clinton. Source: Wikipedia / public domain.

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

53

Clinton’s efforts were rewarded with the legislature authorizing procurement of the development rights and purchase of the WILNC capital holdings, with further authorization to purchase land in the western part of the state. Ellicott came back around and realized the impact of keeping the alignment on Holland Land property so that all that was left was for the state to pass legislation authorizing construction. Then, at that point Governor Daniel Tompkins30 found himself in between the political interests for a Lake Ontario route and Clinton’s Lake Erie route, but to help sway the decision, Martin van Buren31 entered the political discussions. Suggesting some political maneuvering, Martin van Buren persuaded the Democratic-Republican Clinton to endorse the Federalist Tompkins for the latter’s re-election as governor. Even so, Tompkins still failed to act. John C. Calhoun,32 a member of the House from South Carolina, even sought congressional support and introduced legislation to earmark money for the project, but it was vetoed by James Madison on constitutional grounds. So, if the effort was to continue, the state was alone in trying to make it happen and thus, the internal debate continued. By March 1817, Tompkins was gone and serving as vice president under James Monroe, and as the legislative discussions persisted, Van Buren again entered the dialogue as voting neared. Very much anti-Clinton, Van Buren was always publicly aligned against the project. Yet, for reasons that are somewhat vague even into the present day, he stepped in at the last minute in favor of the project and cast the winning vote in the state Senate, thus allowing creation of the Canal Bill of 1817. It was a legislative act that set in motion authorization for construction of a complete project from one end of the state to the other. June 1817 marked the beginning as the first construction contracts were tendered, and that July 4, three days after DeWitt Clinton became governor, the groundbreaking ceremony took place with a good deal of fanfare. The 363mile total length was divided into three sections with each having an engineer in charge. James Geddes had the western division between the Seneca River and Lake Erie; Wright had the central division between Utica and the Seneca River; and Charles Broadhead33 had the eastern or Mohawk division between Albany and Utica. The design dimensions had a bottom width of 28 feet, a water line width of forty feet, and a depth of four feet. Initial clearing and grubbing were done by hand, with trees felled and stumps removed by animal-powered winches. Much of the excavation work was also done by hand with pick and shovel and the spoils removed in wheelbarrows carried to wagons for carting. Referred to as the “European” method of excavation, it was a method used on just about every early canal in Europe. However, when confronted with stiff material, the American approach evolved with the use of horse-drawn plows for breaking up the soil. Once the subgrade level was reached, the horses and donkeys pulling the spoil wagons provided a side benefit in helping to compact the soil. Excavation

Benjamin Wright

54

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 7: Route of the Erie Canal. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Figure 8: Profile of the Erie Canal. Source: Wikipedia/ public domain.

in rock, no doubt, utilized blasting powder manufactured in the Delaware processing facilities of E.I. DuPont de Nemours.34 The requirement for hydraulic structures comprised eighty-three masonry locks with timber gates, typically ninety feet long and fifteen feet wide, providing 675 feet of total lift for the canal’s length. Earthwork followed clearing once alignment was established on the ground by the resident engineers. To expedite the process an array of time-saving measures were

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

55

created, and for the time, they were somewhat innovative. One, a device for tree removal, was a cable attached to the top of a tree with the other end attached to an endless screw mechanism. The operator would use levers to turn a screw causing the tree to snap, eliminating the time for two men to use a crosscut saw. Another innovative idea developed to aid excavation was implementing a third blade on horse-drawn plows during earthwork removal. Eighteen masonry aqueducts were constructed for carrying the canal over larger rivers and streams with smaller streams channeled into masonry culverts underneath the embankment. The largest aqueduct was across the Genesee River at Rochester, 802 feet long with eleven arches. One of the largest embankments crossed the Irondequoit Creek valley and was a significant undertaking. When considering the alternatives of either a lengthy aqueduct or additional locks to overcome the elevation differences, the engineers selected an earthen embankment equivalent in height to a six-story building over 100 feet wide at the bottom. Timber-bearing piles were used to provide the foundation for the twenty-five-foot-high by thirty-feet-wide masonry culvert carrying Irondequoit Creek underneath. Managing large construction projects was an art little known in America in the era of the Erie Canal. Initially, it was thought the commission should procure all tools and just contract for labor. As things progressed, by the time construction got underway, it was reversed and all contractors wishing to obtain work were required to provide all tools and equipment. Nothing of this size or scale had been undertaken in America prior to this project, and contracts were being let for small sections of about one or two miles. Thus, with many smaller contracts and the enormous size of the work, it created a contracts management challenge for the assistant engineers. Contract limits would be delineated by natural features, such as creeks and ridge lines, with primary contracts tendered for land clearing, excavation, masonry, wooden lock gates, and lockhouses. A contractor successful in obtaining a portion of the work would be advanced a sum of money according to the terms of the contract to allow the purchase of equipment and materials. The money was commensurate with the relative size of the overall contract, and unless work was not performed on schedule, the sum was to be paid back to the commission with interest. In the off season, another sum would be advanced to the contractor to procure supplies for the following construction season. All of this was done with strict adherence to the understanding the work was to be performed on time and to the approval of the engineers. The engineers were responsible for establishing alignment, establishing estimates of quantities, and inspecting and verifying contractor performance and quantities of work. All of these were managed by Wright for his division as he ventured out on the line each day. Riding in a horse-drawn buggy, he would confer with his assistants and clarify design intention. He met with contractors on a wide range of issues,

Benjamin Wright

56

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

including cost overruns, lack of materials, lack of labor, performance schedule, and adjacent landowner concerns. The division engineers—Geddes, Wright, and Broadhead—each supervised a team of assistant engineers. The assistants, in turn, managed a team of resident engineers who were with the contractors in the field. The residents established grade and alignment, checked quantities, performed cost estimates, and verified contractor work for payment, and, considering the scale of the project, the resident engineers were managing multiple contracts within their section. The design of structures, culverts, waste weirs, locks, and aqueducts, along with overall control of alignment, fell to the assistant engineers, with review and oversight by the division engineer, and for the middle division that would have been Wright. The initial budget for the entire canal was set at $4.9 million, with an average cost for 363 miles at $13,500 per mile, quite large numbers for that time. Thus, in the interest of garnering public support, the rather flat middle division between Utica and the Seneca River was undertaken first at an estimated cost of just over $1.0 million. It was a symbolic maneuver, whereby crossing the divide would help the state gain support from the eastern and western regions for continuation of those more expensive portions of the canal. Wright brought the middle division to completion in 1820 at a final cost of just over $1.1 million, and to his credit, a small budget differential for the undertaking. It was about this time when he was named chief engineer for the entire work because Broadhead and Geddes had each departed for other engagements. Geddes became involved in a project to link Lake Erie with the Ohio River and Broadhead drifted somewhat into obscurity. D. S. Gregory,35 state comptroller, in a letter dated June 1866 to Benjamin Hall Wright,36 the elder Wright’s second son, shared these thoughts: : : : The commissioners thought they must send for some great engineer from England : : : to teach us how to build a canal, fearing to trust our common-place Americans. At length they settled upon that plain, unsophisticated, and unpretending land surveyor – nothing but an old-fashioned land surveyor – Benjamin Wright, for the engineer on the Erie : : : From this school rose nearly all the canal engineers who have lined the map of the country with their works of internal improvements.

Commenting further, Gregory offered these remarks about the elder Wright’s character. What struck me about your father was his modesty and unpretending merit, his quiet way of doing his business, and the immense labor he performed. All the estimates for payment were in his own handwriting, and when he settled up, the full statement was made of the work

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

57

done by the contractor, referring to the contract, and specifying every item, with a summary of all payments before closing, with a receipt in full of the transaction, all in his own handwriting, neat and plain.37

Considered the nation’s first significant public works project, the Erie Canal also became America’s first engineering school. ASCE president Desmond FitzGerald,38 delivering an address to the society in 1899, considered the history of American civil engineering to be divided into four periods. The first, 1785 to 1810, was a period of political and cultural incubation, or “agitation” as he termed it toward internal improvements. The second, 1810 to 1830, was a period of canal building. The third, 1830 to 1848, was a time of railroad building. The fourth, 1848 to his contemporary period of 1899, was the era of “modern engineering” at the dawn of the twentieth century. The historian Noble Whitford,39 recognized for his work on the history of canal systems in New York, remarked that during the first period, except for those few foreign trained individuals, there were no American engineers. However, during the time of the second period, primarily the period of construction in New York, America began developing engineers through first-hand experience. The so-called Erie School of Engineering produced some of America’s early civil engineering talent, and for the most part, all mentored by Wright. Enumerated among this list of engineers were Holmes Hutchinson, David Bates, Nathan Roberts, Canvass White, and John Jervis, all of whom led successful civil engineering careers. Holmes Hutchinson was a native of New York and began work on the Erie Canal about 1819. He would remain connected with the canal, even into the era of the enlargement, serving until 1841. In this period, as the canal reached its completion in 1825, he undertook additional work and managed the construction of the Blackstone Canal in Rhode Island, a plan developed by Wright. David Stanhope Bates, born in New Jersey, was a surveyor prior to his work on the Erie. Early in his career, George Scriba retained him about 1810 to continue surveying work on Scriba’s Patent following Wright’s departure. Bates was serving as a judge in Oneida County when Wright first engaged him as an assistant engineer on the canal’s middle division. When Geddes resigned his position with the Erie Canal about 1820, he took on an assignment with another project in Ohio. With that vacancy, Bates was placed in the position as division engineer for the western portion as Wright took control of the entire project as chief engineer. Bates is credited with the engineering and construction management of one of the Erie Canal’s more prominent structures the Genesee River Aqueduct, completed in 1823. Earlier, when construction got underway in 1817, Wright, as head of the middle division, placed John Jervis as an axe man in one of Bates’ survey crews. It was in that position that Jervis began learning the fundamentals of leveling

Benjamin Wright

58

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

and canal engineering. With time, Jervis took Bates’ position as a resident engineer when Bates took over for James Geddes in the western division. Nathan Roberts, also born in New Jersey, was a teacher and Wright selected him as an assistant resident engineer since he had a firm grasp of mathematics. He is credited with one of the more complex structures on the Erie, the design and construction of the staircase flight of locks at Lockport traversing the Niagara Escarpment. The locks were in pairs to allow travel in two directions and comprised five pairs of locks with a total lift of close to sixty feet. Roberts worked with Wright again on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and furthered his career with navigation improvements in many areas of the country. Roberts married Lavinia White in November 1816. Lavinia was sixteen years his junior and had been one of his pupils while he was teaching in Oriskany, New York. She was the granddaughter of Hugh White, founder of Whitestown, New York. Also, among Hugh White’s grandchildren was another of Wright’s assistants, Canvass White. Canvass White, born in New York, worked as a clerk but was often travelling for health reasons, and during the War of 1812 he served at Fort Erie near Buffalo. Prior to work on the Erie Canal construction he first travelled to Europe in 1817 to observe canal construction, obtain information

Figure 9: Postcard showing the aqueduct across the Genesee River at Rochester. Source: Erie Canal Museum, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

59

Figure 10: Staircase locks at Lockport. Source: Erie Canal Museum, used with permission.

about cements, and obtain surveying instruments. His first work as part of the Erie Canal engineering group found him placed as an instrument man running levels west of Rome. It was during his tenure on the canal that White is credited with one of the significant advances in its construction and for that matter, for civil engineering in general, the discovery of a source and the development of a suitable hydraulic cement. Around 1820, White discovered a stratum of limestone in Madison County, New York, and when developed in powder form, it produced a successful cement suitable for use in masonry— both for aqueducts and locks. A letter reprinted in the June 1820 edition of The Journal of the Franklin Institute provides some comment by Wright: The specimen of Argillo-ferruginous limestone, herewith presented, is found in great abundance in the counties of Madison, Onondaga, and Cayuga : : : When found in place, it is always under the blue lime, which is uniformly overlaid with grey lime. The grey is the upper stratum and is found in large heavy blocks; the whole six or eight feet in thickness. The blue which next occurs, is various in thickness, and

Benjamin Wright

60

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

from it is made the beautiful white lime. Under the blue lies the first described, which is found to be a superior water cement, and is used very successfully in the stone work of the Erie canal : : : : : : Mr. Canvass White, a friend of mine, has obtained a patent for it when used for hydraulic purposes, and it is believed it will answer an excellent purpose.40

The Journal elaborated on an interview with White regarding the qualities of the cement. In February (1821) we had an interview with Mr. White, from whom we obtained the following result of the analysis of the hydraulic lime, by Dr. Hadley.

Carbonic acid 35.05% Lime 25% Silex 15.05% Alumine 16.05% Water 5.03% Oxid of Iron 2.02% —————— 98.20% of the sample41 White would later serve as chief engineer for both the Union Canal in Pennsylvania and the Delaware and Raritan Canal in New Jersey. John Jervis, another Erie engineer, remarked in his memoirs that he felt White possessed the strictest engineering mind of any of his time, saying, “ : : : he delighted in plodding over plans and methods of construction : : : .” White would sell his cement patent to the Canal Commission in later years, and the contribution it played to successful completion of construction was significant.42 John Jervi as a child traveled with his parents to the Fort Stanwix area from Long Island in 1798. Following completion of common schooling about 1810, he worked in nondescript jobs as a young man. In the weeks that followed the July 1817 groundbreaking of the Erie Canal, Wright spoke with Jervis’ father about using his son as an axe man in one of the survey crews managed by David Bates. In modern terminology, the young axe man progressed up a steep learning curve, such that by the 1819−1820 construction season, the twenty-three-year-old Jervis had taken over Bates’ position as resident engineer following Bates’ taking a position as division engineer. Four years later, Jervis would be managing the fifty-mile section of the eastern division between Schenectady and Amsterdam.

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

61

Figure 11: Canvass White. Source: Erie Canal Museum, used with permission.

******************** Wright had his share of challenges to complete the canal, but there were two that stemmed not from construction per se but more from the interplay of politics versus engineering judgment—the canal’s termini—both East and West. At the western end of the line, Buffalo and Black Rock were being considered with each having merit. Benefit was to be gained for whichever community was selected as the recipient of state money to improve the harbor as required for canal construction at the point of entry. Buffalo was situated on the lake shore, whereas Black Rock was inland on the Niagara River. The engineer corps was divided between the two sites; Wright and others favored Buffalo, and Nathan Roberts, David Bates, and James Geddes favored the Black Rock location. Neither location had a trouble-free harbor. On the one hand, Buffalo on the lake shore was subject to tidal influences; the water was shallow and sand bars often developed. Black Rock, on the other hand, was inland and swift currents of the Niagara River created difficulty for sailing vessels coming off the lake.

Benjamin Wright

62

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 12: John Jervis (circa period of the Erie Canal). Source: L. Neal FitzSimons Collection, in the possession of the author.

Any decision for the terminus locations fell to the commissioners upon review of engineering recommendations, all the while undergoing expected political lobbying. Buffalo was the preferred location and had been DeWitt Clinton’s choice all along. It held the support of Wright, as well as of Joseph Ellicott, manager of the Holland Land Company. Once additional surveys had been completed, both Roberts and White were supportive of the decision for Buffalo. It was the other end of the line, where the outcome would have long lasting effect, which proved to be more challenging— more to the man than to the project. As the state’s capital city, Albany was never in question as the appropriate eastern terminus. The ensuing controversary evolved not from the terminus proper but rather from the route to get there. Wright’s conceptual design had the eastern alignment follow the Mohawk River down to the Hudson and then follow the west side of the river to Albany. Business

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

63

interests in Albany felt that the alignment should take a more direct route and run straight from Schenectady to Albany. Wright had already considered the technical issue and, although it was shorter, a direct route from Schenectady to Albany would involve a substantial amount of additional earthwork. Wright’s proposed route followed the course of the river, and although there would be the required lockage, he felt the deep excavation for the other route would be more expensive. To counter Wright’s argument, another engineer was retained by the interests in Albany. Wright had quantified the depth of excavation if done over the suggested direct route “ : : : instead of following in the valley of the river and carry around by Troy they have it made over the Pine Plain with 100 foot cutting for 3 or 4 miles and 50 to 60 feet for 4 to 5 miles : : : .” His report to the commissioners concluded that the cost-effective alignment was to avoid the excessive earthwork and follow the Mohawk to Troy and the Hudson south to Albany.43 Wright went to great length to analyze the excavation process to prove his point. Because the excavation would not have any points of filling, all the spoils would need to be removed and transported for disposal. The men digging would put material in wheelbarrows for a short haul to a wagon or cart for transport out of the work area. These wagons would then haul to awaiting scows or barges in completed portions of the canal for transport downstream to a point of disposal. The cost for all these individual elements would have to be understood to determine the total cost. To understand his thinking about the issue, a glimpse at Wright’s analysis in the example following is for barge haulage of spoil by itself. His example begins with one cubic foot of sand which, for other parts of the analysis, the cubic foot serves as a common element for estimating the progress of digging and wheelbarrow hauling. Haulage distances would also need to be factored in the overall estimate. 27 cubic feet = 1 cubic yard, yields 1.182 tons of material 1 horse will draw in a scow (barge) 50 tons at 2 miles an hour return empty at 2.5 miles an hour to manage this load will require 1 horse at a daily cost of 75¢ 1 rider at a daily cost of 75¢ 1 man at the helm (of the barge) at a daily cost of 75¢, yields cost per load = $ 2.25 Assume the horse will haul 10 hours per day44

Again, as with the western terminus, the commissioners would make the final decision and, on review, concurred with Wright and selected the Mohawk route. However, the attacks on Wright did not stop. Venting his frustration, he remarked: “I was then attacked : : : with false statements and misrepresentations : : : as wanting in judgement : : : ” Being true to his nature, however, he did not take the time to counter the accusations and carried on with his work.45

Benjamin Wright

64

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

******************** The canal’s completion in 1825 brought with it a grand celebration. DeWitt Clinton and his entourage departed Buffalo carrying barrels of lake water and traveled the entire length from Buffalo to Albany. Going farther, they journeyed down the Hudson to “marry” the water of Lake Erie with that of the Atlantic Ocean. In the years that followed, New York City became an economic power, and soon to follow, would be a political power as well. One historian has said: “ : : : for the Erie Canal, the project started somewhere and ended at a point which was perhaps nowhere when the project started, but which was to become as important as a result of the improvement itself.”46 Census records alone testify to the growth of New York; by 1810, the population in the western region was a mere 23,400, in 1820 the population had swelled close to 109,000 and the canal was still five years away from completion. A decade later the question of the canal’s origins still lingered. George Washington, Cadwallader Colden, and Christopher Colles, among others, provided early support for improved water navigation, but not to be deterred, Jesse Hawley continued to lobby for the position as sole instigator of the idea. In one of Hawley’s letters to Wright he mentions something he had heard second hand: : : : a conversation between you and the late Governor Clinton at Utica in the autumn of 1819 on the subject of the New York Canals, then commenced; in which Clinton made an observation in substance ‘that the writings of Hercules by Jesse Hawley was one of the most important causes of the origin of the canal.’47

Wright denied knowledge of Hawley’s newspaper essays at the time of Forman’s resolution in the New York Legislature and recounts his conversations with DeWitt Clinton, going so far as to suggest the idea may well in fact predate Hawley: I have a clear recollection of the late Governor Clinton once saying in my hearing that your essays : : : were as far as he could trace, the first suggestions in a tangible shape which he could find of the origins of the canal policy. It was also mentioned that Governor Morris had thrown out hints of the feasibility of a canal from Lake Erie as early as 1803.48

Jesse Hawley mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to encourage support and implementation of the canal idea. His efforts should not be minimized. For Wright, history would be the final arbiter, and in his mind, he never claimed for himself any role in the idea’s origins. ********************

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

65

The Erie Canal allowed Wright to stay somewhat close to home (the alignment adjoined the town of Rome); however, the project did take him away a good deal of the time as he traveled from one end of the state to the other. Further complicating things, his services were being sought after for engagements with proposed developments in other parts of the country. Philomela managed both home and children where over the years, following Henry, there were six boys and two girls with the youngest, Frances, born in 1820. Although he was now referring to himself as an engineer, he was, at the same time, still a husband and father. As the head of the household he grappled with both the good and the not so good of family issues while pursuing a career. A case in point was Wright’s oldest son, Henry. Henry enrolled at the age of seventeen in Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. He was a rather vexatious young man and his college career proved a frustrating time for his father. Construction had just gotten underway when the elder got word in 1817 that his son was caught doing what was characterized as “some mischievous activity.” To further complicate the matter, the school remarked, “he was neglecting his studies” and in the end, Henry was asked to depart the school. For Wright the deeper underlying realities were the conflicts of managing an engineering career while juggling the needs of being a father, as the more human side to his life often found its way intertwined with the other.49 Wright’s career choice required that he be away, and his absence was sometimes necessary, but to his credit, the home was filled with strong religious beliefs and basic moral values. It was an environment necessary to weather the difficulties of the time, including those brought on by mischievous children. On the one hand, to Wright the obligations of raising children were a cherished responsibility, and, in some respects, a gift from God. On the other hand, coming face to face with disease and one’s own mortality were things thrust on humankind not as gifts but as the reality of God’s plan. The family would grow to expect his absences, but underneath any success his career would achieve, he recognized the need to stay connected and serve as an unseen presence at home. ******************** In the years in which he served as chief engineer on the Erie Canal, Wright was approached by groups of business and civic leaders seeking to solicit his services for work on other projects. One such group, realizing that New York was creating something more real than fiction, were representatives from Virginia. The members of this group had a prospective canal project in the planning stages along the James River valley, running west of Richmond, and among the group was a Virginia planter named John Hartwell Cocke (pronounced Cōke.) The two met for the first time and a friendship evolved, one lasting the remainder of Wright’s life.

Benjamin Wright

66

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Wright’s work in Virginia, although not as dramatic as his work on the Erie Canal, did have its engineering challenges. It also exposed him to something else. In the canal era, excavation work for any canal was of one means, manual labor, and for the Erie Canal that labor was performed predominately by newly arrived Irish immigrants. In Virginia, where forced labor was a common practice, it was another matter. From the time Wright arrived in Richmond in 1824, on his first trip to the state, it soon became clear to him that the canal faced more than just business and construction hurdles. There were also the issues of slavery and rumblings of secession.

Endnotes 1 2

3

4

5

6

Hawley to Wright, July 17, 1835. Philip Schuyler (1733−1804) was a major general and commander of the Northern Department of Washington’s army. His wife was Catherine van Rensselaer, a distant cousin to the Stephen van Rensselaer line of descent. Their daughter, Elizabeth, was the wife of Alexander Hamilton. Also, Catherine and Philip’s daughter, Margarita, was the first wife of Steven van Rensselaer III, a figure that plays prominently in Wright’s career. Fort Stanwix was established by the British during the French and Indian War. It was a strategic position situated on the topographic divide between the Hudson River basin and water flowing to the Great Lakes. It was a well-known Native American route of passage. In 1783, at the end of the war, Washington made a journey into the interior of upstate New York. His thoughts are recorded in letters he wrote to the Marquis de Chastellux and recounted again in David Hosack’s memoir of DeWitt Clinton. The extracts shown here are taken from Shaw, 1990 (Erie Water West), pp. 11 & 12. Cadwallader Colden (1688–1776) was the Surveyor General of New York and submitted his report in 1724 to then Governor William Burnet. This is possibly the first published mention of an all-water route across New York. He was the grandfather of Cadwallader Colden (1769−1834), a prominent figure in the efforts for an all-water route across the state. He was a stockholder in the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company and supporter of the eventual Erie Canal. Christopher Colles (1739−1816) was an early proponent of improvements to the Mohawk River as an aid to improved transportation across the state. Among his various endeavors he compiled what could be considered the first American road map, a document with 83 maps showing major roads between Albany, New York, and Williamsburg, Virginia—a work completed in 1789.

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20

67

The activities of Christopher Colles and his lobbying efforts with the New York legislature are discussed in both Shaw, 1990 (Erie Water West), p. 12 and Bernstein, 2005, p. 78. Elkanah Watson (1758−1842) was born in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and along with promoting the idea of a canal across the state, he was a merchant and land speculator. In 1791, Watson brought with him Jeremiah Van Rensselaer, Stephen Bayard, and Philip Van Cortlandt, and the group journeyed across New York state for the purpose of studying the practicality of a canal across the state. In later years, as a result of the journey, Watson considered himself as the first with the idea of the cross-state canal, thus adding his name to the list of possible originators. Both quotations attributed to Washington were recorded by Watson during his stay at Mt. Vernon. They are recounted in Whitford, 1905, Chapter 1, p. 9. William Weston (c.1753−c.1833) was first retained as engineer for the Schuylkill & Susquehanna Navigation Company. Later to work on various other canal projects, he is credited as the first to introduce the telescopic leveling instrument in America. Although Rittenhouse and Ellicott had been using precise surveying instruments, they had not been using telescopic levels. The instrument was a “wye” level design. Loammi Baldwin (1745−1807) was a land surveyor and served in Washington’s army. He was the chief engineer for the Middlesex Canal linking the Charles River with the Merrimack River, a work completed in 1804. His son Loammi Jr. was also an engineer. David Hosack (1769−1835) was the attending physician at the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Upon completion of the Erie Canal he undertook a biography of DeWitt Clinton. Wright to Hosack, December 31, 1828. Albert Gallatin (1761−1849) served in various political positions during his career and opposed the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton. Gallatin, 1808, p. 3. These excerpts are from Gallatin’s report of 1808 and are recounted in Bernstein, 2005, p.110. Robert Fulton (1765−1815) is credited with the design and implementation of the first commercial steamboat. Benjamin Latrobe (1764−1820) an engineer and architect, joined Fulton and Nicholas Roosevelt to implement steamboats on the Ohio River. He performed initial studies on what would become the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Albert Gallatin to George Huntington, December 15, 1807. James Geddes (1763−1838) performed surveys in Ohio for the Ohio and Erie Canal in addition to work on the Erie Canal. Jesse Hawley (1773–1842) was a flour merchant in New York. An early proponent of the Erie Canal, he published several newspaper articles

Benjamin Wright

68

21 22

23

24

25 26 27 28

29

30 31

32

33 34

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

supporting the idea. He is another on the list of persons laying claim as the originator of the canal idea. This material is part of Essay #6, published in The Genesee Messenger, recounted in Hosack, Memoir of DeWitt Clinton, Appendix Note. This excerpt is from Hawley’s introductory essay, purported to have been printed at Pittsburgh in a newspaper called the Commonwealth, January 14, 1807. Recounted in Hosack, Memoir of DeWitt Clinton, Appendix Note. Joshua Forman (1777–1849) was both a lawyer and an assemblyman from Onondaga County, and was in a law partnership with his brother-in-law in Syracuse. He moved to North Carolina in 1829 and remained there until his death twenty years later. Ree’s Cyclopedia was created and edited by the Rev. Abraham Rees, a British Presbyterian minister. It was published in thirty-nine volumes over the course of the years between 1802 and 1819. Letter from Joshua Forman to David Hosack, recounted in Hosacks’s Memoir of DeWitt Clinton, Appendix Note U. This excerpt if from Wright’s letter to David Hosack, December 31, 1828. Recounted in Hosack, Memoir of De Will Clinton, Appendix JJ. Ibid. Joseph Ellicott (1760–1826) a surveyor was also a brother to the notable surveyor Andrew Ellicott. Joseph was retained to perform boundary survey work for the Holland Land Company purchase, which he completed in 1800. He became one of the Erie Canal commissioners in 1816 prior to commencement of work in 1817. Simeon De Witt (1756–1834) was appointed in 1784 to the position as Surveyor General for the State of New York, a position he held until his death fifty years later. Daniel Tompkins (1774–1825) was the sixth Vice President, under James Monroe. He was the fourth Governor of New York, 1807–1817. Martin van Buren (1782–1862) was the eighth President 1837–1841 and ninth Governor of New York, January through March 1829, before becoming Secretary of State in the administration of Andrew Jackson. He was a founder of the Democratic Party. John C. Calhoun (1782–1850) was from South Carolina and a member of the Democratic Party. He served in Congress and was the seventh Vice President 1825–1832, serving under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Charles Broadhead (1772–1852) worked with Wright as a fellow road commissioner for the military road crossing the McComb Purchase. E.I. Dupont de Nemours (1771–1834) studied in France and was a student in the Regie des poudres, the French agency manufacturing gunpowder. He came to America in 1800 and established his operations on Brandywine Creek in Delaware.

Benjamin Wright

THE HONOR AND FAME OF MANY

69

35 D.S. Gregory served in the office of Comptroller of the State of New York, about 1866. 36 Benjamin Hall Wright (1801–1881) was the elder’s second son. He graduated from West Point in 1822 and served his officer’s commission until his resignation in 1823. He worked actively with his father on canal and railway projects. Later in life, he was a proponent of steam power for canal boats. 37 Gregory’s remarks are contained in a letter, Gregory to Benjamin Hall Wright, June 25, 1866. The extract from the letter is contained in Stuart, 1871, p. 68 and is recounted in Whitford, 1905, Chapter XXIV, p. 15. 38 Desmond FitzGerald served as the twenty-ninth President of ASCE in 1899. His remarks are from an address delivered on June 27, 1899 and contained in ASCE Transactions, Vol. XLI, p. 597. 39 Noble Whitford (1865– c.1950) was Senior Assistant Engineer in the State Engineer’s Department of New York. He was an Associate Member of ASCE and attended Syracuse University with a degree in civil engineering. 40 Wright to Woolsey, June 24, 1820. 41 Journal of Science, Vol. III, 1821. 42 Jervis’s comments about White are found in ASCE Transactions, Vol. VI, page 42. 43 Wright to Cocke, February 19, 1826. 44 This analysis is summarized in Cohen, 1982, p. 149, and recounted again in Holloway, 2013, p. 189. 45 Wright to Cocke, February 19, 1826. 46 This remark is attributed to Carter Goodrich, a financial historian and author of Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890, published in 1960. His comment is found on p. 10, and again recounted in Bernstein, 2005, p. 183. 47 Hawley to Wright, July 17, 1835. 48 Wright to Hawley, July 22, 1835. 49 Hamilton College, academic records, April 4, 1816.

Benjamin Wright

5 Era of the Horse Ocean

: : : at nine this morning we went on board the passenger boat : : : on the great canal – finished from Utica to Montezuma, distance of 96 miles. This boat is 75 feet in length, 12 beam and draws 20 inches of water. Captain has $18 a month and says that for weeks he has not had 3 hours regular sleep at one time. This is hard duty for such wages. The boy who drives the horses has $10 per month. Today he is to drive 50 miles and must return tomorrow : : : 1 Thomas P. Cope July 28, 1820 Thomas P. Cope, a Philadelphia merchant, was among the first to make the journey on Wright’s completed middle division of the Erie Canal, and as it opened a new phrase entered the American lexicon—a phrase originating with transoceanic sailors who referred to those working on canal boats as “horse ocean sailors.” As this first portion of the canal opened in 1820, the “horse ocean” era was in full swing. America was changing. James Monroe’s administration ushered in the “Era of Good Feelings,” promoting the legacy of his predecessor, James Madison, who worked toward

71

Benjamin Wright

72

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

: : : establishing throughout our country the roads and canals which can best be executed under the national authority : : : binding together the various parts of our extended confederacy.2

The American way of thinking was also changing, and the Monroe Doctrine further perpetuated the idea of “nationalism.” No longer looking East across the Atlantic, America discovered for the first time that it was in control of its own destiny. But for “nationalism” to succeed, the diverse regions required connectivity, and another new phrase weaving through the American conscience was “internal improvements.” Canals, roads, breakwaters, harbors, lighthouses, and with time, the railroad, were all immense projects for the day and created the demand initiating growth of the civil engineering profession in America. Following the lead of New York, several states undertook programs for improving the flow of commerce. Wright was still engaged with the yet unfinished Erie Canal when representatives from a variety of locations approached him. His reputation had preceded him as his services were sought for various canal projects in other states. Among his first engagements were a couple that took him back to Connecticut, where the state had established a commission for administering public works. By the time Wright had completed the middle division of the Erie Canal in 1820, he was approached to consider two proposed schemes within the state. One followed the valley of the Housatonic River with a tidewater terminus at Derby, and the other through the Farmington River valley with a terminus at New Haven. For both endeavors, he was retained to conduct feasibility studies. The Housatonic Valley project was a proposed canal system in two phases. The first was a canal, referred to as the Ousatonic Canal, which followed the Housatonic valley from tidewater northward with the intention of continuing into Massachusetts. The second was a canal called the Saugatuck and New Milford Canal, which would meet the Ousatonic Canal at New Milford. For both projects, Wright became involved and his name was used by both developments to elicit public favor and potential investors: In May last, this route, in both states was examined by the Hon. Benjamin Wright, Civil Engineer of the State of New York : : : extracts from his reports show the advantages for canalling and the expense.3

The alignment would be sixty-six miles in length, with eleven miles in Massachusetts, and he put the cost for excavation along with sixty-three locks at $633,900. He commented in his 1822 report: “ : : : In passing over the route, I took memoranda of the expense of constructing each mile, to include aqueducts, culverts, bridges, excavations and embankments : : : ” To this he added later in the report:

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

73

Previous to my arrival to view the route, I had supposed that the plan proposed was what may be termed a compound navigation’ partly in the bed of the river and partly by a canal. It is found by experience that these projects of using the beds of rivers are to be avoided where reasonably possible : : : The reasons are obvious; as the horsepower, when applied on the bed of a river in floods, is ill adapted : : : 4

Both political and public interest were favorable until Massachusetts retained an engineer of its own to review the route and render an opinion. To Wright’s dismay, his report was contradicted along with estimates. The review even went so far as to characterize him as an “overly optimistic gentleman.” For all intents and purposes, the Housatonic project came to a standstill at that point. He moved on to other work, but the reference of being “overly optimistic” was a characteristic that would work against him on more than one occasion.5

Figure 13: Canal engineering activity in New England. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

74

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Earlier that same spring, Wright was also retained for the sum of $1,000 to conduct a reconnaissance and do a feasibility study along the Farmington River, running from New Haven northward. Much of the survey work, under Wright’s supervision, was performed by Eli Whitney Blake, nephew of the inventor, using a level prepared for him by his uncle. Wright took Blake’s fieldwork and combined it with his own personal observations to create a favorable report, including this extract: The result of this examination is a decided opinion that the country is favorably formed for a great work of this kind : : : Comparing the quality of the soil, the convenience of stone for masonry, and the other localities through the route proposed, I think a canal may be formed for a considerably less average expense per mile, than the cost of the canals now (undertaken) in the state of New York.6

Design surveys, detailed cost estimates, and material quantities got underway the following summer when Massachusetts committed funding. Having not returned to Hamilton College, Henry, Wright’s oldest son, joined his father with the work on the Farmington project. Henry conducted the surveys, reporting the route conditions and material needs, with his elder reviewing the route selection, lockage requirements, and costs. No doubt his father acted as report editor, but a portion of Henry’s report shows the depth of his understanding: : : : From the point mentioned the ground rises gradually in 12 Chs (chains) to an elevation of 25 feet above the level, but in 5 chains it will descend again to bottom, where a lock of 10 feet is located, and the embankment across the valley of Farmington River will be commenced : : : The earth for the embankment can be advantageously obtained from the hill through which the canal is carried, the soil of which consists of sand and light gravel – An aqueduct of 200 feet in length, consisting of stone abutments and piers supporting a wooden trunk : : : will then be required across the Farmington River : : : .7

His father submitted the complete report for the Connecticut portion in January 1824 and the plan called for twenty-eight locks at a cost of $420,000 for the entire project. Once the construction budget was in place, Davis Hurd,8 a former Wright assistant engineer on the Erie Canal, became chief engineer for construction and brought the first portions to completion in 1829. With the initial opened portions of the Erie Canal and the proposed Farmington Canal, along with other canals, trade goods would begin reaching market faster, satisfying demand, increasing profits, generating tax revenue, and drawing diverse regions together. Improvements to transportation also improved communication by satisfying the increased demand for

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

75

information, because mail and newspapers reached recipients faster. American society was changing both economically and culturally. To replicate some of the same benefit that Connecticut was hoping for, Rhode Island business, leaders created interest for a canal route between Providence, Rhode Island and Worcester, Massachusetts. Organized as the Blackstone Canal, Wright was retained in 1822 to conduct feasibility surveys and select an alignment. His design created a forty-five-mile route with fortynine locks, utilizing as many of the existing mill ponds and water courses as possible along the route. He formulated estimates of both cost and water quantity, but as time would later bear out, the latter consideration turned out to be more important than the former one. In endeavoring to create a cost-effective project, Wright got caught in his own words almost simultaneously with his work on the Housatonic. Upon re-examination of the comment in his Housatonic Canal report, it seems to contradict his design decisions for the Blackstone: “It is found by experience that these projects of using the beds of rivers are to be avoided where reasonably possible : : : ”9 Nevertheless, Holmes Hutchinson,10 another Wright protégé, followed in 1824 as chief engineer to implement Wright’s design during construction, bringing it to completion in 1828. ******************** Earlier during Wright’s tenure with the Erie Canal, an organizational meeting was held in Philadelphia to revisit the subject of a canal across the slender neck of land between the northern end of Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River. It was an idea with a lengthy history and George Washington even endorsed early efforts for a waterway by suggesting it would be of national interest. However, the economic rivalry between Baltimore and Philadelphia kept early efforts dormant, but with time, the political squabbling was put aside and the first inception of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company organized itself in 1802, with Benjamin Latrobe serving as first engineer. Latrobe,11 born in England, studied architecture and engineering in Europe before coming to America. Among his notable achievements was his work in Washington on the Capitol, along with his design of the Fairmont Water Works in Philadelphia. His first work for the canal was in 1804 for a channel from the Elk River to bring water to a reservoir near Glasgow, Delaware. Water was needed to augment the proposed canal’s volume, but the attempt was plagued with labor problems and cost overruns. Efforts were halted in 1805 and Latrobe left the company the following year, leaving everything to sit inactive. A lack of adequate transportation routes in the country became apparent during the War of 1812. In remembering Washington’s words earlier, suggesting the canal would be of national interest, the idea for a canal was rekindled at the urging of Matthew Carey,12 a Philadelphia journalist.

Benjamin Wright

76

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

He was able to lobby business and public investment such that in 1821, the idea regained interest, and in short order, the reorganized company reestablished itself. A board of engineers was created consisting of Wright and two military engineers, Simon Bernard and Joseph Totten.13 Bernard came to America about 1816 to aid in the development of American military engineering works. He worked primarily on coastal defenses, various canals, and surveys, and then returned to France about 1830. Totten graduated from West Point in 1804 and served in various military engineering capacities. He fought in the War of 1812, and much later, in the Mexican-American War. Like Bernard, he spent a good deal of time with engineering efforts for defense works, fortifications, breakwaters,

Figure 14: Canal engineering activity in the Mid-Atlantic. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

77

lighthouses, and coastal surveys. Now, however, the task before the engineering board was the oversight of feasibility surveys and route selection for the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. William Strickland14 and John Randel Jr.15 were retained to conduct reconnaissance surveys along several possible routes. Strickland had worked earlier with Latrobe on the Capitol and later with other canal and railroad projects, including the Delaware and Raritan Canal and the Delaware Breakwater. Much later, Strickland and Wright worked together in organizational efforts for a professional society. John Randel Jr., a fellow New York surveyor, developed a reputation of his own with the successful completion of the survey in 1811 for the entire island of Manhattan, north of the city. Known as the “Commissioners Plan of 1811,” Randel’s work laid out the bulk of the island in a rectangular array of streets and avenues between lower Manhattan and Harlem. Wright and Randel were acquainted with one another during the former’s tenure on the Erie Canal. About 1820, Wright moved up to the chief engineer’s position following his completion of the middle division. In 1821, having the entire canal under his management, he found himself on one side of a controversy over the alignment at the eastern terminus near Albany. Interests in Albany wanted the alignment to turn and take an immediate direct route from Schenectady and cross the high ground to Albany, and to add credibility to the alternative plan, an engineer was retained. John Randel conducted surveys for which he prepared fieldwork and estimates showing the relative merits of the more direct route. Wright, standing behind his design, felt that as an employee of the commission, he was under no obligation to cooperate with Randel’s efforts, and thus incurred Randel’s wrath. With remarks of “haste and arbitrariness” in selection of the alignment, Randel made accusations of Wright’s “subservience to local interests” in Troy. However, Randel was, to use a contemporary phrase, somewhat out of his league in approaching the proposed concept. He had no work experience or training with the detail of canal construction and the design concepts involved. During the disputed period, the two, in fact, met for lunch on one occasion to discuss their differences. It was at that point that it became clear, even to Randel, that he was in no position to render a reliable opinion. Regardless, Wright publicly favored the Troy route from an engineering prospective, and later summarized his side of the controversy: : : : in 1822 the Albanian set out to drive the canal commissioners to alter the location of the canal. And instead of following in the valley of the river and come around by Troy – to have it made over the Pine Plain with 100 feet cutting for 3 or 4 miles and 50 to 60 feet (of cutting) for 4 or 5 miles. I examined into the whole plan and satisfied myself and reported to the canal commissioners. They adopted my report (but) I was then attacked by Chancellor Lansing and others (and) last by

Benjamin Wright

78

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Randel : : : He fills his book with false statements and misrepresentations from one end to the other and attacked me as wanting in judgment : : : I never took the trouble to make the least reply but kept on with my canal and completed it.16

The canal commissioners never questioned the adequacy of Wright’s proposed route and had confidence in his arguments. There was no deviation to the original plan, but the antagonistic relationship between the two men would manifest itself again beyond the Erie Canal to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. For the moment however, several possible alignments presented themselves, some with political benefit and others more practical. In 1822, Randel and Strickland conducted fieldwork over the entire corridor, completing work a year later. A final alignment was determined by the board and took the recommendations of their chief engineer to create the designs and manage construction. Earlier, Randel had lobbied for the chief engineer’s position, citing the fact that it was his proposed route that the board selected. Despite his lobbying efforts, however, Wright was selected for the position and from this point, earlier antagonism redeveloped and would plague the progress of work on the project. From the very beginning, the relationship between the two men was fraught with confrontation. Randel was an aggressive individual, difficult to get along with, who would just as soon litigate a situation as discuss it. With the design finalized, his contentious relationship with Wright grew even further as Randel undertook one of the construction contracts with an estimated fee of $600,000, two-thirds of what Wright estimated. The canal’s alignment had a route, just under fourteen miles long, with an eastern entry just up St. George’s Creek from the Delaware River. A deep excavation eighty feet deep through the dividing ridge carried the canal into Broad Creek with access to Chesapeake Bay. The dimensions were sixty-six feet wide at the top with a depth of ten feet, two tide locks at either end, and two conventional lift locks at the topographic divide. With a cross-section larger than most traditional American canals, the design was intended for ocean-going vessels. With construction getting underway in 1824, the project had a budget of $1,000,000. By the time it was completed, the actual cost approached $2.5 million. In the first year, 850 men and 75 teams of horses were at work on the excavation. Work progressed through the winter and by the following summer, over 2,500 men were employed on the dig. As construction progressed in the months that followed, money issues plagued the project, created primarily by labor, schedule, and cost overruns. At one point, the federal government authorized close to .5 million dollars to keep the project moving. Two primary technical difficulties confronted Wright; one was the deep cut at the topographic divide, and the other was the excavation through the

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

79

marsh lands comprising much of the upper waters of St. George’s Creek. Excavation at the divide required a cut of eighty feet at its deepest, with a chasm 230 feet wide owing to the shallow side slopes for the unstable material. On one occasion, a slide carrying 375,000 cubic yards of material fell into the excavation because of an upper layer formation of sand, gravel, and boulders, sliding over a lower formation of blue clay and water-bearing sand. Explosives were not used for excavation because of the instability of the material, thus requiring hand excavation. Horse-drawn wagons could not manage the steep slopes, thus forcing spoils to be hauled out by hand in barrels using block and tackle. The marsh areas of St. George’s Creek were a different matter and presented difficulties stemming from two separate sources. One source was the soft, unstable material, which was difficult to excavate. In many cases, some of these areas had to be over-excavated and fill was necessary to bring the canal cross section to grade, with one location having fill fifty feet deep. The second source of difficulty was a labor issue. Disease was ever-present, even more so in the marsh area, and sickness made it difficult to keep a full complement of labor at work at any given time. It was a situation in which Wright himself was not immune, lamenting that he “ : : : may be attacked with fever.”17 However, through it all, he brought the canal to completion in 1829, but despite being one of the shortest of Wright’s canals, it presented his greatest difficulties. Throughout the project, John Randel was a constant source of agitation. A key sticking point for Randel was being overlooked for the chief engineer’s position, and the contentiousness developed from that point—so much so that it even spread to the public through newspaper editorials, as the rhetoric of Matthew Carey stirred adverse opinion against Wright: : : : The Ches & Dela Canal has : : : been mentioned in the public newspapers the directors and engineer abused very unjustly by Mathew Carey of this city. The cause is this – John Randel, Jr who calls himself an engineer and who was actually employed by the board of directors to run out the line of the canal and make estimates in 1823 wished and endeavored to be appointed engineer in chief of the work.18 : : : Carey who is a disappointed man because he was not elected a director of the work seized upon the opportunity to attack the board because they dismissed Randel and declared his contract abandoned and he has let go a flood of abuse and misrepresentation : : : 19

Randel held a construction contract for a portion of the length of the canal. According to the terms of their contracts, all contractors were to provide labor and materials to excavate and build those portions within their specified length of alignment. Randel performed his work but failed to meet time

Benjamin Wright

80

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

and budget goals. Wright refused to authorize additional money, and upon completion of the entire canal in 1829, all the parties, the canal board, Wright, and Randel found themselves in court with Wright commenting “ : : : So it is, when we least expect and as we think least deserve trouble it is nearest to us.”20 Wright remarked even further and offered his view of the litigation (the mention of White refers to a period when Wright engaged the younger engineer as an assistant). : : : he then proposed for the contract at a price of 8 cents per yard less then General Bernard, Col. Totten, M. White (Canvass White) and myself had estimated : : : Never having had any experience on any work he managed so as to make a constant loss of 8 to 12% upon every part of his work, and then by misrepresentations and false statements to make me the cause of it : : : I bore all this for 18 months and I found he would pay no attention to my direction in trying to get the masonry done as to let us build St. Georges Lock 4 ¼ miles from Delaware (River) and the use of the canal to take up the stone to the point was all important. When I found he was 40,000 (dollars) bad and every day growing worse I thought it my duty to certify to the board and then they had the right to declare his contract void – the board are satisfied that it was right : : : 21

It would take several years to resolve itself, but litigation ruled in favor of Randel, causing the board to provide compensation, a settlement in which Randel was also awarded a percentage of tolls on freight passing through the canal. That single part of the settlement proved a substantial financial burden to the canal for years, but in addition to the litigation, the project proved an unfortunate experience for Wright on several levels beyond the technical challenges. Just as every shovel full of earth was removed it brought another problem— labor— with respect to both supply and the conditions under which it had to be performed. An adequate supply of labor, critical for successful completion, was one thing, but compounding the situation was morale among the construction crews still working. The cause was disease and mortality where, along the alignment, death was commonplace because typhoid and smallpox took lives with every yard of advancement. Wright knew full well that he was not immune, but with all the affronts to his professionalism and the emotional strain, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal remains one of the country’s primary Atlantic ship channels. It is one of Wright’s two completed canal works—the other being the Erie Canal— that, although enlarged, remains in use today. ********************

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

81

During the War of 1812, the nation’s inadequate transportation system revealed itself and served as the catalyst for development of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. As the Erie Canal advanced towards completion, John Quincy Adams took office in 1825 and kept in place the era of federal favor for public works. That same year, Wright took a position as chief engineer for the Delaware and Hudson Canal, a project linking western Pennsylvania with New York City. He also made the decision to move his family. With increasing work commitments and demands for his time, he made the business decision and moved his family from the frontiers of Rome to New York City. His son, James, was already in the city working in a mercantile establishment, and the elder Wright took up temporary residence in his son’s home until housing was obtained for Philomela and the other children. Located at 148 Pearl Street, James’ house was a half block below Wall Street. Requests for his services came from a wide range of regional projects. Among them were inquiries for his services in both Georgia and Virginia. The Virginia offer originated from the governor, and was channeled through Wright’s friend, Stephen van Rensselaer.22 Wright had made an earlier journey to Virginia to consult, and now the request was an offer for Wright to take the assistant engineer’s position in the state’s Board of Public Works. It was a subordinate position to the state’s principal engineer, Claudius Crozet,23 and a request which he declined. The offer from Georgia was one that he also declined, but was later one he accepted. Representatives from Georgia had visited him in 1824 regarding a proposed waterway to link the Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha Rivers, with the possible intent of linking westward via the Altamaha toward the Chattahoochee River on the Alabama border. The city of Savannah recognized the benefit derived by New York from the Erie Canal and sought a similar advantage. In linking the rivers and providing coastal farming regions access to the port of Savanah, shipments of rice and cotton could reach markets faster. Wright initially turned down the request and DeWitt Clinton’s son, Dewitt Jr. took on the work. Initial activity encompassed land clearing and excavation, for a length of sixteen miles, work performed predominately by slave labor. However, the canal project suffered from cost overruns, which led to a premature end, and Clinton resigned in 1827. The company was re-established in 1828 and retained Wright, who offered comment in the local newspaper. In a July 1828 edition of the Savannah Georgian he mentions: On examination of the maps of the state of Georgia, it at once strikes the mind of any man who has turned his attention towards internal improvements that a connection between the Flint and

Benjamin Wright

82

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Chattahoochee and the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers would be an object of very great importance.24

To get work underway, Wright deployed Alfred Cruger25 and his son, Benjamin Hall Wright,26 to conduct surveys and manage construction. Benjamin Hall had graduated from West Point in 1822 and was the elder’s second son, after Henry, and named for Philomela’s mother, Eunice Hall. After receiving his officer’s commission in the infantry, he later resigned and began working as an engineer under his father’s mentorship. Cruger and the younger Wright were able to bring the sixteen-mile link between the Savannah River and the Ogeechee River, with three wooden locks, to a conclusion in 1829. At the same time, the elder Wright was contacted by the Secretary of War to examine possible transportation routes for a canal or railroad between the Tennessee and Altamaha Rivers. It was also a task for which he deployed the two younger engineers. In the interim, John Cocke facilitated an introduction for Wright to another Virginian, Charles Fenton Mercer.27 Mercer, born in Fredericksburg, Virginia, studied law and established a practice in Loudoun County, Virginia around 1802. He entered politics and served in both the Virginia General Assembly and in Congress. Along with his friend, John Cocke, the two were close associates of Thomas Jefferson. In the presidential administrations that followed, Mercer also maintained close relations with James Monroe and John Quincy Adams but disliked the politics of both Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren. A staunch supporter of federal involvement in internal improvements, Mercer served on the House Committee for Roads and Canals. In 1823 Mercer was reinvigorating efforts for a Potomac River canal, an idea with roots originating earlier in the eighteenth century and further perpetuated by Washington after the war. Washington’s idea was to utilize a system of bypass canals to overcome the many falls and rapids and improve river navigation westward, and hopefully, make a connection with the National Road and provide access beyond to the Ohio River. However, labor and financial difficulties plagued the venture and brought efforts to a halt in the early 1800s. In November 1823, Mercer organized a planning convention in Washington for the canal with representatives from the surrounding states. Speaking to those assembled, Mercer had this to say: : : : a connection of the Atlantic and western waters by a canal, leading from the seat of the National Government to the river Ohio, regarded as a local object, is one of the highest importance to the states immediately interested therein, and considered in a national view, is of inestimable consequences to the future union, security, and happiness of the United States.28

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

83

Organized as the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the planned route would leave Washington and follow the valley of the Potomac River to Cumberland, Maryland from which point the canal would continue over the mountain divide to reach Pittsburgh and the Ohio River, rather than connect with the National Road. Felt to be in the national interest, Congress authorized an expenditure of $30,000 for exploratory surveys, an undertaking within which James Geddes became involved. He had been a division engineer along with Wright and Charles Broadhead as the Erie Canal got underway. Geddes also became involved in a proposed canal in Ohio, the Ohio and Erie Canal to connect Lake Erie with the Ohio River, and, for the moment, the reports resulting from the reconnaissance work of Geddes and other surveyors revealed that the canal appeared feasible. The concept was for a canal to link the upper portions of the Potomac with either the Youghiogheny or the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania—tributaries of the Ohio River—all at a cost of $22,000,000. Mercer, as president of the company, took control of the endeavor in 1828 and set out to obtain the services of engineers. He extended an invitation to Benjamin Wright to visit Washington in the summer of 1828. The two had much in common; they abhorred the tradition of slavery and both held strong religious beliefs— Wright as a Presbyterian and Mercer as an Episcopalian. Following their initial meeting, Wright observed, “No one can be acquainted with the gentleman without being pleased and honored by the acquaintance.”29 On the condition that he would be able to get permission from the Board of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Wright accepted Mercer’s offer. Following the groundbreaking ceremony with John Quincy Adams on July 4, 1828, Wright took the position as chief engineer in October with a salary of $5,000, identical to what he was making with the Chesapeake and Delaware. Among his first tasks, he selected his staff of resident and assistant engineers. Nathan Roberts and John Martineau30 filled out senior positions along with a cadre of resident engineers. Among those selected for the group of residents was a young Pennsylvania man, Charles Ellet Jr.31 In the first season of work, the resident engineers were organized and deployed between the eastern terminus in Washington and Seneca Creek, located twenty-five miles west of the city. As the resident engineers established material quantities, reviewed contractor estimates, supervised construction and established alignment, Wright and Nathan Roberts explored the corridor west of Cumberland. In the mountainous region of western Maryland, Wright considered the possibilities of inclined planes, like those proposed on the Morris Canal in New Jersey, to overcome the steep grades, but in short order, he had his hands full with contractor performance, cost issues, and management of his subordinate engineers. Problems arose with unexpected site conditions, slides and settlement during earthwork, integrity of stone masonry, misalignments, and increased

Benjamin Wright

84

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 15: Route of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

quantities of everything in general. He designed and prepared plans for aqueducts at Seneca Creek and the Monocacy River twenty miles farther west. Remarking to Mercer: I have prepared ground plans and elevations of the aqueducts at Seneca Creek and Monocacy Rivers which are ready to lay before you : : : The plan for the Monocacy Aqueduct is drawn with a water way 19 feet wide at bottom 20 feet at top. The tow path parapet 8 feet wide and the other wall 6 feet wide. I have drawn the plan to 7 arches of 54 feet span each and 6 piers and two abutments the piers are 10 feet thick and a pilaster at each end of the pier property one or two feet and 7 feet wide. By calculation there will be about 8500 perches including wing walls and the price of 6.75 dollars per perch I think no more than a fair price.32

The use of Aquia sandstone, obtained from quarries downriver, was proposed for various masonry structures at the southern end of the alignment, and being unfamiliar with the integrity of the material, Wright took a field trip “ : : : to examine the Presidents House and the Capitol to see the indications of decay & decomposition.”33

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

85

There would be occasions when he faced issues with property acquisition coming to cross purposes with suitable alignment. Wright felt that the cost of dwellings and property was insignificant when compared to the overall undertaking. In one instance, when the placement of a lock was redesigned to avoid a house, Wright offered, “ : : : that every person of good taste will regret to see the lock built in this way and will censure all who had any direction in this work for permitting a house and lot of perhaps 1000 dollars value only to derange a plan of so important a work.”34 Among his responsibilities, Wright managed his subordinate engineers and inspectors, who were charged with establishment of the line, inspection of the work, and verification of quantities, at the same time sharing his knowledge and correcting mistakes. In some instances, his tone was gentler than in others. Commenting to Mercer about Robert Leckie, an inspector of masonry, regarding his interaction with a contractor: : : : Leckie is a very useful man in his way, but he corrects errors with a maul (mallet) rather than a gavel. Gentle means are better than harsh in managing men in this free country and if ML (Mister Leckie) would correct himself in this respect and be perfectly impartial he would do us much good.35

Wright kept the work progressing with a style of management and instruction almost sage-like in its delivery. With all the trouble he endured on this as well as other projects, his character remained tempered with the reasoning of a judge combined with a compassion of the religious man that he was. Regarding the appropriateness for the canal’s eastern terminus at Rock Creek in Washington, Wright commented: In a case so plain as this it only astonishes me that any man should doubt the propriety of the location, and it does not in reality require reasons or arguments more than it would to prove to a hungry man that he ought to eat his dinner.36

In a similar tone he remarked to Mercer regarding a contractor cost overrun due to slippage of an embankment: The truth is that we know the prices of these contractors are all very low and that it yet remains doubtful whether they can sustain themselves and therefore any little favorable circumstances should not be turned against them. One point you will always find in canal contracts there will be some meat and some bone and all we can do is to take care to have the proper proportions go together. We must pay in meal or in malt and it matters but little in the end in on the whole it comes out correct.37

Benjamin Wright

86

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

The goal was to get the canal built, a task requiring the skills of a good manager and the patience of a good teacher, traits that Wright possessed. However, with all the good intention and the engineering to make it happen, the emerging railway technology would change both the way people thought and the engineering profession. The railroad was something Wright would, with time, embrace, but he felt that canals were a better alternative to the railroad for carrying freight. With time, technology met the challenge as locomotive power overcame traction problems and he began to understand the direction in which things were headed. Established in 1824, George and Robert Stephenson’s locomotive works at Newcastle in the north of England fostered a symbol for the birth of the railway age. The technology soon spread across the Atlantic, catching the imagination of American business. Among those catching hold of the idea were Philip Thomas, president of the National Mechanics Bank of Baltimore, and George Brown, a member of the bank’s board of directors. In February 1827 they facilitated a meeting with business and political figures for capturing a portion of the commerce originating from the West. Within two weeks, an organizational charter was official, stock put on sale, and a new company established—The Baltimore and Ohio (B & O) Railroad. With Stephen Long,38 Jonathan Knight,39 and George Whistler40 among the first engineers, the alignment was selected for the right-of-way westward from Baltimore. The plan was for the railroad to reach the Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Maryland; it would then proceed west up the Potomac River valley, aligning itself within the same corridor as the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. In short, the presence of the railroad loomed over the entire canal project. By 1830 Wright sensed problems as the railroad took the canal to court to allow joint use of the canal’s right-of-way north of Point of Rocks. It was litigation that, besides being time consuming, if found in favor of the railroad would hinder the success of the canal in the western advance of the line beyond Point of Rocks. With the potential legal difficulties to follow, coupled with the ongoing demand for his services, he resigned from the canal. It has been speculated that Wright’s resignation also stemmed from personality conflicts with Mercer. Mercer took a very active role in the canal and was a “micromanager.” Evidence points to situations in which subordinates would bypass Wright and take concerns straight to Mercer for resolution—situations which have been inferred as reasons for Wright’s action. For example, in the case of one of the resident engineers writing Mercer: I cannot refrain from repeating the remarks which I have heretofore repeatedly made to the engineer in chief on the system of laying the masonry of the locks in mortar instead of grouting the center of the

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

87

walls, particularly as the hoisting machine is not used, by the present mode of laying the walls in mortar throughout it requires twenty five per cent more cement than would be necessary if grout be used.41

Active involvement in the day-to-day details was common for many canal directors. Regardless, any engineering issue, even if passed along to the director, would have the chief engineer’s final say. Mercer took an active interest in the progress of construction and acted much like DeWitt Clinton on the Erie Canal, where an analogy can be drawn with the man practically digging the canal himself, using the engineers to point him in the right direction. Wright’s varied career had its fair share of confrontations with engineers and contractors on matters of far greater substance, and it seems unlikely that any differing views with Mercer would provide a motive for resignation. Wright’s time was in demand and he recognized the impact of the railroad, resigning on June 4, 1830. Wright turned sixty in 1830 and his services were in request almost everywhere. With his canal engineering work alone, he consulted on the Illinois and Michigan Canal, a development to link Lake Michigan at Chicago with the Illinois River at Lasalle, Illinois. He was involved in the Chambly Canal along the Richelieu River in Québec to allow access from Lake Champlain along New York’s eastern border to the Saint Lawrence River at Sorel, north of Montréal. Later, he became involved in the works of the Welland Canal, a plan to bypass Niagara Falls. He even consulted with one of his younger protégés, another Erie Canal assistant, Canvass White, on designs for the Delaware and Raritan Canal in New Jersey. However, Wright did turn down an engagement with the proposed bypass canal at Muscle Shoals, Alabama—a project which Nathan Roberts undertook to prepare engineering studies.42 However, when looking retrospectively, with success also came setback as evidenced with his earlier design for the Blackstone Canal in Rhode Island. It’s difficult to try and soften the disparagement, but Wright’s design for the Blackstone Canal was an unfortunate failure. There is a good possibility that he understood that there would be problems, some of which were politically motivated. Holmes Hutchinson had no sooner completed the canal and it first carried water, then it was discovered Wright’s scheme was destined for disappointment. Wright had aligned the canal in a way that took advantage of small streams and mill ponds to avoid earthwork, a concept implemented to save money and one that would have worked anywhere else, except for New England. Local politics mandated that water consumption by mill owners took priority over the canal’s water quantity needs. Further complicating the issue was Wright’s inexperience with local hydrology and the frequent periods of summer drought and winter ice conditions, both of which affected water supply. For having grown up in New England, one would have thought that these would be things to consider. One historian, in writing

Benjamin Wright

88

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

about the history of the Blackstone Canal, referred to Wright as a “penny pincher” and in truth the cliché might seem appropriate on the face of things. The design was flawed, but when the politics behind the task are understood, it sheds a different light on Wright’s plans. It has been suggested that for pure political reasons, there was motivation to steer the design towards the least expensive approach, thus causing Wright to create a design utilizing, as often as possible, the natural course of the river. The rationale for this was that the state legislature could revoke the company charter if there was fear among legislators over a high initial cost and probable cost overruns. Thus, keeping estimates low would help temper any legislative concerns. Nevertheless, the design was Wright’s responsibility and any shortcoming was his to shoulder and a lesson learned.43 As his career advanced, he still held to the importance of linking the country through commerce. However, for the country, the obstacles persisted of which he was aware. For unification to succeed, some of the obstacles were rather difficult to overcome; one such obstacle, more political than any other, was the changing attitude in the federal government over national funding for public works, notably the actions from one man—Andrew Jackson. In the spring of 1830, Congress passed legislation to authorize purchase of $50,000 worth of stock in the Maysville–Lexington Turnpike. A road to connect the terminus of the National Road on the Ohio River with the Tennessee River, the turnpike would cross the state of Kentucky and provide a link with road systems as far as northern Alabama. It was a development promoted by Henry Clay of Kentucky, but Jackson vetoed the bill, at the urgings of both his vice president, Martin van Buren, and James Polk, senator from Tennessee. It was legislation authorizing the purchase of stock in a private company intended to bring benefit to a multistate region. Glossing over the fact that Clay and Jackson did not like each other in the first place, Jackson argued the road would benefit a few and not others, and all the while, would increase the national debt. Thus, making an interpretation of the Constitution that all federal involvement in internal improvements must be of national interest, Jackson vetoed the bill. It was not just Henry Clay’s turnpike alone; Jackson’s action was the first of many such measures during his presidential administration. Jackson’s removal of federal money from funding for public works further persisted in the Van Buren administration, and spelled trouble for many public works projects. It hindered progress and perpetuated regionalism. Another obstacle that caused a good deal of national anxiety and further concern was Jackson’s approval of the Tariff Act, a bill favored by northern manufacturers and mid-Atlantic commodities producers to avoid competition from imports. The Deep South opposed the measure for economic reasons driven by exports of sugar, tobacco, and cotton, and while engaged with canal work in Georgia, Wright’s name again appeared in print as

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

89

The Savannah Georgian quoted his words. However, in this instance, it is underneath the words where the unspoken message lies. Georgia presents a better field for great and useful improvements, by means of water communications, than any other of the United States with the exception of New York; the intermediate region between which two, and our own state, he (Wright) conceives to be, “the Backbone of the Union.”44

The talk in South Carolina was of secession, which Wright said made him tremble. So, by planting the idea, in an indirect manner, he suggested that Georgia could become a significant economic power alongside New York. Thus, in hinting there would be a larger role to play in the Union, Wright tried to divert the attention of the citizenry away from listening to the rhetoric of its neighbor, South Carolina. However, with all the political talk and regional self-motivations, Wright was also aware of his own reality because sickness and disease were ever present in his work. He grumbled about the unhealthy conditions on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and the “Delaware fever,” as he termed it. His health became such a concern that he allowed himself to undergo the archaic procedure of a “bleeding,” all the while suffering from “piles,” the nineteenth-century term for the present-day condition known as hemorrhoids. Yet, he still managed his family and engineering practice. Although he traveled a great deal, he never lost sight of his responsibilities. With her husband away, Philomela had to manage their children and the home. As 1830 approached, Benjamin Hall, James, and Mary Smith were married. Benjamin Hall married Henrietta Huntington, a niece to George Huntington. James married Sarah Markoe and Mary Smith had married Thomas Nelson. James, along with Mary’s husband, Thomas, worked in the mercantile trade in New York City, although not as partners. Simon Waterman was at Partridge Military Academy (the forerunner of Norwich University), Albert Wells was at Hamilton College, and Joshua Butler was a freshman at Yale. As for the two younger ones—Frances Eunice, or “Fanny” as the family called her, was ten, and George Smith was sixteen–both were still at home. It was his family that always provided strength to Wright, the patriarch, and it was a strength that faced the ultimate test on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. In and among all the attacks and abuse in the press, the confrontations with John Randel, and ever-present sickness, he still endured one more emotional setback— a father’s worst fear. Accidents were commonplace on large public works projects, and for Wright, while engaged with the Chesapeake and Delaware it became personal when tragedy struck on October 16, 1826, and Henry was killed. While at work on the canal, Henry was attempting to manage a team of horses drawing a wagon across a bridge. Just before crossing, the horses hesitated.

Benjamin Wright

90

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

He may have tried to ride one of the horses or he may have attempted to walk them across, but nevertheless, the horses became skittish and startled, throwing Henry to the ground where he was pinned under the wagon wheels.45 Wright felt his loss: “I have been and still am a mourner for the loss of my son Henry who was killed : : : very suddenly and the loss appears to me great : : :” Wright’s sense of reality was tempered with a religious truth, providing him a capacity to endure the heartbreak of unexpected tragedy. He held a view of his place in the world, and in the years following Henry’s death, a glimpse of that philosophy is shared with John Cocke. The Virginia planter was suffering at the time from a period of illness and Wright offers some words for thought. The text speaks to the confrontation as humanity faces its own mortality and offers insight into Wright’s mind as he coped with the loss of his son: A writer of antiquity apostrophizes a deceased friend – “If there is a local habitation for the pious, if, as wise men think, great souls do not perish with the body, may you rest in peace and may you call us from weak regrets, to the contemplation of your virtues, which are neither to be mourned over or bewailed.” Such were the consoling and glorious views which by the simple light of nature were cherished of death. What then are the more glorious association which revelation throws around it.46

Endnotes 1 2 3

4

5 6

7

The Canals of New York State, p. 9. Howe, 2007, p. 81. This excerpt comes from the stock offering proposal for the proposed canal. At various locations along the length of the canal, the canal books would be open for members of the public to purchase stock July 1, through July 4, 1822. This is recounted in Harte, 1938, p. 59. Taken from the report that Wright issued to the committee charged to examine the feasibility of the canal. His report refers to the canal as the Saugatuck and New Milford Canal along the Housatonic River. May 4, 1822. The reference to Wright’s being an overly optimistic gentleman is found in Harte, 1938, p. 61. A committee was appointed in January 1822 to investigate the feasibility of a canal in the Farmington River valley. Wright was retained and this excerpt comes from the opening remarks to his report prepared late winter 1822. This is further recounted in Harte, 1933, p. 24. Wright was assisted by his son, Henry, to conduct the canal feasibility. Within the report is an excerpt attributed to Henry describing the

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

8

9

10

11 12

13

14 15

16 17 18 19 20

91

conditions in the vicinity of Mile 21. The numbering scheme is for the canal alignment running south from the Connecticut–Massachusetts border. This account is taken from Harte, 1933, p. 25. Davis Hurd was born in 1788, and early in his career he was in the shoemaking business with a brother. He obtained an appointment as an assistant engineer on the Erie Canal in 1820, working in the vicinity of Lockport. This is an interesting comment considering the events that would later occur with the Blackstone Canal. Wright had preconceived the Housatonic Canal to be a compound navigation where some of the alignment would be a constructed canal and other portions would be in the channels of existing rivers. With further consideration, his report for Housatonic advised against the compound approach, and even cites the Lake Champlain and Hudson River Canal as an example. This excerpt is from Wright’s report, May 4, 1822. Holmes Hutchinson (1794–1865) obtained an appointment with the Erie Canal in 1819, and stayed with the canal until its completion in 1825. In 1835 he was appointed chief engineer of the Middle Division during the enlargement program and held the position until 1841. He worked on several other canals and railroads during his career, including the Blackstone Canal in Rhode Island. Benjamin Latrobe (1764–1820). Matthew Carey (1769–1839) was an advocate for a strong national navy, and this accounts for his particular interest in the C & D Canal and its importance to the movement of ocean-going vessels. Joseph Totten (1788–1864) was a West Point graduate, receiving his commission in the Army Corps of Engineers in 1805. He worked on various military and coastal projects, becoming the chief engineer of the army in 1838. He held that position until his death in 1864. Among his accomplishments was the design and construction of the lighthouse at Minot’s Ledge near Cohasset, Massachusetts. William Strickland (1787–1854). John Randel (1787–1865) is most noted for his execution of the Commissioner’s Plan of 1811, a plan for subdividing most of the island of Manhattan into lots, blocks, and streets in the area north of the colonial city. He was retained as a consultant for alternative studies on the eastern terminus of the Erie Canal, and performed preliminary surveys for the C & D Canal. He also obtained a construction contract for a portion of the C & D Canal. Wright to Cocke, February 19, 1826. Ibid, November 15, 1827. Ibid, Octyober 22, 1825. Ibid. Ibid, January 30, 1827.

Benjamin Wright

92

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

21 Ibid, February 19, 1826. 22 Stephen van Rensselaer (1764–1839) was Van Rensselaer III, one of the wealthiest and most politically influential persons in the state of New York. His residence was on a large property on the Hudson near Troy. 23 Claudius Crozet (1789–1864) was a French military engineer, and following Waterloo, he came to America and taught at West Point. He resigned his military commission in 1823 and took a position as Chief Engineer for Virginia’s Board of Public Works. 24 The excerpt is taken from a newspaper article attributed to The Savannah Georgian and recounted in The Southern Patriot, p. 2, col. 4, July 5, 1828. 25 Alfred Cruger worked with Wright on the C and O Canal, the proposed canal near Savannah, Georgia, and proposed canals in Connecticut. He worked independently on the Central of Georgia Railroad and with Wright on railroad development in Cuba. 26 Benjamin Hall Wright (1801–1881). 27 Charles Fenton Mercer (1778–1858) was a congressman and Virginia lawyer. 28 Excerpt from Mercer’s resolution before the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Convention, November 5, 1823. Recounted in Unrau, 1976, p. 28. Also found in Ward, 1899, p. 50. 29 Wright to Cocke, March 27, 1825. 30 John Martineau (1793–838) served as Assistant Engineer under Wright on the C & O Canal and worked with Jervis on the Croton Aqueduct. 31 Charles Ellet Jr. (1810–1862) was appointed assistant to Alfred Cruger, the resident engineer of the Fifth Residency for construction of the C & O Canal. Under Wright’s tenure work began on the first division comprised of five residencies with Ellet at the extreme western end of the line between the Monocacy River and Point of Rocks, Maryland. 32 Wright to President and Directors, C & O Canal, October 1828. 33 Wright to Mercer, November 1, 1829. Wright had gone on a field trip with Robert Leckie, an inspector of masonry within the canal’s engineering corps, to examine both the President’s house and the Capitol. Their findings were favorable for the use of Aquia Sandstone, having found minimal decay and deterioration of the material. What deterioration they did find was attributed to damage resulting from the fires caused by the British during their invasion in the War of 1812. 34 Wright to the resident and directors, C & O Canal, December 15, 1829. 35 Wright to Mercer, February 24, 1830. 36 Wright to Ingle, September 5, 1829. J. P. Ingle was the Executive Secretary to the C & O Canal Board of Directors. 37 Wright to Mercer, February 9, 1830. 38 Stephen Long (1810–1862) was educated at Dartmouth and received an officer’s commission in the army’s topographic engineering branch. He

Benjamin Wright

ERA OF THE HORSE OCEAN

39

40

41 42

43

44 45

46

93

completed several exploratory expeditions in the western territory, and although he remained in the army, he served in a detached position as a consultant on construction of the B & O Railroad. He was also in a detached position while serving with Wright in Trenton. Jonathan Knight (1787–1858) began his career while conducting preliminary surveys for the National Road between Cumberland, Maryland and Wheeling, Virginia (now West Virginia.) He also conducted preliminary surveys under a federal contract for feasibility of the proposed C & O Canal. He later served as chief engineer for the first sections of the B & O Railroad, between Baltimore and Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). George Whistler (1800–1849) worked with Knight on the B & O Railroad and became involved in the design and fabrication of locomotives. He worked a good deal as a consultant on projects in Russia and is most noted as the father of James McNeill Whistler, the artist. Van Slyke to Mercer, February 27, 1830. Daniel Van Slyke was resident engineer of the Second Residency in the canal’s First Division. Nathan Roberts undertook the initial engineering studies for the bypass works at Muscle Shoals. It would be George Washington Goethals who would execute the actual construction, completing the work in 1890, prior to work on the Panama Canal. Discussions of the short sightedness of Wright’s design recounted in Francis, 1966. There is further discussion in Dickson, where the suggestion is made that design decisions were made by Holmes Hutchinson, retained by Wright as an assistant. Hutchinson would become chief engineer in charge of construction. An intriguing thought is outlined in Wilson, 2000, where the idea is suggested that political reasons predicated the least expensive approach, causing Wright to keep the engineering estimates low by aligning the canal, as often as possible, with the course of the river. The canal company felt the state legislature could revoke the company charter at any time and keeping estimates low would help temper any legislative concerns. Nevertheless, the design was Wright’s responsibility and any shortcoming was his to shoulder. This excerpt is from The Savannah Georgian, as reprinted in The Southern Patriot, July 5, 1828, Vol 4, p. 2. Family tradition has suggested that Henry was killed in an accident with a horse. An announcement in The Wilmington Watchman at the time mentioned that he was killed when he fell, and the horse trampled him. A detailed account of his death is contained in an obituary notice contained in an online file: http:surnamearchive.com/records058.htm. That account mentions his falling and the wagon’s passing over him. Wright to Cocke, December 2, 1841.

Benjamin Wright

6 Conduct and Confrontation

: : : The boats are neatly fitted-up, having births for twenty persons, and a separate cabin for ladies. They will leave tide water at half-past 7 A.M. and Honesdale at 6 A.M. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, going through in 36 hours : : : Fare through $ 4; way passengers 5 cents per mile – meals extra.1 Advertisement for the Delaware and Hudson Company New York Morning Courier and Enquirer October 12, 1829 Discovery of coal in America has one possible story originating from folk legend. It tells of a hunter, sometime in the 1790s, making camp one evening in the hills of Pennsylvania, where he fell asleep with his fire still burning. Upon awakening the next morning, he found a seam of coal burning all around him. Now, the story may hold some truth, but whether this tale describes the first discovery is debatable. There is evidence that the Native Americans were aware of the functional properties of coal as early as the 1750s. Geologic properties of coal are of two origins. Bituminous coal is formed through the action of sedimentation, whereas anthracite coal originates through the process of metamorphosis. Referred to as “stone coal” by Wright, the early source of anthracite was obtained

95

Benjamin Wright

96

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

from Wales and was a principal source of fuel in post-Revolutionary American cities. However, in that era, it was all obtained from import, and, for a large population, that source became scarce when the War of 1812 brought a British embargo on coal shipments to America. By 1814 the short supply of coal put the nation in a precarious position, with even more hardship in the larger city populations of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, all of which forced America to accept self-reliance and look inward for a source. As a result, the country witnessed the development of what were characterized as the “Anthracite Canals.” Once a domestic source was discovered, the Delaware and Raritan, Morris, and Delaware and Hudson Canals, were all conceived and developed for the sole purpose of transporting coal out of Pennsylvania to avoid dependency on British import,2 and Wright was involved in all of them to one degree or another. He consulted with his young protégé, Canvass White, during the younger engineer’s tenure as chief engineer for the Delaware and Raritan Canal. Wright consulted with Ephraim Beach while the latter served as chief engineer for the Morris Canal, and to a larger extent he himself served as chief engineer for the Delaware and Hudson Canal. William and Maurice Wurtz,3 Philadelphia merchants, were born in New Jersey after their parents had emigrated from Switzerland. As adults, they were partners in a dry goods business, and when the British embargo went into effect, they felt the impact, both to business and to family. As a result, William decided to do something about it and undertook a search for an alternative source to replace British coal. Following the oral histories of both Native Americans and early white settlers, he trekked through the territory of eastern Pennsylvania, where after several months of venturing across the countryside without success, he turned his attention to the Lackawanna Valley. Although it was not considered to be a plentiful source, William searched the valley nonetheless, and did find some outcrops of coal. Along with his brother, Maurice, they bought various tracts of land, and by 1816, they had extracted a small quantity of coal. They set up camp at what is now present-day Carbondale, Pennsylvania and established a base of operations. By 1822, they extracted close to 1,000 tons of anthracite with 100 tons reaching Philadelphia by wagon that winter. However, even with the success of getting coal to the city, albeit arduous and slow, the brothers soon learned that Philadelphia was not the best market. Coal originating from the Lehigh and Schuylkill valleys was already supplying the city, and with a cheaper product. New York was deemed to be the better market, but a means of economical transport was nonexistent. Recognizing the successful progress of New York’s Erie Canal, the brothers approached Wright in 1823 to conduct a feasibility study for a canal between the mines near Carbondale and the Hudson River. While he was still engaged with the Erie Canal, he took the offer under consideration as the brothers, along with other investors, organized themselves.

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

97

They obtained rights from Pennsylvania to develop a canal in the valley of the Lackawaxen River and a corporate charter from New York in April 1823, thus establishing the company with a defined purpose to transport coal via a water route. Wright did accept the engagement and was given the directive “ : : : to have a proper survey or running level carried over the country : : : .”4 He retained surveyors including John L. Sullivan5 to conduct fieldwork for the feasibility surveys. Wright followed with directives to conduct the work, “from tidewater of the Hudson river, at the mouth of the Wallkill, up the valley of the Rondout, and thence over to the Delaware River, and thence up the same to the confluence of the Lackawaxen, and thence up the Lackawaxen to a point as near to the coal mines as possible.”6 When fieldwork was finished that November, Wright reviewed and prepared his report early the following year, 1824. Among the details was a brief summary of the lift requirements along the alignment: : : : From the mouth of the Lackawaxen to the head water thereof at Keen’s Mill Pond, which is said to be within 4 or 5 miles of the coal mine, rise 668 feet in 36 miles. From these outlines it will be seen that the lockage to be overcome on the whole route is 1431 feet, and the estimated, or reputed distance 117 miles : : : .7

A railroad or inclined planes were suggested as options to overcome the steep terrain at the western end of the route, and with Wright’s report presenting an overall favorable endorsement of the project, the company issued a prospectus for soliciting investors. : : : to leave nothing to conjecture, they have had the whole route surveyed under the immediate superintendence of Benjamin Wright, Esq. Chief engineer of the Erie Canal. The report of that gentleman and Col J.L. Sullivan which will be found in the following pages places the practicability of the work beyond a question : : : 8

DeWitt Clinton also endorsed the project, providing his own analysis of the city’s coal requirements and felt confident the proposed development “ : : : could handle an immediate need for 120,000 tons and within a few years the city would need 200,000 tons annually.”9 Working with Wright on the study, Sullivan provided a note of confidence in the project and made comment within the overall report: : : : it will no doubt be a satisfaction to you, as a citizen of the state of New York, to learn that there exists a body of coal near the head waters of the Lackawaxen, worthy of so great a work as this now contemplated.10

Wright estimated the total project at $1.2 million for 117 miles of canal, commenting further:

Benjamin Wright

98

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 16: Route of the Delaware and Hudson Canal and Railroad. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

On a view of this project, if we take into consideration the importance of coal for fuel for the cities and towns along the Hudson river and elsewhere, and the prospective increasing demand which must and will arise for this article alone, as our population increases, and our forests decrease, : : : it presents ground for fair calculation of profit and strong inducements for capitalists to embark in the undertaking.11

An organizational structure was created in 1824 with Philip Hone,12 former New York mayor, elected the company’s first president. Wright was retained as the engineer in charge, with Hone giving him a rather simple directive, “ : : : we have money and wish to make a canal, but we rely on you only to tell us how and what we ought to do : : : ”.13 Within days of taking his position, Wright sought out an assistant and turned without hesitation to John Jervis, still at work on the Erie Canal. Jervis accepted the offer and departed in March 1825, taking a steamboat down the Hudson to meet with his mentor and undertake the position as Principal Assistant Engineer. Commenting that same month:

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

99

At the time, Judge Wright held the position of chief or consulting engineer for several other works, and under his advice, it was understood that I should organize the engineering force and superintend the general duties of the service.14

Following his initial meeting, the young engineer departed for Kingston, New York where he and John Mills began undertaking design surveys. Traveling the entire length of the line with surveying equipment, detailed elevation and location surveys were undertaken and a report was submitted for Wright’s review. In a memoir written later in life, Jervis discussed some of his early duties: : : : it developed on the assistant (Jervis) to examine the route, make surveys, and establish the location of the canal, and to prepare the plans and specifications of the various structures required for the canal. In this duty, the discussion of all particulars and especially of the all difficulties was as a matter of course referred for the decision of the chief.15

Before making his final route selection and alignment, Wright had Jervis join him and the two traveled the entire proposed alignment. They covered the distance by either horse or boat, or on foot, and Wright’s stamina and agility for a 55-year-old made an impression on the younger engineer: In following our route up the valley of the Delaware and Lackawaxen rivers : : : it was necessary to make this distance of thirty miles on foot, excepting the occasional relief afforded at some points by the small boat that accompanied us. We took the journey as easy as we could, the chief sleeping in his cloak which he had wisely taken with him, in the log houses where we found quarters, and some of which were pretty rough. The object of the trip made it necessary to give considerable attention to the local features of the route, requiring three days : : : Though considerably fatigued, the chief bore this pedestrian portion of our examination very well.16

His report, along with his design and cost study, were submitted in June 1825, the basis of which came from his examination tour with Jervis. Wright commented further, “the Delaware and Hudson would become part of a ‘main line’ and evolve into a great scheme of internal improvement by lateral canals : : : opening communication with the Erie Canal for the exchange of productions : : : .”17 His report, however, left some ambiguity. Honesdale, a village named in honor of the company president, became the canal’s proposed western terminus but was still short of Carbondale. The Moosic Mountains, a formidable obstacle between the two villages, created a degree of uncertainty for him as to the proper means for traversing the barrier. His report

Benjamin Wright

100

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

has a brief remark: “There remains then only a good road, or a railway, the latter I think will be preferred.”18 Within two months after successful completion of the Erie Canal, construction activity for the Delaware and Hudson Canal was underway. Design and construction plans were developed and money was invested, and although the means and methods of completing the western portion were still in question, work got underway. Working under Jervis’ supervision, alignment surveys were established for contractor use. To further assist Jervis, and to fill out the engineer corps, Wright sent for Horatio Allen, a young engineer, then serving as one of his assistants on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The overall conceptual alignment began at Kingston, on the west shore of the Hudson River, which served as the canal’s eastern terminus. Westward to the Delaware River was fifty-nine miles; then, along the Delaware, the canal ran for twenty-two miles. By following the Lackawaxen River for twenty-five miles, the canal portion would terminate at Honesdale. To reach Carbondale would be another sixteen miles by one means or another. The waterway would be thirty feet wide with a depth of four feet, allowing passage of boats seventy feet long, carrying twenty-five to thirty tons of cargo and drawn by one horse. According to plan, 1,075 feet of total lift would be accomplished with 110 locks. Besides several aqueducts to carry the canal over rivers, 137 bridges would cross over it. Wright compiled a second report in the late fall of 1826, and he went so far as to include a discussion regarding the terminus near Carbondale. A solution was necessary to overcome the 900-foot vertical obstacle to reach the terminus, and there were some options. One of these was to incorporate railway technology, a second was to utilize a system of inclined planes like those planned for the Morris Canal, and a third was the use of horse-drawn wagons on an improved roadway. The method of choice, as recommended in his report, was the railway option to link with the coal fields. For the report manuscript, Wright relied for a good portion of the text on studies and analysis performed by his assistant, Jervis—a process that was common practice. In his first report of 1824, he mentioned Sullivan’s contribution, but in this later report of 1826, he made the mistake of failing to mention Jervis’ name and give his assistant credit in the body of the text. At that moment, Wright had a fair amount of work he was committed to. He was working with Canvass White, as the younger engineer became active in the quest to find an adequate source of fresh water for New York City. He was also entangled in legal matters with John Randel, and uppermost on his mind was the tragic loss of his son, Henry, that October. All were things which would tend to cloud his thinking as he developed his report. Nevertheless, a month or so later, Jervis got around to reviewing Wright’s report but hesitated to make a comment. When he did respond, it included technical matters regarding construction and letting of contracts for the locks but also

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

101

Figure 17: Horatio Allen. Source: Courtesy of the James K. Finch Collection, in possession of the author.

mentions the lack of the chief engineer’s presence. Wright’s travels and commitments on various projects required him to manage things from a distance, and he relied on Jervis to handle the routine engineering details. Jervis’ letter did not express dismay over the omission of his name in the report but firmly requested that his chief engineer leave the city and come to the site. Wright replied in a letter dated November 13, telling his young assistant that, among other things, Henry’s death placed an emotional strain which he felt was clouding his judgment. He advised Jervis that letting of lock contracts could be put off until Wright could join him and let the elder do it himself. Not satisfied with the response, Jervis wrote again on November 23, suggesting his chief engineer shoulder the bulk of the responsibility, further elaborating, “I think it due to myself and certainly the contractors have a right to expect it.”19 Jervis continues and again repeats his request that Wright come to the site, but the underlying meaning to his letter is where he cloaks the root cause of his irritation; an affront to his career: “I am much inclined to the belief that the Delaware and Hudson will rather be an injury than a benefit to me.”20

Benjamin Wright

102

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Wright’s response to his young protégé, written on December 16, 1826, is direct: : : : I found your favor of the 23rd. I have read it over and over again and tried to examine my own conduct for the past six months to see if I deserved the inferences which I draw from the contents of your letter : : :21

Adding his thoughts and emotions with his personal disposition: My long protracted ill health and for the loss of my son (which is a severe affliction of itself) added to my professional difficulties and troubles and ought to be some excuse for my not meeting you long before this time as I wished and intended.22

Regarding Jervis’ comment, the canal would “rather be an injury than a benefit,” Wright continues: In reflecting upon the contents of some parts of your letter where you appear to feel that the Delaware and Hudson canal will be an injury rather than a benefit I am totally at a stand how or whence such a feeling can arise – from the manner it is introduced it would perhaps be fair to draw the inference that I am the cause of these unpleasant reflections : : : 23

Earlier in 1825, when the two met in New York City, Wright shared his confidence in his protégé and suggested that he would at some point fill the chief engineer position for the project. This, no doubt, went a long way to sway the younger engineer’s decision to accept the position, and, a year later, at the time of their correspondence, Jervis was, in fact, performing many of the duties performed by a chief engineer. However, deeper feelings surfaced, and he became short with his mentor, suggesting that Wright was not doing his job, and if he could not perform his duties, he should step aside and let him take over. However, Wright felt his presence in New York was necessary where his continued relationship with the canal would provide stability to the value of stock shares. He also felt that Jervis’ position as chief would come in time: I know very well that you can perform all the duties of Chief Engineer for the execution of the work on the canal and its location. And my course of conduct has from the beginning verified my full confidence in your good judgement as to all this, and where I say that but for the causes I have hinted above nothing on my part would have prevented you such as far as my wishes are concerned, and I may add that such a course will be taken with the consent of others to bring about such an event. If it fails (of which there is I hope, no probability) you will only have to charge yourself with the blame.24

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

103

Concluding in a rather strong tone, Wright remarks : : : I shall meet you as soon as I can : : : But my dear sir let me say that if you shall continue to possess the same feeling, the cold, distant and reserved uncommunicative manner which has been exhibited toward me for the last 5 or 6 months our meeting will be very illy calculated : : : 25

Written on a separate piece of paper contained inside another letter, this correspondence is in Wright’s handwriting. During much of 1826, Wright was under a good deal of stress, and the professional difficulties he speaks about were related to his involvement with the Chesapeake and Delaware. The public affronts to his integrity brought on by Matthew Carey and litigation involving his authority as Chief Engineer were all contributing factors. Yes, his life was turned upside down with the tragic loss of Henry, a matter which he wanted Jervis to understand and something for which the younger engineer may not have shown enough compassion, considering the situation. Wright knew the character of his protégé and although he was managing the canal project from a distance, he had complete confidence in Jervis. Nonetheless, it did not diminish his lapse in giving credit to his assistant engineer; it may have been an oversight but was also a misstep. Recognizing the confrontation as a distraction to the canal’s progress, and realizing the damage it would do to the relationship between the two, Wright took the appropriate step and resigned in March 1827 but not before making the recommendation to place Jervis in the chief engineer’s position. By summer, Jervis was busy gathering additional information about railways as Wright moved on to his other engagements. However, the two remained in touch. For the moment, Jervis, now serving in the chief engineer’s position, continued working on the canal. By October he submitted his report to the board. In the report, he included a proposed outline for a railroad to traverse the mountains at the western end of the line. Honesdale to Carbondale was sixteen miles over the mountains. Traveling from east to west the vertical differential was 900 feet up, with a descent of 950 feet down to Carbondale. With Jervis’ prior knowledge, and although Wright was no longer connected with the project, the elder, along with James Renwick,26 reviewed the report, with both offering favorable comments. In the interim, Jervis had dispatched Horatio Allen to England to visit both the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Stephenson’s locomotive works in Newcastle. While in England, Allen also made a field trip to observe the Stockton and Darlington Railroad, recently placed in operation. In a lengthy letter to Jervis, he remarked I have just returned to Liverpool, having been at Newcastle, visited the railroads in its vicinity and examined the operation of the locomotives

Benjamin Wright

104

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

with the closest attention. I have been completely convinced of their utility and superiority to horsepower.27

Jervis replied, directing Allen to proceed with procurement, where in July 1828, contracts were let for four small locomotive units given the affectionate names: The Stourbridge Lion, The America, The Delaware, and The Hudson. The Stourbridge Lion and two others were fabricated at the Stourbridge locomotive works of Foster, Rastrick, and Company in Worcestershire. The fourth, The America,28 was manufactured in the Newcastle facility of George and Robert Stephenson. Locomotives arrived from England in separate shipments in the early half of 1829. Allen had the honor on August 8, 1829 to take control of The Stourbridge Lion and traverse three miles of track near Seelyville, Pennsylvania: “ : : : I had never run a locomotive nor any other engine before : : : This was the first operation of a railroad locomotive in America : : : .” Allen was both operator and brakeman on this first run for what he later referred to as a three-mile ride alone in the woods of Pennsylvania.29 Rails were hemlock stringers, set on edge, six by twelve inches in cross section, and twenty to thirty feet long. Rails, supported on stone piers, were connected with cross ties at ten to fifteen foot intervals with wrought iron strips two and one-half inches wide and one-half inch thick forming the wearing surface. However, implementation proved difficult because the traction power necessary for steeper grades prevented the imported locomotives from being put into service on the ascending and descending grades. A series of inclined planes were implemented like those proposed for the Portage Railroad of the Pennsylvania Main Line System. Stationary steam power and ropes were used to draw small rail cars filled with coal up the steeper grades. The level grades between the planes were handled by the locomotives. Boats traversed the waterway for the first time in April 1828, with the entire route including the rail component completed in autumn 1829. Two years following the canal’s completion, another event occurred in Philadelphia where, without ceremony, an eleven-week trans-Atlantic voyage was concluded. Several dozen German families had made the voyage, having emigrated from their home in Mühlhausen, deep in the heartland of Germany. They came to America to seek a better life and for one man, John Roebling, it was an opportunity to advance his engineering career. Roebling was the driving force for the voyage, and on reaching Philadelphia, the group headed West where they purchased 7,000 acres of land in Butler County, north of Pittsburgh. They established a small community and Roebling undertook surveying work as he could obtain it. Earlier, in 1826, the state of Pennsylvania had created an entity called the Pennsylvania Mainline Public Works System, a collection of canals and roads for linking Philadelphia with Pittsburgh, and by 1828, it also included railroads. However, for the entire project to be successful, a means to traverse

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

105

the mountains east of Pittsburgh was necessary. In 1831, about the time Roebling and his fellow immigrants were settling north of Pittsburgh, construction began for a series of inclined planes between Johnstown and Hollidaysburg. Called the Allegheny Portage Railroad, it comprised eleven inclined railroad tracks with stationary power and was completed in 1834. In theory, canal boats would be floated on to wheeled carriages, pulled up the inclines, and then lowered downgrade, utilizing steam-powered engines with rope towlines. With time, the ropes would become frayed and required replacement, a situation in search of a solution and one which created an opportunity for Roebling. His concept for replacing the ropes with wire cables brought about the formation of his wirework’s operations. Almost simultaneously, a similar situation developed with the towlines for the inclined planes of the Delaware and Hudson Canal system, and in short order, Roebling’s wire cables were also implemented on the rail line between Honesdale and Carbondale. Although the situations were different, the concept was the same. The Portage Railroad carried loaded canal boats on a carriage frame, which stayed attached to the haulage system, whereas the gravity railroad of the Delaware and Hudson Canal carried loaded coal wagons to become detached and hauled by locomotives to the coal dock. The iron cables having proved successful, their benefit formed a segue for Roebling in the 1840s to propose and successfully complete four short replacement aqueducts on the Delaware and Hudson Canal, using a cable suspension concept. A suspended bridge drew Roebling’s attention while still living in Germany and one for which he later expanded the capability by using higher strength iron wire, and later steel wire, to form the suspending cables.30 About the time the German émigrés arrived in Philadelphia, another young engineer, Charles Ellet Jr., had departed to study in Europe for a time. While there, he observed several existing bridges and took note of the unique suspension concept, becoming satisfied with the merit of the system. In the years that followed, events were set in motion to begin an era where the two men—Ellet and Roebling—would take the idea and push the concept to its limits. For the moment, however, with successful completion of the Delaware and Hudson Canal project in 1829, Jervis departed the following spring, taking a position with the Chenango Canal in central New York, a lateral branch off the Erie Canal. Wright was at work with other engagements, continuing to wrap up the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Allen traveled south and accepted a position in South Carolina as chief engineer with the development of the Charleston to Hamburg Railway, a rail line intended to advance as far west as Augusta, Georgia. Allen’s successful completion of the railroad’s first sixteen-mile segment offered a railway ride into the outskirts of Charleston and framed a backdrop for an afternoon of leisurely travel by a young lady and her newlywed husband. She enjoyed herself and was so taken with the ride that she wrote a

Benjamin Wright

106

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

letter to her sister-in-law’s husband. As it would play out in the weeks that followed, it was a letter that set in motion a turning point for Wright and for the civil engineering profession: the nation’s first long-distance railway, the New York and Erie Railroad.

Endnotes 1

Morning Courier and Enquirer, New York, October 12, 1829. This extract is taken from an advertisement in the newspaper. Photocopy of the advertisement is shown in Century of Progress, History of the Delaware and Hudson Company, 1925, p. 64. 2 The term “Anthracite Canal” is used to describe the primary purpose for three canals: Morris, Delaware, and Hudson, and the Delaware and Raritan. The phrase is taken from Burrows and Wallace, 1999, p. 431. 3 The Wurtz brothers, William, Maurice, Charles, and John, were born in America during the period 1783 to 1792 in Flanders, New Jersey, a period after their parents’ emigration from Switzerland. Along with the quest for coal exploration, some of the brothers were in the mercantile business in Philadelphia. Their name has also been spelled Wurts and Werts. 4 Wright’s directive from the Wurtz brothers is recounted in Whitford, 1905, p. 4. 5 John L. Sullivan was born in 1777, was a graduate from Harvard and was the son of Massachusetts governor, James Sullivan. When then-governor John Hancock authorized the Middlesex Canal, James Sullivan, Loammi Baldwin Sr., and several others were chartered as officers of the company. Baldwin became the canal’s first superintendent, serving from 1793 to 1805. After Hancock, James Sullivan became governor in 1807 but died in office the following year. Upon his father’s death, John was appointed canal superintendent, a position he held for sixteen years. 6 Directive given to Wright by the company in 1823. Recounted in Whitford, History of the Canal System of the State of New York, Chapter XX, The Delaware and Hudson Canal, 1905. 7 Wright and Sullivan, Report of the Proposed Canal, 1824, p. 24. The cover page of the report lists both Wright’s and Sullivan’s names as originators of the report, with each having sections of the document. Although Wright had retained Sullivan for his participation, it was a common practice for feasibility reports to be prepared by more than one engineer, or if the report were prepared by one engineer, it would have been reviewed by one or more fellow engineers. 8 Wright and Sullivan, 1824, p. iv. 9 Century of Progress, 1925, p. 20. 10 Ibid, p. 21. 11 Ibid, p. 26.

Benjamin Wright

CONDUCT AND CONFRONTATION

107

12 Philip Hone (1780–1851) was a wealthy New York City merchant and became mayor of the city in 1826. He served as the first president of the Delaware and Hudson Company in 1825 and 1826. 13 Wright to Cocke March 27, 1825. 14 FitzSimons, 1971, p. 65. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid, 1971, p. 70. 17 Extract of comments associated with Wright’s report issued upon completion of his reconnaissance journey with Jervis. Recounted in Whitford, Chapter XX, 1905, pp. 9–10. 18 Wright’s comment about possible options for the end of the line can be found in Century of Progress, 1923, p. 28. 19 Jervis to Wright, November 23, 1826. 20 Ibid. 21 Wright to Jervis December 15, 1826. This letter is both unfinished and unsigned. It is clearly in the handwriting of Wright, and contains rather stern language. With present research, it is the only example of Wright expressing himself with a harsh tone. The letter was received by Jervis and is archived in Roll 7, Box 35, Correspondence 1820-1840, and housed in the Jervis Library in Rome, New York. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 James Renwick (1790–1863) was both scientist and engineer, having studied and taught at Columbia. He is credited with the design for the inclined planes utilized on the Morris Canal in New Jersey. His son, James Jr. (1818–1895), was an architect and most noted for his designs for the Renwick Gallery and Smithsonian buildings in Washington. 27 This account is contained in a letter from Allen to Jervis during the former’s time in England. Allen arrived in England in January 1828 and returned in the fall of the same year. This letter contains his reactions and thoughts after riding the Stockton and Darlington rail line; his experiences while in England during his tenure with the Delaware and Hudson were recounted in a series of monthly articles about his journey Ties, March through August 1958. 28 There is evidence that this locomotive was named The Pride of America. 29 The account of Allen’s first run with the locomotive is found in The Canals of New York State, 1991, p. 29. 30 Accounts of Roebling’s emigration to America, the establishment of the community in Pennsylvania, and subsequent involvement with the wire cables for the Allegheny Portage Railroad and the gravity railroads of the Delaware and Hudson Canal can be found in McCullough 1972, pp. 42–51.

Benjamin Wright

7 Mr. Knickerbocker’s Gotham

: : : The ancient and venerable city of Gotham, was, peradventure, possessed of mighty treasures, and did, moreover, abound with all manner of fish and flesh, and eatables and drinkables, and such like delightsome and wholesome excellencies withal : : : 1 Washington Irving November 1807 A grand flotilla of canal boats commemorated the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825. The entourage led by DeWitt Clinton carried wooden casks filled with water from Lake Erie to be poured into the Atlantic and ceremonially “marry” the waters. That same year Wright moved his family to New York City and established a presence for both himself and his engineering services. By the 1830s, and in his sixties, he begins to mention various times of being under the care of a doctor, but it did not slow him down as the demand for his services continued and he took on further engagements. Adding to his mix of work activities, he accepted a political appointment in 1832, becoming New York City street commissioner. City government originated with the first Dutch settlement and was structured around a common council, comprised of the mayor and the several aldermen. The council provided oversight to various standing committees dealing with specific issues, such as lamps,

109

Benjamin Wright

110

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

streets, public buildings, and auditors. When Wright’s name went before the council in consideration for the appointment, it was, as would be expected, an appointment open for discussion and some politicking. During council deliberations, one councilman asked who Benjamin Wright was, with a reply coming from another that Wright was to New York as Washington was to the nation. During his tenure as commissioner, Wright introduced public sewage systems to the island and was able to pave Third Avenue with a macadamizing process. Along with grading of the eastern section of the city north of Houston Street, he established the profile of the island to govern new street development, saving the city millions of dollars while contributing to public health. He resigned the position in 1834, but throughout his tenure as street commissioner, he continued his consulting practice and was involved in a variety of projects. One such project had begun earlier in the concluding days of Erie Canal construction—the quest for a suitable source of clean water for the city. During the revolution, New York City comprised the southern tip of Manhattan Island and extended northward to a point where, with time, the named streets transitioned to numbered streets. As early as the first Dutch settlements, fresh water was a valuable commodity, owing to the limited supply. In some respects, the criticality of the supply for the Dutch was not so much for cooking and watering livestock, but for the brewing of spirits. Fresh water was necessary for boiling malt and hops and the Dutch had mastered the art of using what limited supply they had. Thirty years before the Revolutionary War, the population was around 11,000 people with the town home to 166 taverns, more than any other large city in the country at the time. At the start of the war, the population had doubled with the proliferation of taverns reaching close to 400. The populace of New York City had the uncanny ability to take what scarce supplies of fresh water they had and provide for themselves a plentiful supply of distilled spirits.2 Alcoholic beverages were enjoyed by the populace but the need for an adequate quantity of clean water could not be overlooked. A source free of contamination was vital and for much of colonial New York, the Collect Pond served the need. A freshwater pool, the Collect Pond, is now gone but was once situated in an area east of Broadway between Chambers and Canal Streets. In later years it was drained and filled, a process that took years to complete, where by 1838 it became the location for the Halls of Justice housing the criminal court, a facility with the more familiar name the “Tombs.” In the vicinity was the infamous street intersection known as “Five Points,” immortalized in book and film, the most prominent being “The Gangs of New York.” Other than a few sporadic wells, the Collect Pond served as the primary source. However, with population growth and increased usage, the pond also became a location where people washed

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

111

clothes and disposed of waste. With time the populace reverted to using the existing wells with hand pumps. Many people took advantage of the Tea Water pump, in service since the 1730s. It was a name resulting from the phrase, “water pure enough to brew a cup of tea.” The American Gazetteer of 1797 described it as a source where “ : : : Most of the people are supplied every day with fresh water, conveyed to their doors in casks from a pump near the head of Queen Street : : : the average quantity drawn daily from this remarkable well, is 110 hogsheads of 130 gallons each.”3 Individuals were charged 45 schillings for annual use, but for those pursuing it as a business enterprise, drivers would fill a wooden barrel wagon, obtaining 130 gallons at a time for six cents to sell door to door by the gallon for one penny. However, increased demand and public skepticism owing to the proximity to the Collect Pond took the pump out of favor. Among the various committees under the oversight of the Common Council was the Water Committee, at times referred to as the Fire and Water Committee. Christopher Colles, an Irish immigrant with earlier experience in canal work, approached the committee in 1774 with an idea to develop a system of wells with pumps on the island’s high ground to the north with a distribution system of wooden pipes. The plan was accepted, and the first well was implemented with a steam engine and surveys got underway for the distribution system. However, the pipe systems were not laid because of British military occupation during the war. Again, supplies of fresh water remained from the hand pumps and the Collect Pond until after the war, when Aaron Burr undertook a rather questionable business enterprise—the Manhattan Company. Aaron Burr4 was both son and grandson to men steeped in theology, both of whom served as presidents of the College of New Jersey, later to become Princeton University. Both men, along with Burr’s mother and grandmother, died while he was still young, and he and his sister were raised by a distant relative. Graduating from the College of New Jersey in 1772 he pursued a law career and after service in the war, he developed a successful law practice, served as a New York senator during the 1790s, and later, he was Jefferson’s vice president. He was well acquainted with Alexander Hamilton and as an anti-Federalist he vehemently opposed Hamilton’s grand plans for the financial structure of the country. His scruples were questionable, he was self-absorbed, and his position as a public figure reached a zenith in 1804 as his dual with Hamilton sent his reputation into decline. Burr did, however, leave his mark on the city with an endeavor for supplying water, an idea with origins from his wedding day in 1782. Burr married Theodosia Provost5 in a double ceremony in Paramus, New Jersey. Along with them, Theodosia’s older half-sister, Catherine was marrying Joseph Browne,6 a doctor from Westchester County. Years later, in July 1798, Browne published a lengthy proposal to supply the city with an

Benjamin Wright

112

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

adequate supply of water through a system of dams, pumps, and a distribution system of wooden pipes. The source would be from the watershed of the Bronx River and it was a plan quite detailed that embraced a firm grasp of the engineering elements involved, even though it was uncertain where he obtained his information. In an earlier writing on the city’s battle with a yellow fever epidemic, Browne offered a rather profound thought. Although he felt the cause of contracting the disease was from breathing air stemming from plant and animal decay, he suggested that ample supplies of clean water would be beneficial. For New York, it was a comment that would come back to haunt the city in the years to come.7 Burr and Browne organized themselves as the Manhattan Company and after successful navigation through New York political machinery, the company received a charter in April 1799. At a cost of $10 per year, each household would receive thirty gallons per day, and if they did not want to tap into the system, they could pay $2 per year to have fire protection. However, behind the façade of providing water, the company organized itself into what was more a bank than a utility company, and as such, the company was a problem for the city from the beginning. A well was developed with a horse-drawn pump, and some distribution pipe was installed, a plan emulating earlier plans of Christopher Colles. However, the company served the populace with a differing mission. Rather than supplying water, Burr’s motives were more to circumvent Hamilton’s federal money policies allowing the company to prosper as a bank. All the while, this brought little water to even fewer people in the country’s largest city. Recognizing that they could neither assimilate a private company into a municipal, quasi-government organization nor continue to live with the company’s lack of satisfying the city’s needs, the council looked for options. Thus, as the Manhattan Company continued the charade, the council approached William Weston. Weston arrived in February 1799 in the same period Wright and Abraham Hardenburgh were conducting exploratory surveys for improving navigation in the Mohawk River valley. Focusing on the Bronx watershed, Weston conducted surveys to determine capacity and prepared calculations of potential demand. Computing the city’s area at 750 acres with more than 400 acres in roof area, he calculated a demand of 2.25 million gallons per day to provide the equivalent of a quarter inch per day of rainfall. This amount would satisfy the demand for street sanitation and needs of the public with another 0.75 million gallons per day for the domestic use of the populace. Weston’s surveys in the upper reaches of the Bronx satisfied him that with a dam to take advantage of the Rye Ponds the expected needs could be met. Weston’s plan also addressed the other end of the system, which included the use of a receiving reservoir with slow sand filtration. It was a design for which he received $800 but he provided no cost estimate and the concept by itself created some hesitancy preventing further action. The city continued

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

113

to rely on the Manhattan Company, a situation that lasted until DeWitt Clinton, the voice of the Erie Canal, addressed the New York state legislature. In January 1820 he urged further exploration of ways to supply water to the city and from sources outside the island. Clinton’s words did not go unheard and, as a result, mayor Stephen Allen8 worked with the council to address the issue. Allen, by trade in the sail making business, used his position as mayor to lobby the council to create yet again another water supply committee. In January 1822, the committee was formed with Allen as chairman. Three additional members formed the committee, one of whom was Canvass White. White, still serving under his mentor as a principal assistant on the Erie Canal, took his committee position in late 1822, submitting a report recommending the Bronx watershed as the primary source, coupled with the Rye Ponds to provide supplementary capacity. With that, the council retained White that fall to conduct a detailed and formal examination of the watershed. White requested Wright to join him in the project and the two began examination of the ground and conducted feasibilities with costs. Each would prepare a separate report for submittal to the council. To provide additional data a local surveyor in Westchester County was retained to conduct stream gauging studies by taking several stream cross sections and water level elevations. Small floats were used and the travel time between cross sections was noted. Thus, knowing cross-sectional area and time of travel the capacity could be calculated. Field surveys were conducted in 1823 and each presented separate findings in January 1824. Other than small differences in cost, Wright supported White’s overall conceptual plan. With a dam on the Bronx River to create a reservoir incorporating the Rye Ponds, the concept could yield forty gallons per day per person. Cresting at sixty-two feet above the level of City Hall, the dam allowed gravity flow through a masonry aqueduct to carry water across the Harlem River into a receiving reservoir on the island. White placed the cost at just under $2 million. For his service, White was paid $1,100 from which he compensated Wright. An outcome from this work with his younger protégé, Wright recognized the potential of the Bronx watershed to provide an adequate supply and in the spring of 1824, he associated himself with a company to undertake the development—The New York Water Works. It was an undertaking while still engaged as chief engineer for the Erie Canal. With the intention of using the feasibility studies he and White had prepared, the company organized itself that fall, receiving a New York legislative charter the following January. By March 1825, with a board and stockholders, The New York Evening Post supported the company’s intent and took aim at the Manhattan Company: The present filthy state of our wells, occasioned by the numerous cesspools that have been dug within these few years, and the impurity

Benjamin Wright

114

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

of the water now brought to this city, have been long and justly the subjects of complaint, and would likely have continued so for many years to come, had not a few spirited individuals undertaken to remedy the evil; not by applying for banking privileges, but by asking for a charter which will enable them to apply their money in safety, and realize a fair and honorable compensation for its use.9

New York Water Works appeared to be the answer as Wright took the position as president, bringing back his young protégé, Canvass White, to assist in the final design survey. For much of 1825 and early 1826, the company appeared well on the way to success. Articles in The Evening Post again went on to say We are gratified to learn, that the Water Works Company are adopting the most efficient measures to supply the city with an abundance of pure and wholesome water. They have engaged two of the most experienced engineers in the country, Messrs. Wright and White, to complete the surveys, and to superintend the work; and not the slightest doubt exists, that the important object in view will be fully attained with as much expedition as practicable. Neither zeal nor ability of any kind will be wanting.10

In his capacity as president of the company, Wright issued a progress report in November 1826. Among other things in his report, he remarked on the acquisition of water rights near the Rye Ponds and the status of fieldwork for design surveys under the management of himself and White. He closed the report with some additional comments alluding to the intention of the directors to seek legislative approval at the next session for the power to obtain right of way. This admission of “alluding” to the company’s incomplete charter was unfortunate. In fact, the company had no way to convey the commodity and thereby created concern among the stockholders. Panic unfolded and a run on the company’s stock ensued, a situation further fueled by anonymous letters published in the newspapers. Speculation embraced the idea the letters had been authored by someone connected with the Manhattan Company, knowing that all money received in stock was housed in another bank. Nevertheless, the company experienced a run to unload stock, causing the eventual folding of the company. Wright looked at the work as both a business venture and an engineering endeavor and what investments he had made were lost, but he did have other work and continued the canal engagements he had elsewhere. White and his mentor would cross paths again in the early 1830s, when the younger engineer took the chief engineer’s position with the Delaware and Raritan Canal in New Jersey. In the 1830s, the city experienced an improved economy. Enhancements to public streets, much of which brought about under Wright’s tenure, helped

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

115

create a positive economic climate as stonecutters, cart men, and other tradesmen found work plentiful. Also able to capture some benefit from street improvement were the landowners. As streets were developed, subdivision of larger parcels into lots for construction of new houses soon followed. However, the effect of such expansion exacerbated the city’s health problems as increased demand for fresh water and waste disposal multiplied. New York, a city having wrestled with the search for a plentiful water supply, the search results had little to show for the effort. It was early in the decade that Joseph Browne’s comment that he made some forty-five years earlier, took on meaning. Wright remarked, “ : : : death has been around us on every side and we have seen our fellow beings falling by this awful scourge : : : ”11 June 25, 1832 was a Monday; it was hot with the temperature in the nineties and the air quite humid. That evening, a tailor by the name of FitzGerald came home to his wife and family. He had emigrated from Ireland and originally settled in Québec in 1831 before moving his family to New York. When he arrived home, he displayed signs of feeling ill. The next day his two children—a son and daughter—had also become ill. By the end of the week, FitzGerald’s wife and two children had died; to everyone’s fear, Asiatic cholera had arrived. Cholera is a disease that affects the human body with rather hideous consequences. Not since the Black Death in Europe of the 1300s had a disease been so decimating. Outbreaks in Europe and Britain in 1831 had now spread to North America. Prior to the outbreak in New York, more than 100,000 had perished in Russia, Hungary, and Germany, and by 1831, it had reach Britain and Ireland. Almost like clockwork, as the FitzGerald family became the first recorded case in America, the disease struck Canada. Spread of the disease became rampant in New York City. On July 7, nineteen people died; by the end of the month, the toll reached more than 2,000 but would grow even higher in the weeks that followed, with a population of around 250,000 people evacuated by the tens of thousands. Those who could afford to travel and had someplace to go abandoned the city, leaving the poor to suffer. However, the disease did not discriminate between classes of people; both rich and poor succumbed. With the approach of autumn, half of the city was gone and more than 3,500 had perished from the disease. The population of New York at the time was 250,000 just on Manhattan Island. With a death toll of 3,500, the mortality rate was 1.5%. To put things in a more contemporary light, if the same mortality rate were applied to the present-day population of Manhattan (1.6 million) the loss of life would be 22,400.12 Regarding the cause for cholera’s spread, first speculations did not consider fresh water and sanitation. Rather, among those in science and the intellectuals, it was considered a disease stemming from an atmospheric source. For many people, it was a direct result of God’s wrath. With his family, no doubt sent upstate, Wright shared his understanding of the cause:

Benjamin Wright

116

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

“ : : : Some will have it telluric, but as far as I can read the opinions of the physicians of the world it is a disease of which they know very little : : : .”13 New York was not alone as the disease spread west and south reaching Philadelphia, Baltimore, and urban centers in the South. Among those staying behind that summer was Myndert van Schaick,14 an alderman serving as treasurer of the Council’s Board of Health. It was his duty to stay and in so doing, he saw firsthand the effects of the disease on both the populace and the city’s ability to recover. The city did recover, and he reinitiated the discussions to find a suitable source of clean water. He lobbied the council to again undertake engineering studies for both a proper source and adequate distribution. The outcome evolved into a project for which Wright was retained in October 1832. Wright placed surveyors in the field to gather topography and stream cross sections. He did so in the Bronx watershed, all to continue the efforts that he and Canvass White had conducted earlier. Although Alderman van Schaick felt Wright to be “a very able and experienced engineer,” it was the Alderman’s feeling that the Bronx watershed was not the proper source, but that the source should rather be the Croton River. Even though Van Schaick was an Alderman, Wright was retained by the Water Committee to explore the Croton River watershed; Van Schaick retained DeWitt Clinton Jr.,15 son of the Erie Canal proponent. Thus, in the fall of 1832, as Wright had his team in the Bronx watershed, Clinton was likewise deep in Westchester County studying the Croton Watershed.16 The younger Clinton had experience with railway and canal work and was engaged with the Army’s Bureau of Topographical Engineers when he accepted the engagement by the city. Work got underway in the late fall and relied to a great degree on Canvass Whites’ previous study material. In fact, White had studied the Croton Watershed, even going as far as gauging the streams for capacity but felt that the expense of obtaining the water far exceeded the benefits. Wright also held this notion as well because it was his belief the costs of conveyance exceeded the benefit to the city. His report was turned into the council in November and Clinton’s the next month. Wright’s report, relying on the newly completed field surveys, was brief but recommended that the Bronx Watershed, supplemented with water from the Bryam Ponds, would be enough to supply the city with clean water at a modest budget. Restating White’s conclusion, the Croton River was economically untappable, but with further study, water could be redirected into the Bronx Watershed. Clinton’s report, on the other hand, was lengthy and went into detail to address the opinions of previous studies and went so far as to recommend the Croton Watershed as the preferred source. From his study of the river channel, Clinton concluded from calculations that if a dam were placed nine miles above the mouth, the watershed could supply 20 million gallons per day. Costs for land and water rights would be relatively low owing to the

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

117

somewhat undeveloped condition of the area and would be an advantage over similar expenses in the Bronx Watershed. Clinton’s cost analysis for structures, land, and property costs was $2.5 million. Two alternative studies were before the Council, and although the Wright report was looked on with favor, the choice went to the Croton Watershed. Legislators in Albany passed a resolution in February 1833, clearing the way for developing the Croton Watershed as New York’s water supply source. Legislative approval came about with the political maneuvering of newly elected state senator, Myndert van Schaick. Canvass White was retained as chief engineer for the project but within months resigned the position to take on another canal development. Following his departure, the Croton project considered the services of three engineers, with each requested to conduct initial surveys and submit their feasibility reports. Among the three were David Bates Douglass17 and John Martineau.18 Martineau was a former Erie Canal engineer, and Douglass a military engineer with service in the War of 1812. Reports were submitted to the council in early 1835 that made recommendations as to the proper way to tap the Croton. When considering the various means and costs of the necessary dam, route, and method of conveying aqueduct and ultimate distribution, a hybrid of the Martineau and Douglass reports was felt to be the proper approach. Wright separated himself from further activity with the water supply question and continued other engagements. Although his active connection with the water supply program in New York came to an end, he did not necessarily stop paying attention to developments with the project. Final design for the delivery system included a high dam on the Croton River, a masonry aqueduct to cross the Harlem River, sixteen tunnels, and an inverted siphon to carry water to a receiving reservoir at Yorkville ending with a distribution reservoir at Murray Hill. At a cost approaching $4.2 million for the aqueduct delivery system, the distribution system would incorporate more than 160 miles of pipe with twenty-inch diameter mains and six-inch diameter branch lines at an additional cost of $1.3 million. After decades of political wrangling and various engineering studies, postcholeric New York had before it the remaining question: spend the money and proceed, or not. Voting was held to get the people’s answer. Politics ran deep but the measure carried and within weeks the organizational structure was in place to execute the project, with David Bates Douglass retained as chief engineer and survey crews going into the field in Westchester County to begin design surveys. Douglass was a Yale graduate and had served as an army engineer. Along with some canal experience, he had taught in a school, the precursor to New York University. His wife, Irene, was the daughter of Andrew Ellicott, the respected colonial surveyor. Later in his career, he served as a consultant on railway work later to become portions of the Long Island Railroad.

Benjamin Wright

118

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Douglass took his position with the aqueduct project in June 1835. His survey crews were in the field within weeks. To Douglass’ credit, his military service was honorable and his academic credentials, both as student and teacher, were respected. However, his approach to practical engineering matters remained somewhat rigid with no regard to the time-honored tradition of completing a task on time and on budget. To further complicate matters, the city officials faced the realization that they may well have waited far too long; once again, a tragic price would be paid for years of inaction. Philip Hone, former mayor and past president of the Delaware and Hudson Canal, recorded: How shall I record the events of last night, or how attempt to describe the most awful calamity which has ever visited these United States.19

Wintertime darkness fell on December 16, 1835, with temperatures well below zero degrees. Throughout the city, cisterns and wells along with both rivers were frozen. About nine o’clock in the evening, a watchman noticed smoke coming from a building on Merchant Street (now Hanover Street). Fire companies were deployed but in less than half an hour, thirteen buildings were ablaze. By midnight, the fire encompassed entire city blocks to the order of close to thirteen acres. Firefighting capability proved helpless to the point that by four o’clock in the morning, it was thought that the entire city would burn to the ground. Before dawn, the military intervened and with systematic explosive demolition, buildings in the fires path were removed, creating a firebreak. At sunrise, as smoke still enveloped the entire island, it was cataloged that over 675 buildings had been destroyed. Wright was living on Greene Street at the time. Philomela, who had been ill for a long time, had died the previous May. No doubt he was still grieving, but he gathered his remaining family and evacuated to a safer location. Although his home was north of the immediate fire, it would seem the prudent thing to do to keep his family safe.20 ******************** City leaders were losing patience with Douglass because his slow methodical approach to the work went against the urgency felt by the council. Douglass was slow to produce, in a timely manner, the property acquisition maps necessary to obtain land. His request for more staff and materials went unheeded, and unknown to him at the time, Stephen Allen, head of the Water Committee, had begun communication with another engineer. To counter the lack of documents from Douglass, Allen sought out John Jervis to help provide examples of technical materials. Jervis, then working on the Chenango Canal, supplied Allen with examples of specifications as a favor in return to Allen, who had secured a position for Timothy, Jervis’

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

119

brother. Timothy was working in one of Douglass’ survey crews, and no doubt, had kept his brother abreast of progress on the aqueduct project. Douglass’ relationship with the council reached a point of no return in 1836, when he requested further surveys in Westchester County to aid in ongoing right-of-way litigation with landowner damage claims. The claims were primarily the result of the changed alignment resulting from an increase in the conduit diameter. Douglass was held accountable by the council for the design changes, and the argument continued all the way to the state legislature, where local landowners petitioned for compensation. The divide between the city and Douglass widened such that, by October 1836, Douglass was forced to resign. Within days, John Jervis was retained to fill the position.21 Early in 1836, Jervis had left his position with the Chenango Canal to take another engineering assignment with the Erie Canal enlargement, taking with him William McAlpine,22 his former assistant on the Chenango Canal. About the same time, while dealing with management problems with the aqueduct project, members of the council’s committee approached Jervis in September to gauge his interest in the position as chief of the Croton, which he accepted the following month. McAlpine remained with the Erie Canal enlargement as Jervis filled engineering assistant positions.

Figure 18: John Jervis (later in life). Source: Courtesy of the Jervis Library, Rome, New York, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

120

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Within weeks Jervis was in Philadelphia visiting the Fairmont Water Works, followed by a trip to Washington to visit the site for an aqueduct across the Potomac. His interest in the Washington work was in the pile foundations planned for the aqueduct piers because similar foundations were planned for the bridge across the Harlem River. Jervis brought the project to completion six years later at a cost of more than $10 million. However, for Jervis the project did not end with the opening of a valve to great celebration. Within a few years of Douglass’ dismissal and the subsequent hiring of Jervis, the project was still in the throes of reaching completion when Douglass publicly confronted Jervis and accused him of seeking out the position by purposely politicking behind the scenes. Through a series of published articles, Douglass asserted that then New York City mayor, Stephen Allen, had private meetings with one of the canal commissioners in Baltimore during the Democratic Convention.23 Douglass asserted that discussions between the two pertained to the dismissal of Douglass, and as a result of subsequent correspondence between the commissioner and Jervis, he took the position once Douglass was let go. The controversy did not go away with Jervis’ formal counter argument and it stayed with him the balance of his career. Friends of Douglass would not let the issue rest, confronting Jervis and even more so considering the success of the project. Jervis argued that, in fact, he did nothing to solicit the position and was just offering sample specifications for Allen’s use as a professional courtesy. Douglass was aware of Jervis’, brother Timothy’s presence and would use the arrangement, after the fact, to suggest that it was through his brother that Jervis gained information about progress and internal issues with the early stages of the aqueduct project. Jervis was approached by the council about the position at the time of Douglass’ dismissal and, on examination of the research, it appears Jervis did nothing inappropriate. However, an underlying question remains, why did the council contact Jervis in the first place? Yes, he was doing Allen a favor in providing sample specifications, but his technical experience at that time was of a single focus—canal engineering. So, to the question, evidence does seem to indicate the good possibility that Wright intervened. Wright was well-connected politically and felt his young protégé was capable and had the skills for the position, and never let any lingering issue with the confrontation on the Delaware and Hudson Canal influence his attitude toward Jervis. Did Wright exercise some behind-thescenes endorsement of his younger counterpart? If he did, he had enough integrity to have not intervened if it was not in the best interest of the project.24 Jervis brought the forty-one-mile Croton Aqueduct to completion and it is considered a landmark civil engineering achievement. Whether in an open excavation, a mined excavation, or in an aerial structure, the conduit cross

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

Figure 19: Route of the Croton aqueduct. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

121

122

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

section was brick-lined. It was somewhat horseshoe-shaped, with a height of about eight feet and a width of seven feet. He managed a cadre of assistant engineers on the project, many of whom would go on to lead successful careers. Further, he had brought back Horatio Allen following the railway work in South Carolina. James Renwick,25 later to design the Smithsonian, joined the team along with Alfred Craven.26 In addition to the primary conduit itself, other structures were required including the dam on the Croton River. It was a combination of stone masonry and earth embankment with the stone masonry, standing fifty feet high and sixty-nine feet thick at the base and having a spillway one hundred feet long. The surface area of water impounded behind the dam covered more than 400 acres, with a holding capacity of 500 million gallons, allowing thirty million gallons delivered every day to the city. The High Bridge carrying the conduit across the Harlem River was 1,450 feet long with sixteen masonry arches on piers founded on bedrock and excavated in the dry with cofferdams. Once on the island, the receiving reservoir was at Yorkville with walls of puddled earth and stone facing holding 150 million gallons. A distribution reservoir was at Murray Hill, holding 20 million gallons. Completed in October 1842 with a grand ceremony, water flowed through fountains at City Hall and Union Square. Wright had died within the months prior and would not witness the completion. The project was designated by ASCE as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1975.27 As water filled the Murray Hill reservoir, Jervis would part company with the project. Although he did not get involved with construction of the distribution system in Manhattan, he did consult with the project from time to time. He took on work in Boston with its water supply needs and served as chief engineer with a railway project between Albany to New York City following the Hudson River. As his career advanced, he took on more railway work including the chief engineer’s position with the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad running between Chicago and Davenport, Iowa, and crossing the Mississippi River at Rock Island, Illinois. The Rock Island bridge, although an important span over a major river, became significant in another fashion. For the railway to cross the Mississippi River a bridge was planned and, as was expected, it also brought immediate political controversy as the steamboat industry fought against its construction. The bridge was completed but on the night of May 6, 1856, the steamboat, Effie Afton, rammed one of the bridge piers by accident. Carrying a full manifest of passengers and freight, it erupted into flames and sank, and damaged much of the bridge. There was no loss of life owing to the accident, but the subsequent litigation drew an international audience and involved extensive reporting on the part of Jervis, who was serving as the railroad’s chief engineer. His report was quite thorough, and its completeness helped the attorney sway the judicial outcome in favor of the railroad. Although he was a young attorney at the time, Abraham Lincoln represented the

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

123

railroad in the litigation and with Jervis’ report in hand, the railroad was exonerated.28 Now, as Croton Aqueduct construction advanced, Wright was pursuing other work, and although he had continued involvement with various canal proposals, he also took on engagements with railway developments in a variety of locations. Despite his advancing years, he continued to be sought out for both his engineering services and his opinion on a wide array of projects.

Endnotes 1

This excerpt comes from Irving’s Chapter CIX (109) of the Chronicles of the Renowned and Ancient City of Gotham, Salmagundi, Issue 17, published on November 11, 1807. This excerpt is also recounted in Jones, 2008, p. 51. 2 A discussion of the early Dutch management of their scarce water supply is found in Koeppel, 2000, p. 13. 3 This extract describing the well production is taken from the chapter on New York in The American Gazetteer published in Boston, 1797. A recount of this is found in Blake, 1956, p. 13. 4 Aaron Burr (1756–836). 5 Theodosia Provost (1746–1794) was ten years older than Burr, and when the two got married she was the widow of a Swiss-born British military officer. 6 Joseph Browne was a doctor in Westchester County, New York, just north of New York City. As a curious aside, in the months following the double wedding, he became involved in a scheme to move the Boston Post Road onto property he controlled, and for which he began to start collecting toll for passage along the road. It was a scheme that Burr also got involved in, but more so to increase value of property he held adjoining that of Browne. 7 In 1798, Browne had written a paper discussing the origins of yellow fever and offered a theory that ample supplies of fresh water were necessary to limit the spread of the disease. A discussion of his writing can be found in Koeppel, 2000, p. 65. 8 Stephen Allen (1767–1852) was in the sail making business and a city political figure. He died tragically in the explosion of the steamboat, Henry Clay, while travelling up the Hudson River. 9 New York’s The Evening Post, March 15, 1825. This excerpt is recounted in Koeppel, 2000, p. 131. 10 New York’s The Evening Post, June 20, 1825. Recounted in Blake, 1956, p. 116. 11 Wright to Cocke, August 7, 1832.

Benjamin Wright

124

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

12 The various pandemics that have afflicted New York City are well documented in the literature. One discussion regarding the 1832 cholera epidemic and the international spread of the disease is found in Burrows and Wallace, 1999, p. 590. Various city aldermen did not evacuate and stayed because they felt they had too. According to Murray in his edited autobiography, all the aldermen were “ex-offico” members of the Board of Health. His recounting of events of the epidemic can be found in Murray, 1908, p. 55. It is interesting to note that on the same page of the document, Murray has complimentary things to say about Wright’s tenure as street commissioner. 13 Wright to Cocke, August 7, 1832. 14 Myndert van Schaick, (1782–1865) served several years in the New York State Assembly and was treasurer of the City Board of Health at the time of the epidemic. 15 De Witt Clinton Jr. was born in 1805 and had experience in surveying. In 1831, he took a position with the War Department’s Topographical Bureau He returned to the city in 1832 to accept Van Schaick’s engagement. 16 An account of Van Schaick’s comment regarding Wright and the former’s strong support of the Croton Watershed can be found in Koeppel 2000, p. 147. 17 David Bates Douglass (1790–1849) born in New Jersey, was educated at Yale, and fought in the War of 1812. He taught at West Point prior to his retention by the Croton Aqueduct project. 18 Information about John Martineau is somewhat sketchy. He did perform surveys and reported during the review of the proposed Croton Aqueduct. He also proposed the use of wrought iron pipes in inverted siphons in lieu of the High Bridge across the Harlem River—a proposal that was not implemented. 19 The comments of Philip Hone regarding the 1835 fire come from his diary and are recounted in Koeppel, 2000, p. 174. 20 Discussions about the details of the spread of the fire can be found in Koeppel, 2000, p. 175, as well as Burrows and Wallace, 1999, p. 596. 21 Discussions about the events leading up to the dismissal of Douglass and the subsequent hiring of Jervis can be found in Koeppel, 2000, Larkin, 1990, and FitzSimons, 1971. 22 William McAlpine (1812–1890) was born in New York City and first worked with Jervis on the railroad portion of the Delaware and Hudson Canal development. His career embraced canal, railroad, and waterworks projects. He served as president of ASCE in 1868–69. 23 William Bouck (1786–1859) was an Erie Canal commissioner and spent several years in the New York legislature. He served as governor of New York in the years immediately after Wright’s death.

Benjamin Wright

MR. KNICKERBOCKER’S GOTHAM

125

24 Discussion regarding possible intervention by Wright on behalf of Jervis in consideration for the chief engineer’s position with the Croton can be found in Larkin, 1990, p. 87. A comment mentioned by Jervis in his memoir and further elaborated on in FitzSimons, 1971, p. 164 provides a defense of Wright in regard to the elder’s preference of the Bronx Watershed as the proper source—evidence that the younger engineer still held his former tutor in high regard. 25 James Renwick (1790–1863) was born in England and after coming to America became a Columbia graduate, where he spent a good deal of his career teaching. He was involved with studies on the Delaware and Hudson Canal and was instrumental in the implementation of the inclined planes on the Morris Canal. 26 Alfred Craven (1810–1879) was born in Washington, DC. He graduated from Columbia and worked in railway and canal work, including work on the Croton Aqueduct. He was involved in the 1839 attempt to form a professional society, and it was in his aqueduct office that the society formally organized in 1852. He was president of ASCE in the years following William McAlpine, 1870–1871. 27 There are numerous discussions within the engineering literature regarding the details of engineering and construction of the Croton Aqueduct. One of the first providing a good deal of description of the engineering and operation of the aqueduct can be found in Scribner’s Monthly, Vol. XIV, 1877, pp. 161–176. Also, Koeppel, 2000 and Blake, 1956, contain material pertaining to both the political and engineering aspects. 28 Discussions of the steamboat Effie Afton, its crash into the railroad bridge at Rock Island, Illinois, and the involvement of then lawyer, Abraham Lincoln can be found in Larkin, 1990, pp. 141–142 and in FitzSimons, 1971, p. 14. It is interesting to note that Henry Farnum, a former assistant to Jervis on the Erie Canal who would have been acquainted with Wright, also worked with Jervis on the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad. Farnum is the engineer who is given credit for the Mississippi River Bridge because he had taken over as president of the line at Jervis’ departure. However, Jervis remained as a consultant to the railway and compiled the report following the accident.

Benjamin Wright

8 The Machinery of Power

The mathematical course for : : : Sophomores, six books of Playfair’s Euclid during the first and part of the second term, and Day’s Mathematics (including plane trigonometry, logarithms, mensuration of surfaces and solids, isoperimetry, navigation and surveying) and Dutton’s Conic Sections, during the rest of the year.1 Syllabus of Mathematics for Sophomores Yale College 1824 Railway locomotives were an innovative adaptation of the steam engine and in the early-nineteenth century, the steam engine was already used in boats, with many plying the country’s larger rivers and lakes. Steam was also a source of stationary power, primarily on a large scale and at some cost. Any demand for stationary power in post-Revolutionary America was a local phenomenon, with blacksmiths using coal and millers using a waterwheel. Water was abundant, free for the taking, and in the northern states, the fast-moving streams provided an economical source of power. However, innovation created changes and industrialization took power consumption from the small independent operator into the realm of large-scale business investment.

127

Benjamin Wright

128

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Trade and commerce, improved by industrial manufacture, were among the things felt necessary to bind the country together and foster the spirit of independence from foreign influence. The commodity of cotton can be taken as an example. Traditionally a crop grown in southern climates, cotton required a loom to turn cotton thread to cloth, and most water-powered looms were in the northern states. Population growth created a bigger demand for cloth and the capacity of a simple water-powered loom was not enough to satisfy the need. When several looms were put into service, a textile mill resulted, creating further demand for adequate power and a greater demand for the source crop. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin helped the process of cotton harvesting, but beyond that, adequate power to drive the looms required more than an ordinary mill stream could hope to provide; again, water was cheap and available. In this cycle of supply, manufacture, and distribution, it was the demand for power that was recognized by Alexander Hamilton. Along with a strong desire to create a national bank, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury in Washington’s administration, also recognized America’s need to distinguish itself from Europe. Hamilton’s thought was for a self-reliant America through the manufacture of products on a scale large enough to satisfy the demand. Hamilton submitted to Congress the “Report of Manufactures” in December 1791. What he proposed was federal backing for nothing more than a private business venture that he believed had nationalistic ideals. His specific conceptual idea was to tap the potential hydropower of the falls in New Jersey’s Passaic River, and although his motives were questionable, Hamilton’s idea was a bold step toward American industrialization. Just as Wright’s surveying career was getting underway in upstate New York, Hamilton’s industrialization concept became a reality as the “Society for Useful Manufactures (SUM).” Organized for the sole purpose of developing the waterpower potential of the falls, it had among its investors William Paterson,2 for whom the town created adjacent to the falls was named. Water diverted by a dam in the river would be directed into a channel having substantial elevation differential to create water velocities adequate to turn the wheels for a quantity of mills and drive a substantial number of apparatus. Nehemiah Hubbard3 was considered the development’s first engineer. He was from Middletown, Connecticut, and originally a merchant who had been a quartermaster in Washington’s Continental army. He was unaware of his consideration for the position with SUM, and after a trip to the site, he turned down the position. Hamilton tried to dissuade him on his decision, but Hubbard was adamant and suggested that Hamilton consider offering the position to Pierre Charles L’Enfant.4 Earlier, L’Enfant5 had developed plans for the new federal city, soon to be named Washington, conducting surveys and creating the master street

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

129

layout. He accepted the position with SUM, but in short order, he began to have difficulties in interacting with Hamilton. Although Hamilton felt L’Enfant to be “ : : : one of a few professional engineers who might be able to solve the design of the water-power system” the engineer continued to grow discontented and resigned.6 Upon his departure, he was replaced in early 1793 with Peter Colt whose charge was oversight in both development and management of the operations. Peter Colt7 was born in Connecticut and attended Yale in 1760 and left without completing his studies. Travelling to New Jersey, he taught school, and while there he met both Elias Boudinot8 and William Paterson. Returning to Connecticut, and through his connection with Boudinot, he became an army quartermaster when Washington took notice of his managerial skills and appointed him to be quartermaster for the French army. Serving as manager of SUM, he placed into operation the first mill, a fourstory stone structure, in 1794, but the entire project never reached its expected potential because financial problems brought it to a premature close. Colt departed the organization in 1797 and journeyed to New York, where during this period Colt first met Wright in central New York.9 George Scriba had been a board member of SUM and during the period he employed Wright, Colt purchased several parcels from Scriba. Colt also served alongside George Huntington and Philip Schuyler on the board of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company. It was at this time in New York following Colt’s departure from SUM that he, along with Wright and Benjamin’s brother, William Wright,10 undertook a business venture—the Taberg Iron Works in Oneida County located northwest of Rome. A furnace was first put into use in 1811 and operations began quite well, owing in part to the demand for shot during the War of 1812. As the company continued to operate, it evolved into the Taberg Iron and Glass Works. As late as 1836, Wright was planning for the construction of a developed road to gain access to, as he put it, “his wood and iron works.” Iron smelting operations also included processing of potash, a key component in glass manufacture. However, in and around this, the increasing demand for Wright’s engineering services caused him to place much of the day-to-day operations into the hands of his brother, William.11 In the years that followed, during his tenure as chief engineer with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Wright was approached by the city of Trenton, New Jersey, in 1830. Trenton was a town with several hundred dwellings, numerous shops, stores, and a library. In the same period, Canvass White was amid discussions over an offer for the chief engineer’s position during construction of the Delaware and Raritan Canal. A project that would link the Delaware River at Bordentown just south of Trenton with the Raritan River at a point just west of New Brunswick, the canal would provide water access to New York City. Trenton anticipated the potential commercial benefits to be derived from the canal and in the same period, took

Benjamin Wright

130

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

another step and organized the Trenton Delaware Falls Company. In reaching out to Wright, the Trenton Delaware Falls Company extended an opportunity for his professional services in the position as chief engineer for the development of a waterpower canal. Commenting to John Ingle,12 secretary to the Board of Directors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Wright mentioned, “I go tomorrow to Trenton, New Jersey, about a great hydraulic establishment, about commencing there which they wish me to take charge of.”13 Like the proposed development on the Passaic, the Trenton project included a wing dam for diverting water into the power canal with an elevation differential, and although not as great as that of the Passaic River, it was adequate to drive wheels suitable for manufacture. Water was diverted from the Delaware River and flowed into a channel with a downstream fall of eighteen feet, creating velocities that could produce more than 500 horsepower. In comparison to the earlier work undertaken on the Passaic River, the fall was sixty-six feet, in three tiers of twenty-two feet each, creating for the total more than 2,000 horsepower. Conceived for the sole purpose of providing power, the Trenton canal was five miles long, and not for boat passage. Construction was completed in 1834, but not without its difficulties, primarily labor shortages and disease. However, financial setbacks and labor issues were overcome during a reorganization and the canal did fulfill its purpose; along with the Delaware and Raritan Canal, it helped established Trenton as an industrial center. In just a few short years following the completion of the power canal, the site became home to several large textile mills and included an iron works that established itself on an undeveloped parcel of land toward the downstream end of the canal. The potential power from the canal was suitable to drive a new rolling mill for processing iron bars into wrought iron stock of various shapes and sizes. It was this very factor that Peter Cooper14 had in mind in 1847 as he brought his Cooper-Hewitt Iron Works to Trenton, where it would become the city’s first iron and steel industrial facility to establish operations. Cooper-Hewitt was followed by the decision to bring John A. Roebling’s Sons Company to the city in 1849, as recommended by Cooper to the elder Roebling. In the spirit of competition, Cooper-Hewitt entered a license with Adolf Bleichert & Company, a German wire rope manufacturer; in an adjacent land parcel, Cooper established Trenton Iron Company, manufacturing wire rope primarily for mines and quarries. Trenton Iron would later become part of US Steel as the Pittsburgh industrial giant acquired both it and another Trenton plant, American Wire and Steel. Upon making the decision to move his operations from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, Roebling remarked to a bridge company director in 1849, “Besides two more aqueducts, I have commenced with the erection of a new wire rope factory on a large scale at Trenton, New Jersey, which work will consume one half of my time during this season.”15 There were four

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

131

aqueducts on the Delaware and Hudson Canal that Roebling became involved in: the Neversink River crossing at Cuddebackville, the Rondout River crossing at High Falls, the Lackawaxen River crossing at Eddyville, and the Delaware River crossing. All were structures he completed to replace the original wooden structures built by John Jervis.16 Of the four, one remains—the crossing at the Delaware River—designated by ASCE as a national historic civil engineering landmark in 1972. Completing the Trenton waterpower canal faced the two common hurdles for public works projects in the period: financing and labor. Company reorganization helped strengthen the finances and Wright’s success in managing the construction and engineering proved successful. When compared to other work he undertook, the project appears not overly complicated in the engineering sense, and as a career accomplishment, it almost goes unnoticed. However, this period of his involvement in New Jersey brings to light more about his character than it does about his technical skills. Years earlier, during the time of his involvement with the Taberg Iron Works, he was still amid his surveying work and busy supplying shot for the war effort. At home in Rome, Philomela gave birth to another son, Joshua Butler Wright, born in 1812. He was the sixth of the elder Wright’s seven sons, and carried a middle name taken from the maiden name of his grandmother, Grace. After a period of fundamental education in the community, having reached the age of sixteen, Joshua entered Yale as a freshman in September 1828. He joined ninety-five other young men to comprise the class of 1832. His first year in college was uneventful and he completed his freshman curriculum. However, as his sophomore year began in the fall of 1829, his studies became more rigorous. As was common to most educational institutions of the day, all students were required to perform oral recitation in class every day, and this included the subject of mathematics. Slate blackboards had been introduced to Yale in the 1820s and their use contributed to student distaste for the classroom recitation requirement. Up until the time of blackboard use, the students were comfortable with using their texts as an aid in recitation, but change did not come easy and in the mathematics classroom, students were required to “recite from the figure” on the blackboard and not have the aid of a text for reference. Compounding student frustration at the school was the practice of using “teacher assistants” to lecture the first two years of mathematics. These assistants were for the most part younger individuals without the experience to convey the material in a suitable manner. Mathematics, as an important building block in the study of the sciences, requires proper transfer of knowledge about the subject. As a result, the combination of forced recitation with inexperienced teaching fostered a climate of discontent by the Yale students toward the study of mathematics, particularly the syllabus in solid geometry and the theory of conic sections.17

Benjamin Wright

132

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Yale history refers to the event as the “Conic Sections Rebellion.” It was a student rebellion that occurred in two phases. Earlier, in 1825, students with ever growing discontent began to vocalize their distaste for the way they were being taught. They refused to recite, and the school forced their hand by threatening them with dismissal. The students backed down, and after all involved signed a written pledge, the school closed the matter. However, the culture of mathematics education at the school did not improve and student attitude became agitated again. By 1830, the enrollment at the school had grown and student discontent grew proportionally, with the number of students critical of the system having a louder voice. The school turned a deaf ear, making matters worse and causing the students to stand together, boycott, and refuse to recite in class. Yale was unwilling to bend, or compromise in any way. Actions taken by the school were swift and severe and came in the spring of 1830. All students involved were expelled. Forty-four students, half of the sophomore class, were removed from the school and there would be no readmission to the college—ever. Yale’s action was so extreme that in wielding its intercollegiate power, the administration convinced colleges in other states to agree to not take the students for admission. The resulting outcome was that for the exception of a very small few, less than 10% of those students expelled, the remainder of students were never able to go back to college. Amid the group of those expelled was Joshua Wright.18 Reaction by his father would have been much like any parent—dismay with his son and the actions the young man had taken, but also to some degree a level of dismay with the school. The school’s actions were harsh, and the question was, did the punishment fit the crime? His career kept him busy, and as a father with a large family, the issue with Joshua was perhaps not the only cause for parental concern in the home. However, in this case, it was something that required attention and that the elder Wright could not ignore. Yale had acted and for Wright, it would not be accepted without a response. Yale possessed a great deal of prestige and the punishment meted out would be difficult to overcome. To confront the matter would require bringing to bear a combination of both social and political strengths—forces that, if managed well, would be brought to bear in a rather quiet manner; although Wright, now sixty years old, had achieved such a stature that his mere presence in a room commanded respect, his presence alone was not enough in and of itself. The unseen forces that accompanied him were the cause for doors to open in many ways. For Wright they were forces that evolved from a career built on a developing network of relationships, friends, business associates, and those politically well connected; one such individual was Stephen van Rensselaer. Stephen van Rensselaer, who was considered the wealthiest man in America at the time, had his estate on the Hudson River with land holdings

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

133

that comprised all of what is now both Albany and Rensselaer counties. He was one of the most politically influential persons in the state and, in 1801, Wright served on a local committee in Rome in support of Van Rensselaer’s campaign for governor of New York.19 Although he was not elected, the two became further acquainted during Van Rensselaer’s term as lieutenant governor in John Jay’s administration, the same period as Wright served a term in the legislature. Their acquaintance would deepen further during Wright’s tenure as the canal’s chief engineer, while Van Rensselaer served on the Board of Canal Commissioners. It would be Van Rensselaer who acted as an intermediary between Virginia’s governor Pleasants and Wright when the engineer was sought out to consider a position with the Virginia Board of Public Works. Yet, among the various connections between the two, there was also another with a different set of circumstances.20 In the closing days of Erie Canal completion, the controversary over the eastern terminus evolved as a political fight between the interests of Albany, the capital, and of those in the city of Troy, home to Van Rensselaer. The question was not so much the location of the terminus, but the location of the route to get there. As designed by Wright, the canal alignment travelling east would follow the southern bank of the Mohawk River to its mouth at the Hudson River, across from Troy on the eastern shore. It would then turn and run south along the west bank of the Hudson to its final terminus at Albany. As proposed by Wright, side channel locks were planned to allow access to the canal from Troy. The overall concept for the mainline alignment did have cost implications, with both the total lockage required between Schenectady and Albany and the increased travel time; however, Wright felt it to be the most cost-effective. Political and business leaders in Albany thought the canal should take a direct route from Schenectady and excavate through the higher ground to reach Albany, arguing that the cost of additional earthwork would be less costly than the lockage required in the other alternative. To study the route and prepare a report, John Randel was retained by business interests in Albany, thus setting in motion a contentious relationship between the two engineers and one that would shape events on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. However, at that moment, Wright was confident his design was the appropriate choice and took the time to analyze costs of both construction and labor to show the advantage of his proposal. Wright was adamant in his argument that the Mohawk route was the most cost-effective when compared to the anticipated cost of earthwork, and that Randal’s report was flawed. The Board of Canal Commissioners, with Van Rensselaer a member, had the final say in the matter and concurred with Wright’s recommendations, selecting his original alignment as the proper choice. However, Wright did recuse himself from the design of the access locks into the river across from Troy. Even so, his recommendations were well documented, and it was a choice made in consideration of what was best for

Benjamin Wright

134

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

the canal. The canal, after all, was to be developed for the benefit of the entire state. Also, Van Rensselaer wanted what was best for the canal, but there was no denying he also wanted to protect business and commercial interests in Troy. The canal would, of course, allow Troy to benefit from the flow of commerce, both in manufacture and agriculture, but another form of commerce was important as well, where the canal would bring benefit. Amos Eaton,21 a Yale graduate, spent much of his career in the study of the natural sciences, and more so in the field of geology. He arrived in Troy, where by 1819, he found himself in the good graces of Van Rensselaer, such that his benefactor had him conducting geologic studies in both Albany and Rensselaer counties in a short amount of time. Canal construction was well

Figure 20: Stephen van Rensselaer. Source: AC 18, Institute Archives and Special Collections, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

135

underway and with Van Rensselaer’s introduction as well as financial backing, Eaton ventured out along the alignment to conduct geologic studies in those areas where excavation and cutting exposed the subsurface material. By the time he completed his fifth canal field trip in August 1824, he began to embrace another idea and one he proposed to his benefactor, Van Rensselaer.22 In the fall of 1824, Eaton approached his patron with the conceptual idea of creating a school for advanced learning in math and science. It was a plan looked on with favor, and Van Rensselaer donated the initial funds to procure a building and endow the school for its expenses, even going as far as to encourage his own children and others to do the same. Eaton was appointed senior professor, and DeWitt Clinton’s children were also encouraged to attend because the Erie Canal proponent was impressed with Eaton’s “scientific tutelage.” The Rensselaer School soon evolved into a college of prominence, where some thirty years later, Washington Roebling was enrolled among its students.23

Figure 21: Amos Eaton. Source: AC 18, Institute Archives and Special Collections, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

136

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Success of the school can be attributed to many things, not the least of which was the respected teaching of Amos Eaton. Van Rensselaer was covering half of the school’s annual expenses and in some small indirect way, another contribution came from the successful completion of the Erie Canal and the creation of for what was then quick and reliable transportation for prospective students. By successfully arguing the case for the Troy alignment, Wright kept in place a “doorway” from which the school could take advantage, and they were arguments that did not go unnoticed by Van Rensselaer. The engineer’s involvement with the entire project in general also drew the attention of another prominent New Yorker, Dr. David Hosack. In the intervening years following completion of the Erie Canal, Wright and the New York physician grew acquainted with one another at several levels.24 Hosack, a figure in New York medical and scientific circles, was the attending physician at the duel between Hamilton and Burr and treated Hamilton in his final moments. He and Wright were acquainted with one another, with the engineer even going so far as to help secure a position for Hosack’s son in one of John Jervis’ survey crews.25 Hosack had also been retained by the New York Water Works to render a comment about the quality of water that was then provided by the Manhattan Company—an opinion the company would use for promotional endorsement. Hosack did offer his professional opinion, and no doubt, interacted with Wright during the process.26 However, Hosack was also preparing a biography of DeWitt Clinton following the canal’s successful completion, and wanted Wright’s input; the engineer cordially replied in December 1828.27 Hosack had many pursuits, and one for which he was quite passionate was medical education. Earlier he lobbied for a merger of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City with Columbia College, an effort he hoped would become the Medical College of New York; what seemed at first a successful outcome did not happen, however. Not to be deterred, Hosack continued to seek out an educational alliance elsewhere, an effort that took him to Queen’s College in New Jersey.28 Queen’s College had been established in 1766 but fell on difficult times and was near closing until Henry Rutgers,29 a wealthy New Yorker, provided an endowment enabling the school to keep its doors open. A generous consideration set in motion the renaming of the school in his honor as Rutgers College in 1825. However, for Hosack to successfully approach the college and consider his medical education proposal, he sought out help from someone who would be familiar to the school; to that end, he approached Van Rensselaer. Although a New Yorker, Van Rensselaer was also well connected to New Jersey. His second wife, Cornelia, whom he married in 1802, was the daughter of then New Jersey governor William Paterson. He had also served as a board member of Hamilton’s industrial development, SUM, and he had

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

137

Figure 22: Dr. David Hosack. Source: Wikipedia / public domain.

contributed money to Queen’s College, during its earlier period of financial difficulty. By aligning himself with Van Rensselaer, Hosack added political strength to his proposal for medical education. It was an arrangement that did prove successful as subsequent negotiations with the school went well and the college agreed to include medical education in the curricula. However, as with any negotiation, each party must give something before there can be anything in return. In return for the school’s acceptance of the proposal, Van Rensselaer made an additional donation for construction of a new cupola to be placed on the roof of the Queen’s Building to house the bell donated earlier by Henry Rutgers. Also, another line of relationship played through the discussion, although somewhat less public; Van Rensselaer also knew Philip Milledoler,30 then president of the college. The two were, of course, acquainted with one another through the generous benevolence of Van Rensselaer over the years. They were also involved in something else that was a little more peculiar; they both served on the board for an organization, then chaired by John Quincy Adams.

Benjamin Wright

138

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

It was a somewhat obscure organization, with a just as obscure agenda, The American Society for Ameliorating the Condition of the Jews. Organized in 1820, its mission was to encourage European Jewish people to leave their homeland and emigrate to America. The organization’s motives were at the time felt to be honorable; however, by today’s standards, they might be considered questionable. Nonetheless, for the moment, the core mission was to provide a new home for the émigrés and proceed to evangelize them toward conversion to Christianity upon settlement.31 To aid in accomplishing the society’s mission, a 500-acre tract of land was acquired in Ulster County, New York for the resettlement of those wishing to make the journey. It was a plan that did draw families from Europe, and in a small way, any success for the resettlement may have come indirectly from an unlikely source. Besides the acclaim he received with the Erie Canal, the name Benjamin Wright was also familiar to Milledoler in another regard. Wright’s design for the Delaware and Hudson Canal placed the canal alignment in the Rondout River Valley, just a few miles from the Jewish settlement south of New Paltz in Ulster County. The settlement parcel was purchased in 1827 after canal work was underway. Although current evidence does not reveal that his design alignment was motivated in any way by the potential settlement, the canal would have brought benefit. Yale College had meted out what can be looked on as a rather harsh punishment that Wright was able to circumvent. There was no orchestration of an elaborate plan, other than his name, his reputation, and the unseen force of his network with three key individuals: Van Rensselaer, Hosack, and Milledoler. Joshua Wright entered Rutgers College, completed his sophomore curriculum, and graduated with a law degree in 1832. Through his father’s intervention, Joshua was able to complete his education, and his father even went so far as to facilitate the enrollment into Rutgers of Joshua’s roommate, John Manning,32 with both young men graduating and later partnering in a law practice together. For the elder Wright, protecting family and those he held close was a character trait, and one that he might very well have displayed again a few years later.33 ******************** In 1830 Philomela turned fifty-four and large portions of Wright’s work continued to be spent on the road and away from home for extended periods of time. The family lived at 49 Walker Street just off Fourth Avenue. In these long absences, both the city and the country were changing. New York overtook all other cities in trade, commerce, financial power, and all leading cultural elements, owing in great part to the success of the Erie Canal. The colonial period gave way to the Federal period in architecture and fashion, but lurking in the background, with all of society’s progressive advancement, there remained the ugly reality of “color.” Further straining

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

139

the already difficult situation was the large influx of Irish immigrants taking jobs traditionally held by Black men and women. The issue of slavery and the resulting bigotry lingered as a social stigma and tainted everything that was good. However, Wright was convinced that America could right its transgressions and felt his career could, in a small way, assist in that challenge.

Endnotes 1

2

3 4 5 6

7 8

9

10

11

12 13

The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the United States, 1890, p. 152. This extract of the math curricula comes from the section on Yale College. William Paterson (1745–1806) was a political figure in New Jersey. At the national level, he served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court and was the second governor for the state. Nehemiah Hubbard (1752–1837). Reference to Hubbard and his offer for the position with SUM is recounted in Dente, 2012, p. 37. Pierre Charles L’Enfant (1754–1825). L’Enfant did perform a good deal of engineering service to the development. He designed some of the hydraulic features for raceways and created the street design for the town of Paterson. His activities are discussed in Dente, 2012, p. 38. Peter Colt (1744–1824). Elias Boudinot (1740–1821) was a New Jersey statesman and a delegate to the Continental Congress. After the war, he was appointed director of the US Mint. The background of Peter Colt, his family history, activities during the war, and subsequent engagement with SUM are discussed in Annals and Recollections, 1992. Colt’s tenure with SUM and his accomplishments are recounted in both Annals and Recollections and in Dente, 2012, p. 39–32. William Wright (1778–1856) was a younger brother of Benjamin Wright and was secretary-treasurer of the Oneida Iron and Glass Works, formerly Taberg Iron and Glass. There is no evidence that this company had any connection with the better-known Oneida cutlery manufacturing operation. The formation of the Taberg Iron and Glass Works with Colt, Benjamin, and William is discussed in Annals and Recollections, Vol. III, No. 16, 1992. John Ingle was the secretary to the Board of Canal Commissioners, taking the position in 1828, and serving until 1840. Wright to Ingle, April 19, 1831.

Benjamin Wright

140

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

14 Peter Cooper (1791–1883) was an industrialist and developer of the Tom Thumb locomotive. He was the founder of Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. 15 Roebling to Clark, February 1, 1849. 16 Discussions of Cooper Hewitt and Roebling’s wireworks in Trenton can be found in Hunter, 2005 and Frascella, 2014. Peter Cooper’s recommendation of Trenton for placement of Roebling’s wireworks is found in Suspension Bridges, A Century of Progress, 1941, p. 4. 17 Discussions of the events surrounding the Conic Sections Rebellion can be found in Jackson, 2002; Cajori, 1890; Green, 2015; and Kelley, 1974. 18 Joshua Wright’s involvement in the Conic Sections Rebellion is documented in a letter from Judith Schiff, then serving as an archivist in the manuscripts division of the Yale University Library, April 6, 1972. 19 This anecdote comes from an extract of a newspaper article in The Columbian Gazette, Rome, New York, April 27, 1801. Wright is mentioned as one of a committee to promote the election of Stephen van Rensselaer along with James Watson as lieutenant governor. 20 Van Rensselaer to Pleasants, April 8, 1824. Contained in same letter is Wright to Van Rensselaer, same date. The offer was for the position as an assistant to Claudius Crozet, then serving as chief engineer to the Virginia Board of Public Works. Wright, communicating through Van Rensselaer, graciously turned down the offer, more to avoid the political problems that the position would incur, rather than any issue with salary. 21 Amos Eaton (1776–1842). 22 Eaton’s field trips on the canal, his interactions with Van Rensselaer, and subsequent formation of the school are discussed in Spanagel, 2014, pp. 115–116. 23 Ibid. 24 David Hosack (1769–1835) is remembered as the attending physician at the Burr-Hamilton duel. However, besides his interest in medical education he was instrumental in the establishment of the Elgin Botanic Garden, a well-regarded institution which sat on the site of present-day Rockefeller Center in the heart of the city. 25 Wright to Jervis, March 31, 1825. Wright suggested that Jervis could use Hosack’s son as a rodman in one of the survey crews to which Jervis replied that all positions were filled but that he would consider the younger Hosack’s name as work progressed and positions opened. 26 John Griscom, one of the organizers of New York Water Works, had obtained statements from various physicians regarding the quality of the water being delivered by the Manhattan Company. Hosack was among the group providing comment. This discussion can be found in Koeppel, 2000, p. 130. 27 Wright to Hosack, December 31, 1828.

Benjamin Wright

THE MACHINERY OF POWER

141

28 Hosack’s activities with founding the medical school at Queens College, including his inclusion of Van Rensselaer in the process is discussed in Sherk, 2002, pp. 21–22. Reference to the transition from Queens College to Rutgers College, Henry Rutgers and the Reformed Dutch Church can be found in Frusciano, 1952. 29 Henry Rutgers (1745–1830) was educated at Columbia, fought in the war, and served in various capacities in New York state government. 30 Philip Milledoler (1775–1852) graduated from Columbia and entered the ministry in 1793. He was the fifth president of Rutgers (Queens). 31 Studies of Joseph Frey and the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews can be found in various publications. Among them are Linsley, 2014; Friedman, 1925; and The American Jewish Advocate, 1843. In addition to the previous publications, a discussion of Frey and the organization, including the mention of John Quincy Adams, Milledoler, and Van Rensselaer is found in Sarna, 2016. 32 John Manning was a classmate of Joshua Wright at Yale and both were expelled as a result of the rebellion. With the elder Wright’s intervention, both young men were able to attend Rutgers and received law degrees in 1832. In 1879, Yale bestowed honorary MA degrees to all surviving expelled alumni. 33 Both John Manning and Joshua Wright were roommates at Yale and subsequently at Rutgers. This reference comes from an excerpt from Biographical Memoranda, Yale College, 1880. The biographical sketch of Joshua Wright was written by Manning as part of the Memoranda. Yale records indicate that both students were among those expelled.

Benjamin Wright

9 That Railroad Mania

I see what will be the effect of it; it will set the whole world a-gadding. Twenty miles an hour, sir! Why you would not be able to keep an apprentice boy at his work; every Saturday evening he must take a trip to Ohio to spend the Sabbath with his sweetheart. Grave, plodding citizens will be flying about like comets : : : Upon the whole, sir it is a pestilential, topsy-turvy, harum-scarum whirligig.1 The Western Sun Vincennes, Indiana July 24, 1830 In the early 1830s, Charles Ellet was in Europe studying at the École des Ponts and touring France and Switzerland, returning to America in 1832. John Jervis was bringing the Delaware and Hudson Canal to a successful completion and would move on to further railway work with the Albany and Schenectady Railroad. Wright continued his consulting practice fulfilling his engagement with the Trenton Waterpower Canal as New York City was grappling with its search for an adequate source of clean water. All the while the city’s population increased and in the twenty-year span between 1810 and 1830, the city doubled in size to more than 200,000. Overcrowding ensued, causing a myriad of problems, most of which were a result of an inadequate water supply.

143

Benjamin Wright

144

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

However, the city did enjoy the benefits from the successful completion of the Erie Canal. Society in general was undergoing a transformation and something as simple as household cooking would improve as wood cook stoves became prevalent. There was also a variant in the culture of work. Lifestyles were shifting, and people began living farther from their place of work, thus creating a need for adequate transportation. The result led to the advent of the railroad, not just for travel through the countryside but for intercity travel as well. In the summer of 1830, Peter Cooper created a level of excitement near Baltimore, Maryland, with his new American built locomotive. Manufactured in Baltimore’s Canton Iron Works, the locomotive, nicknamed Tom Thumb, was fabricated from anything that Cooper could get his hands on, including parts of older steam engines. With an air of theatricality, Tom Thumb was pitted in a race with a horse-drawn carriage. The horse won, owing to a failure of the locomotive’s boiler, but the new technology had caught people’s attention, including those in New York City. So, as spring weather settled in over the city the following year Wright mentioned: “ : : : I went out yesterday to view a project for a railroad the length of this island.”2 A group of prominent New Yorkers had come together to consider the possibility of a rail line within the city. Among the group were James Murray and Charles Henry Hall, both city aldermen. When Wright’s name had come before the council, it was Hall who uttered the comment that Wright was to New York as Washington was to the Nation. Murray was also an ally of Wright and felt the engineer’s tenure as street commissioner was a period of progress for the city’s public works development. The group organized in August 1831 as the New York and Harlem Railroad Company, the group was empowered to design and construct a track system from Twenty-Third Street northward to the Harlem River and within a corridor between Third and Eighth Avenues. Wright met with the development group and was retained as chief engineer, offering a suggestive comment, “There is no question, but granite rails are the best, for any line of railroad laid in paved streets.”3 Like many of the engagements he undertook, this too was fraught with political overtones. Although the state granted the charter to develop the railroad, the city controlled the conditions under which it would be developed, even the type of power used to operate the cars. It was the era of city control by Tammany Hall,4 and development appeared as though it would never get started because of the impediments. If it were not for the political intercession of the Port of New York’s Samuel Swartwout,5 the project may have never gotten started. He convinced his good friend Andrew Jackson, to intercede with Tammany Hall to yield their restrictions. For the running rails more than 15,000 feet of iron facing was procured from England according to Wright’s design, and in the late summer of 1832, the first granite rail was laid between Prince and Fourteenth Streets.

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

145

Wright’s plan was to remove a segment of pavement and a trench dug to set stone piers, three feet deep and spaced at eight-foot intervals. It was on the stone piers that the 12-inch-square granite rails were laid. The granite had a groove cut to accommodate the wheel flange, with an adjacent surface having the iron facing for the wheel bearing. The original concept had the top of the granite rail just above the surface of street pavement, but a quick design change avoided the potential conflicts for crossover traffic by horse-drawn vehicles. A design change was also incorporated, as it was discovered the granite rails were too stiff and began cracking. Timber rails, with greater flexure, were brought into service and first used in the alignment between Prince and Twenty-third Streets. During a brief period in 1832, Wright departed the New York and Harlem Railroad to join with several others in organizing the New York and Albany Railroad. However, owing to slowness in soliciting stock, he rejoined the former where, by this point, Wright knew full well what was happening: “We are all agog here with the railroad fever, it rages wonderfully : : : To me it is surprising how easily the great body of the people are made to believe they can soon ride from here to Albany to breakfast and attend to some business there and return at evening : : : ”.6 ******************** The year 1830 began a period of demand for the development of internal improvements, whether canals, roads, or railroads. However, the federal government was not a willing participant. Henry Clay had introduced his Maysville Road bill in Congress for federal financial support, an idea that Jackson at first supported but later vetoed. In the years following 1830, Jackson would go on to veto other projects, thus railroad development was in the hands of private enterprise but nonetheless it was a period, as Wright put it, a period of railroad “mania” and he could see it was taking hold with society. It was in 1833 that Cornelius Vanderbilt took passage on the Camden and Amboy Railroad in New Jersey. It was November and during the trip, the train derailed resulting in Vanderbilt receiving injuries that consisted of some broken ribs and a punctured lung. He survived his injuries and in the years that followed, he broadened his business ventures, expanding his steamship enterprises into trans-Atlantic service and taking his first forays into railroad acquisition. By the late 1850s, he was taking control of the New York and Harlem Railroad and would, in due time, obtain the Hudson River Railroad, running on the intended route of the New York and Albany Railroad, originally designed by John Jervis. Both railroads would, in time, become part of the New York Central Railroad, the creation of Erastus Corning,7 with Vanderbilt taking control in the 1860s. It was a time when Jay Gould emerged to become an adversary to Vanderbilt in a clash of railroad empires.

Benjamin Wright

146

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

However, that was yet to come because the expansion of the New York Central system came about from acquisitions that took place after Wright’s death. During his era, the railroad was in its infancy and there were railway developments in several states, albeit short in length, but providing passengers with a swifter mode of transport. Still, what was beginning to evolve was the true long-distance regional railroad. With the coordination of fuel management, periodic changes in crew, sectional roadway maintenance, placement of turnouts for two-way traffic, and signalization of train movement, the technology would be taken to a different level. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad had reached Point of Rocks, Maryland, by April 1832 but its completed length of 379 miles to Wheeling took another twenty years to achieve. All the while, not to be outdone, New York was posturing itself in the shadows with a railway of its own. William Redfield8 was an interested observer of the railroad phenomenon, then sweeping the country. He was born in Connecticut in 1786, and like Wright’s father, he had skills in harness and saddle making. When he was twenty, he moved to the territory of present-day Ohio, and in his journey westward, he kept a detailed diary of his travels. He saw firsthand the need for, and felt passionate about, improving communication between the western territories and the more populated areas to the east. He returned to New York in 1829 and published a pamphlet titled, A Sketch of a Geographical Route of a Great Railway, A Route from the Hudson to the Mississippi. It was a well thought scheme but was ignored by many as being too ambitious; however, the conceptual idea did not go totally unnoticed.9 Philip Church,10 a prominent landowner in the western part of New York state, obtained a copy of Redfield’s pamphlet and studied the ideas presented, but agreed with the general thought—that the plan was somewhat unrealistic. Church controlled substantial land holdings, more than 100,000 acres along the Genesee River, and for that reason, he was motivated by the plan’s intent. If the idea were scaled down, Church felt that a connection between the Hudson with the Great Lakes had possibilities and would be of importance to the state. To that end, he gathered interested parties for a meeting in November 1831 to discuss such a plan. On the meeting agenda for discussion was the intent to incorporate a business enterprise to build a railroad across the state with an initial capital investment of $10 million. The following month, delegates from many of the state’s southern tier counties gathered in Owego to organize. Church was elected chairman but resigned soon thereafter over a failure of the group to establish a formal structure. With that, the project reached a standstill, but the concept did not go away. Earlier, in South Carolina, Horatio Allen, having completed his engagement with Jervis on the Delaware and Hudson Canal, undertook design and construction for the first six-mile segment of the proposed Charleston–Hamburg Railroad—a railroad line that would be the birth of

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

147

what became the Southern Railroad. Using an American locomotive manufactured in New York’s West Point foundry, nicknamed “The Best Friend of Charleston,” passenger service began on Christmas Day, 1830. Among the passengers in one of those early runs was a young lady, Helen Maria Pierson.11 She was on her honeymoon traveling with her husband, Henry.12 At Helen’s insistence, the two took passage on the railway for a run through Charleston. She became quite enthused from the experience and on her return to New York City, she shared her excitement in a letter to Eleazar Lord,13 her sister-in-law’s husband. She and Henry even went so far as to suggest that citizens in New York could reach Buffalo in twenty-four hours via railroad. Lord had already taken note of the success of the short rail line linking Paterson, New Jersey with the Hudson River. Such success, coupled with Helen’s and Henry’s shared enthusiasm, led Lord to formulate his own ideas for a trans-New York line, the germinal idea for what would become America’s first long distance railway.14

Figure 23: Eleazar Lord. Source: Wikipedia / public domain.

Benjamin Wright

148

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Eleazar Lord grew up in Connecticut and as a teenager, started work in a mercantile business, but became dissatisfied and felt drawn to enter the ministry. Entering the College of New Jersey, later to become Princeton University, he pursued his studies but developed trouble with his eyes, a situation that brought his higher education to a close. He re-entered the field of business, and beginning in 1821, he presided over the Manhattan Insurance Company as president for the next twelve years, all the while remaining a devout evangelical. His temperament was somewhat forceful, but he was considered a far-sighted thinker for his time. He understood where the previous proposals fell short and inserted himself into Philip Church’s failed organizational efforts for a trans-New York railway. Thus, just as the idea was about to disappear, Lord sent a letter to the delegates and brought about a compromise. His proposal was for a resolution to build the railroad for $5,000,000, culminating in a petition to the legislature for a charter. The state granted a charter in April 1832 for what was to become the nation’s first long-distance railroad, close to 500 miles in length. President Andrew Jackson authorized money for initial surveys, which got underway in June. However, the surveys were not completed, again owing to a reversal on Jackson’s part and the withdrawal of money, using the same justification as for other internal improvement funding during his administration. Still, the company organized itself with a stock offering in July 1833. As the railroad organized itself under Lord’s leadership, Wright had taken on an engagement in Canada during the late spring and early summer of 1834. Serving as an engineering consultant, he was retained by the Welland Canal project, a rather convoluted canal and navigation system implemented to bypass Niagara Falls. From its opening in 1829, the canal went through various iterations of enlargement and alignment. As originally planned, the canal entry from Lake Ontario was at Port Dalhousie and followed Twelve Mile Creek to Saint Catherines, Ontario. Turning eastward through a series of locks, it traversed up the Niagara Escarpment to Thorold and south to Port Robinson on the Welland River. Boats would then enter the river and travel east to reach the Niagara River above the falls. However, there were difficulties because the sandy conditions above the escarpment in the vicinity of Allanburg proved difficult for excavation, and landslides were frequent. To overcome the unstable soils, the canal invert was raised eight feet, but this in turn created another problem—with an elevation eight feet higher, there was a lack of an adequate supply of water to feed the canal. To solve the problem, a feeder canal was created to carry water from the Grand River at Dunnville, a community more than twenty miles to the southwest. A subsequent southward extension of the canal from Welland to Port Colborne eliminated the link down the Welland River, and with enlargement of the feeder canal boat traffic, could travel in either direction upon reaching Welland. It was the enlargement of the feeder canal

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

149

and the new entry lockage system at Port Maitland that brought Wright into the program. With sizable lock designs two hundred feet long and fifty-five feet wide he commented “ : : : the canal was for steamboats of large class.”15 Wright could not help but notice the boat traffic from his vantage point sixty miles west of Buffalo, on the north shore of the lake. Witnessing the number of steamboats and schooners traveling between Buffalo and Detroit, he saw first-hand the potential growth of westward travel from New York City, something he no doubt shared with Lord as the concept for the railroad developed. However, underneath this enthusiasm for linking westward lake travel there was another consideration, more to do with political economics. If America were to capture the commerce of the western territories, the Erie Canal would not be enough. For New York City to compete with the volume of ship traffic passing through the Welland toward Montréal, a swifter and economic passage of commerce between New York City and the Lakes was an important consideration. No doubt, these were discussions creating a further bond between the engineer and Eleazar Lord, leading to Wright’s inclusion on the Board of Directors for the railroad.

Figure 24: Various route configurations for the Welland Canal. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

150

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

The state provided funding for initial fieldwork, a task for which Wright elaborated: “His Excellency, the Governor, having been pleased to appoint me to execute the survey, and make an estimate of the expense of a railroad : : : ”.16 Commenting further, “I am : : : busy laying out a railroad from this city (New York City) to Lake Erie through the southern tier of counties in this state. 400 miles long by authority of the state : : : .”,17 His report was submitted in 1835 and had a directive to find “ : : : the means of a regular, rapid, and uninterrupted intercourse, at nearly all seasons of the year. : : : ”.18 To achieve that mandate, Wright established several design goals, have a railroad with “reasonable economy in its construction, rapidity and regularity of communication for passengers, cargo, and mail, a cost effective transportation system for bulky commodities, adequate facilities of connection with lateral branches, and finally, general accommodation of the inhabitants, and the development of the resources, of the country along the route.”19 Wright got things underway in the summer of 1834 by putting his assistant engineers in the field to conduct surveys, prepare feasibility studies, and estimate costs. The route was divided into sections, with each assistant engineer directing two or three survey parties and a labor force. Among the assistant engineers was Charles Ellet, having earlier worked with Wright on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and having just returned from Europe. Ellet’s recent travels abroad exposed him to new concepts in canal engineering, as well as railroads and infrastructure of masonry, timber, and iron. One specific instance was an opportunity for Ellet to make observations of the suspension concept used in bridging, and once back in America, he set out to implement the new technology. His first proposal was rejected—a suspension bridge over the Potomac River at Washington—a design concept turned down owing to the misunderstood concepts. Moving on, he sought out other engagements and took an assignment as an assistant engineer with a railroad between Utica and Schenectady. It was from this project that he departed to accept Wright’s invitation in May 1834 to take the assignment for the western portion of the New York and Erie Railroad between Binghamton and Lake Erie. Ellet had an independent nature and an imposing presence. He stood over six feet two inches tall and had a slim build. He possessed a good deal of ambition and determination, coupled with a somewhat inflexible disposition. That June he took up residency along the Susquehanna River in Tioga County, west of Binghamton. Feeling that his location was about as remote as it could get, he wrote his sister characterizing himself as being “52 miles west of civilization.”20 As he managed his survey staff along with a crew doing land clearing and general manual labor, a small glimpse into his character revealed itself. In undertaking the management of his section of the line, he commented about his work force: “A more stupid race of jackasses it

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

151

has seldom fallen to the lot of an engineer to deal with.”21 Nonetheless, he did complete the surveys and compiled his report, and delivered it to Wright. Along with route descriptions of the vertical elevations to overcome, Ellet estimated the cost of construction for his section at just under $1.2 million. With his work complete, he departed New York and later rejoined Wright in June 1835 in Virginia on the James River and Kanawha Canal for a project that would pit the two men against one another, as well as a plethora of political and technical adversaries. Using the reports from his assistant engineers, Wright reviewed and prepared his own, submitting it to the state in January 1835. He opened the report by saying, “The great object of securing rapidity and regularity of communications between the city of New York and the Lake being one of paramount importance, : : : ”.22 In so doing, he took great care to align the route to avoid excessive grades and, “ : : : to obtain these easy grades of acclivity, I have been compelled to pursue, by a serpentine line, the valleys of streams, and thereby to lengthen very considerably the linear extent of the route : : : ”.23 Wright recognized that, following the water courses the distance travelled was longer, but he supported his decision by writing, “ : : : great rapidity of transportation, and cheapness of construction, have been thereby

Figure 25: Charles Ellet Jr. Source: James K. Finch Collection, in possession of the author.

Benjamin Wright

152

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 26: Route of the New York and Erie Railroad. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

secured : : : ”.24 He addressed the need for sidings, fuel, and water, “ : : : (rather than) turnouts placed every mile, only place them once in ten miles, and that at the water stations for the locomotive : : : ”.25 He also offered consideration for bridges: I have considered and planned these bridges to be only sixteen to eighteen feet wide, and so formed as to have a double track over them, but that so fixed as that loaded trains of cars cannot pass each other on those large bridges. I did not think so much weight as two trains of loaded cars, passing different ways, ought to be permitted to pass on a bridge at the same time. It would perhaps bring fifty tons or more on it at the same moment, which is improper, unless in one long extended train.26

Tracks were of timber topped with a 1/2-inch-thick by 2-1/2-inch-wide wrought iron wearing strip and were placed on timber piles with a six-foot gauge, the rationale being the track would not be compatible with the gauge of a railway car from another railway company. For excavation, grading,

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

153

structures, track, and engineering, Wright estimated the total project at $4.6 million. Wright’s design, although well planned and executed, was also affected by influence from outside interference into the engineering process. Selection of the terminus points at either end of the line provided an ample share of political and economic wrangling as to which location would be chosen. In the east, it was never in question. Even though Wright felt the best location was at the town of Newburgh, Lord made the decision for Piermont, a location near his home on the Hudson, just south of the present-day governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge (formerly the Tappan Zee Bridge). Alternatives for the western terminus considered the towns of Dunkirk and its neighbor, Portland, a town six miles west, with each lobbying to be the chosen location. Dunkirk was chosen in consideration of the town’s gift to the railroad of 425 acres to construct a yard and terminal. Another self-imposed consideration for Wright was to avoid “ : : : collision with the Delaware and Hudson Canal and perhaps divert some of its legitimate and fair business : : : ”.27 His design chose a route for the railroad to avoid the Delaware River valley south of Hancock, New York. From Hancock, Wright selected a route to traverse Sullivan County, through Monticello and run eastward to Newburgh. However, when construction did get underway, the road deviated from Wright’s original design plan by entering Pennsylvania just west of the Lackawaxen River and following the Delaware River on the opposite bank of the canal. The company engaged Jonathan Knight28 and Moncure Robinson29 to review Wright’s report. Knight, from Pennsylvania, had been involved in preliminary studies for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; at the time of his review of Wright’s report, he was engaged with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Robinson, from Virginia, had begun his career in a survey crew as part of Virginia’s public works program, but after further training and experience, Robinson became active in railway development and took a position with the rail line between Richmond and Petersburg. The two men gave Wright’s report a favorable review and the company prepared for construction, retaining Wright as chief engineer at a salary of $3,000 per year. Start of construction was delayed, owing to the tragic fire in New York City in December 1835, but Wright did get things underway in the spring of the following year with clearing and grading for a forty-mile segment in the Delaware River valley. However, the railroad soon experienced political hurdles in Albany over funding, a situation that delayed further construction. With eventual funding resolutions, Wright continued to provide overall engineering management as surveys and track construction continued into 1840. He resigned shortly thereafter, and it would be Edward Miller,30 a former associate, who would become chief engineer and complete enough track to carry the first trains in June 1841, with completion of the entire length in 1852. On the one hand, the total cost was $23.5 million or

Benjamin Wright

154

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

$43,000 per mile, a figure six times what Wright had originally estimated. On the other hand, company earnings far exceeded that figure. ******************** Wright was undergoing the transition, along with the profession in general. Civil engineering was experiencing a change from technology that embraced earthwork, stone, and timber, to one of iron, machine, and structure. Along with that came changes in project financing, where engineering works went from being of local interest and local participation to large-scale private business enterprise with speculation. Gone were the days of DeWitt Clinton and Charles Fenton Mercer, who placed their canal projects first as something for the good of all. It was now the era of Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould, who saw the railroad as a source of wealth and economic power. Wright would not see the day when railroads went from business developments created for the common good to ventures for creation of great affluence. In the years following Wright’s death, the era of the railway wars followed the completion of the New York and Erie Railroad. In 1853 Erastus Corning brought together several smaller lines, including the Utica and Schenectady, to form the New York Central—to be taken over by Cornelius Vanderbilt in 1867. Vanderbilt also had an eye on the New York and Erie and had loaned money to the railroad during the earlier period of financial difficulty in 1854. However, about the same time, Daniel Drew31 took a position on the railroad’s board of directors and brought with him Jay Gould and Jim Fisk, the same duo who would make the attempt to corner the nation’s gold market in 1857. Once ensconced with the railroad’s leadership, it would be Gould who, through several years of stock manipulation, gained control of the Erie Railroad and took control as president in 1868. Cornelius Vanderbilt may have been a tenacious and aggressive businessman, but Jay Gould was ruthless to the extreme, even going so far as to arrange for his friend, New York mayor Boss Tweed, to sit on the railroad’s board of directors. The duo—Gould and Tweed—along with nefarious political connections, garnered a great deal of attention. Both men, along with Vanderbilt, found themselves frequent subject matter for Thomas Nast cartoons in the 1860s. Nevertheless, in the earlier years of the railroad’s development, Wright could see the excitement being created in society as the country recognized the merits of the technology. Locomotive design however, still caused him some doubt about its capability with heavy cargo on steeper grades. Thus, his design for the railroad had him align the track with the courses of streams and valleys; although Wright did not live to see completion of the system, his design was implemented, except in a few locations. His tenure with the railroad brought him through the transition from canal engineering to the railway, and although he still held reservations for locomotive traction

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

155

capabilities, in many respects, he was the one being mentored at that moment. Through his interactions with John Jervis, Horatio Allen, Stephen Long, and others, the teacher became the student. Railroads were not just an American or European phenomenon. Having spread throughout Europe and North America, railroads soon found their way into the imperialist colonies in Africa, South America, and India. It was here that railways played into two overriding forces—one being the means to control territory and the other being a means to control commerce. The latter force had more to do with the speed with which commodity transport could help satisfy a world demand. The mineral wealth of central Africa, tea from India, coffee from South America, as well as tobacco, sugar, and sugar by-products (molasses and rum) from the Caribbean, were all used as pawns in a race to control commodities. Benefits were obvious as commodities arrived at the market sooner and profits also rose. In the Caribbean on the island of Cuba, among tobacco and rice production, sugar was the country’s primary economic driving force. Successful Cuban sugar production was not so much achieved by getting the product to market, but more by getting the raw sugar cane to the processing mills for subsequent ocean transport of the refined product to markets in the United States and Europe. Following the Revolutionary War, America ceased trade with the island colonies in the British West Indies. However, trade increased with the Spanish island possession of Cuba. Sugar production consisted of first harvesting the cane within the interior of the island and secondly processing the raw cane in mills, located on the seacoast. It would be at the mill where the final product would be loaded for worldwide transport. The bulk of Cuban sugar cane originated in the Güines valley, where in 1830 alone, 116,000 tons of sugar were harvested, with the island having close to 1,000 processing mills. Historically, transport from the interior to the coastal mills was by wagons pulled by animals—a process both slow and tedious. Therefore, to address the issue, the colonial Cuban government organized a railway commission to undertake feasibility studies. Established in 1830, the commission had the directive to study a possible railroad between Havana and Güines with later extensions to Matanzas and beyond. John Sullivan had worked with Wright as a coengineer on the preliminary reports for the Delaware and Hudson Canal, and now he was on the island carrying a letter of introduction from John Quincy Adams. Sullivan was also connected with a railway coach manufacturing interest in the United States; he may have had ulterior motives, but he did consult and offered comment on design considerations. One of his recommendations was to avoid implementation of the British track gauge and implement what was at that time the American track system, a method of strap iron on wooden stringers with a gauge of six feet.32

Benjamin Wright

156

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Sullivan provided his recommendations to the commission who, in turn, incorporated them along with other material in a report, which they submitted to the colonial Cuban government. The report offered supporting information suggesting that the railroad’s freight capacity would justify the investment and be more economical for transport than by other methods. Thus, having recommendations in hand and completing their task, the Cuban government disbanded the railway commission. However, the colonial government was in a state of flux and after a reorganization in 1832, the railway idea revitalized itself. Restructuring the colonial government brought a new emphasis on railroad issues. Sources of money were sought, and further engineering studies were undertaken. Benjamin Hall Wright, independent of his father, was retained by Cuba to assist its military engineers in conducting engineering studies and cost estimates for an initial route between Havana and Rincon. ´ Favorable response to the reports stimulated the government to proceed to the next step and approach the Queen of Spain for assistance. Working through the British minister in Madrid, the Queen gave approval in 1834 for a loan from British Banks in the amount of £400,000, thus allowing construction to begin. However, as favorable an outcome as it may have seemed, it was one in which Spain had other motives with one eye on using the railroad as a pawn in a game of political maneuvering. Cuba of the 1830s was a nation of both vast wealth and extreme poverty. Wealth was held among the landowners, primarily those owners with large holdings of sugar cane, tobacco, coffee, and rice, a wealth achieved primarily through slave labor. It was among these wealthy landowners where the idea was tendered to promote Cuban annexation by the United States, an idea that held a good deal of interest with some members of Congress. In the

Figure 27: General locations of railway work on the island of Cuba. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

157

United States, forced labor was then a normal way of life in the South. However, as a broad concept the idea of Cuban annexation may have appeared well-intentioned by some in the Southern states; to the Northern states it was—like the analogy—a room with two doors. There were already rumblings of secession among some states in the Deep South, and if Cuba were to become a state by entering the country through one door, it could turn right around and go out another door if Southern exodus became a reality. Also, and of greater concern, was the balance of power in Congress. If Cuba were to be admitted to the Union, it would upset the balance in Congress as the number of slave-holding states would hold a majority in the Senate. In this era, the Union comprised twenty-four states: twelve slave-holding states and twelve free states. Earlier, to avoid the balance of power issue, the Missouri Compromise was enacted in 1820, allowing Missouri, a slave-holding state, to enter, along with Maine, a free state. This arrangement prevented a possible slave state majority. Nevertheless, Spain prized its island possessions (Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba,) and was not willing to take any chances. To fend off the idea of annexation, the Crown “federalized” the Cuban railroad program, keeping the railway operations out of the hands of the planter class. To further their hold on the colony, Spain placed a large military presence on the island along with an unspecified number of spies working in secret to monitor subversive activity. Spain was also aware of the side benefit to the control of the railroad: the gain of increased revenues from taxation on both the transport and export of the commodities. However, with time, this political maneuver also brought with it the negative side effect of bribery and kickbacks between the planters and elements of the colonial government responsible for the management of railway operations. Wright was aware of the rumblings of annexation, no doubt through communication with his son, already at work on the island, but it would not be until after his death that the United States took formal steps towards annexation with an offer by President Polk to purchase Cuba from Spain, which in turn, was declined. President James Buchannan, an advocate of taking Cuba by force if Spain refused to sell, may have done so had it not been for the breakout of the Civil War. As for the era of colonial government corruption, this too would occur in the era after Wright’s death.33 Early in 1835, representatives from the Spanish Consulate in New York City, acting on behalf of the Spanish minister to the United States, approached the elder Wright, offering him the position as chief engineer for railroad construction. Connections may have been at the suggestion of Wright’s son, Benjamin Hall Wright, or it could have also been a connection through diplomatic channels at the State Department. Francis Markoe,34 the brother-in-law to Wright’s son James, worked in the State Department and may have facilitated contact between the elder Wright and Cuban

Benjamin Wright

158

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

representatives. Markoe may also have been a source of information on the Cuban political and economic situation.35 To get things underway, in 1835, Wright sent his son Benjamin Hall back to the island along with Alfred Cruger to begin design surveys for construction. Although Wright disliked the idea of slave labor, he recognized the reality of its presence as an established norm of economic necessity. A culture that he felt would with time, die out and become nonexistent. He held this same belief during his engagements in Georgia and Virginia, feeling that with improved transport and commerce, the economic scale would tip in a direction rendering slavery obsolete. First segments of work encompassed a sixteen-mile section of track between Havana, through Rincon ´ to Bejucal and included a 320-foot-long tunnel and a bridge across the Almendares River that had 200 masonry piers. Even with the deployment of slaves for construction labor, there were limits to their availability because they were also needed for labor in the fields to harvest the cane. With labor supply creating issues with scheduling, Benjamin Hall traveled back to the United States and was able to bring a labor force, primarily of Irish workers, back to the island. April 1837 saw the first locomotive arrive and the following November, the first run was made, placing Cuba as the world’s seventh country with active rail service.36 Construction difficulties were common, but the younger Wright and Cruger were also having problems working together. There was a falling out between the two caused by Cruger’s exploitation of business opportunities with American locomotive manufacturers—a situation that gave reason for Benjamin Hall to separate himself and pursue other railroad work on the island. He took a position managing design and construction of the Puerto Príncipe to Nuevitas route, completing the first twenty miles of alignment in 1841. Simon, Wright’s fifth son, having left his position as an assistant engineer on the James River and Kanawha Canal, joined his brother in Cuba at one point to manage work on the Remedios route.37 Wright never journeyed to the island. Instead, he managed the affairs from a distance, relying on both sons and other assistant engineers to handle the day-to-day requirements. He continued to consult with his son, Benjamin Hall, on Cuban rail affairs up until the last days of his life. The same can be said for his involvement with the New York and Erie Railroad. He would also take positions with other rail systems; the Troy and Schenectady, the Mohawk and St. Lawrence, and the Tioga and Chemung were ventures that sought out Wright’s professional services in his later years. By the mid-1830s, family affairs provided a mild array of paternal challenges along with sadness. Joshua was fortunate to become enrolled at Rutgers while at almost the same period, the youngest son, George, was pulled out of Yale by his father. It is unclear if there were issues with poor performance, but nonetheless, the father voluntarily pulled him from the school after two years. At his father’s direction, George was sent to upstate

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

159

New York to tend to a situation. As Benjamin Wright still held title to property on Lake Ontario, it was suspected that his local manager was becoming unreliable and George was sent to manage until things stabilized. At home, Philomela was going through periods of ill health. She was suffering from what was termed in a broad sense palsy, but what today is further categorized into various types, such as Bell’s palsy and cerebral palsy. It is a disease that affects the brain and its symptoms can be life threatening. Philomela coped for many months but did not recover, and sadness filled the home when she died on May 18, 1835. They had been married thirty-seven years and she was no doubt a source of strength by his side as he coped. During the decade of the 1830s, Wright continued to maintain a steady flow of work in addition to railway activity. Although he was under a doctor’s care from time to time, he still traveled and made trips into Virginia on various occasions to consult with the ongoing canal development. It was there during a visit in 1831 that he became exposed to one of the harshest chapters in the history of American slave culture. However, he did not turn his back on Virginia, continued to offer his engineering services, and felt that in some small way his work could contribute in the search for a remedy.

Endnotes 1

2 3 4

5

6 7

Portion of an editorial that appeared in several newspapers at the time. Written by a stockholder in a canal company, this version appeared in The Western Sun newspaper in Vincennes, Indiana, July 24, 1830. The entire editorial is reprinted in Botkin and Harlow, 1989, pp. 67– 68. Wright to Cocke, March 29, 1831. Discussion of Wright’s activities with the Harlem Railroad is found in Harlow, 1947, p. 114. Tammany Hall was a New York City political organization. It was founded in 1786 and controlled Democratic Party politics in both the city and the state from its founding up until the years prior to World War II. Samuel Swartwout (1783–1856) was appointed by Jackson to be the head of the New York Customhouse, a conduit through which the federal government collected nearly half of its revenue. However, during his time of service, he was caught embezzling funds of more than $1 million for which he fled the country. He later returned only after forfeiting all his assets and personal property. Wright to Cocke, March 29, 1831. Erastus Corning (1794–1872) was born in Connecticut and established Erastus Corning and Company in Albany, dealing in iron goods, farm implements, nails, stoves, and eventually railroad rails. His career as a railway magnate began when he became a board member of the Utica and Schenectady Railroad in 1833.

Benjamin Wright

160

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

8 William Redfield (1786–1857). 9 Mott, 1901, pp. 4–5. 10 Philip Church (1778–1861) was a lawyer and judge and served as an aide-de-camp to Hamilton during the war. His father had loaned money to Robert Morris to which the security was 100,000 acres of land in western New York state. Morris faulted on the debt, and the land reverted to the elder Church, in turn allowing Philip to purchase the tract. 11 Helen Maria Pierson (1807–1845) was Henry’s cousin, daughter of Isaac Pierson. 12 Henry Pierson (1807–1893) was a son of Jeremiah Pierson, brother of Isaac. Henry served in several capacities with the development and operation of the Erie Railroad. 13 Eleazar Lord (1788–1871) was president of the Manhattan Insurance Company prior to leading the development of the Erie Railroad. He married Elizabeth Pierson, sister to Henry. 14 Accounts of Helen’s and Henry’s South Carolina honeymoon ride on the railroad are found in various publications including Carter, 1909, p. 75. 15 Wright to Cocke, August 14, 1834. 16 Wright to Dix, New York secretary of state, introduction to his report, May 1835. 17 Wright to Cocke, August 14, 1834. 18 Wright’s report, New York and Erie Railroad, January 29, 1835. 19 Ibid. 20 Correspondence between Ellet and his sister, Mary, letter dated June 22, 1834 account of which is found in Lewis, 1968, p. 29. 21 Ibid. 22 Wright’s report for the New York and Erie Railroad, January 29, 1835. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Jonathan Knight (1787–1858) began his career as a surveyor and participated in conducting preliminary surveys for both the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. 29 Moncure Robinson (1802–1891) was born in Virginia and attended William and Mary College. He spent the bulk of his career in railway engineering. 30 Edward Miller (1811–1872) took the chief engineer’s position with the Erie Railroad following the death of Wright and brought construction to completion. In the early meetings to organize a professional civil engineering society, Miller served with Wright on the committee to develop a constitution.

Benjamin Wright

THAT RAILROAD MANIA

161

31 Daniel Drew (1797–1879) was born in New York and had a career in steamship and railway development. He joined the Erie Railroad Board of Directors in 1857; in the years that followed, with his losing battles with Vanderbilt, coupled with the financial panic of 1873, he would end his days a failure and bankrupt. 32 Sullivan’s activities in Cuba are recounted in Zanetti and Garcia, 1987, p. 22. 33 Accounts of possible Cuban annexation can be found in Bethell, 1993, pp. 11–13. 34 Francis Markoe (1801-1871) was born in Philadelphia. His sister, Sarah, married James, Benjamin Wright’s third son. Markoe served in the US Department of State for thirty years, first as chief of the United States Consular Bureau and later as chief clerk of the Diplomatic Bureau. In 1840 he was a co-founder, along with Joel Poinsett, of the National Institute for the Promotion of Science, later to become the Smithsonian. 35 Wright’s contact by the Spanish government is discussed in Zanetti and Garcia, 1987, p. 26. 36 Ibid, 1987, pp. 26–33. 37 Ibid, 1987, p. 114.

Benjamin Wright

10 Darkness Fell Slowly

: : : a detailed survey of its headwaters to serve to attract the attention of the western country and to convince the wavering inhabitants thereof of our disposition to connect with ourselves with them : : : the object in my estimation is of vast commercial and political importance.1 George Washington 1784 In the years following the Revolutionary War, America found itself among neighbors, all of whom had territorial motivations. The British presence in Canada, the French presence to the west, and the Spanish presence to the south made state unification necessary. Key to the success of any unification effort was improvement to the flow of commerce between states, however. In advocating the idea of unification, George Washington endorsed internal improvement projects in several of the states, including his home state, Virginia. Washington felt that development to both the Potomac River and James River valleys offered the best possibilities for his state to succeed in connecting with the territory beyond the mountains to the west. Accomplishing that however, forced Virginia to face some significant obstacles—topography, and maybe a more formidable obstacle—the state’s own cultural dysfunction.

163

Benjamin Wright

164

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Virginia, one of the largest states in the new Union, had territory stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Ohio River Valley and farther into the Midwest region to what is now Ohio, Indiana, and beyond. Virginia’s population grew following the war, including in those areas beyond the mountains and, with time, the people west of the Alleghenies found themselves isolated from and having little in common with fellow Virginians to the east. Life in eastern Virginia was that of the plantation, dependent on slavery for a profitable way of life. In the West, however, the mountaineers were independent landowners for whom any benefit came from the work of their own hands. But the weight of Virginia’s economic and political power remained in the East where any request for the expenditure of money to improve links with the West was ignored. Virginia became self-polarized, which resulted in the state falling behind New York as the nation’s economic leader; the situation was the reverse before the Erie Canal. In colonial America, Virginia was the center of economic power because it had both the climate and the soil to grow the one commodity that everyone just about everywhere wanted: tobacco. The state evolved into its own worst enemy in not putting regional bias aside and recognizing the dual impact that westward commerce combined with eastern tobacco, could have on the economy of the new nation. However, not everyone had a blind eye to the situation. The new capital city began to grow along the banks of the Potomac. Washington pushed for improvements to the Potomac River corridor with the formation of the Patowmack Company in 1785, an idea that became reality with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in 1850. Farther south, business and political leaders in Richmond—including Washington, Jefferson, and John Marshall2—looked to development of the James River valley to be in the best interest of the state and organized the James River Company in 1785. Chartered to improve river navigation, the James River Company contracted with labor crews for rock removal and other channel improvements. The work was done by manual labor, except in those situations where black powder was necessary for cutting through rock formations. The working conditions were abysmal; poor sanitation, disease, and work-related deaths created a myriad of labor problems. Sources of labor were local and those few White workers who sought out the work refused to work alongside slaves who were contracted from local plantation owners. At one point, criminals were put to work, creating a hierarchy of labor in which the undesirable work of hand excavation in the muck and other extreme pick and shovel work was done by slaves and criminals. It was a culture of work that provided an early glimpse into what lay ahead for canal work in Virginia. Progress with proposed river improvements was falling behind schedule, political squabbling over which projects should be undertaken, as well as labor issues all created a less than desirable situation for success. Adding into the mix, and further cause for concern, was the realization as early as

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

165

1816 that the state was falling behind as New York worked through all the issues and was getting Erie Canal work underway; this all became evident to Wright as he himself witnessed Virginia’s plight when he arrived in Richmond in the mid-1820s. Not oblivious to what was happening, Charles Fenton Mercer, promoter of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, along with Virginia’s governor, believed the state could succeed if it was a participant in the funding for the development of internal improvements. To that end, the state organized a committee on roads and internal improvements. The committee convened in 1815, and soon issued a report presenting a favorable case for potential increased wealth brought to those states that had made improvements to commerce. Looking at the successful efforts of New York and Pennsylvania, Virginia established a board of public works in 1816 and created the position of principal engineer. The primary role of this engineer was to examine plans and perform feasibility and cost studies of those projects felt to be in the best interest of the state. One such project was a study of the feasibility for a canal to link Richmond with the Kanawha River valley on the western side of the Appalachians. While Wright remained engaged on the Erie Canal’s middle division, Loammi Baldwin Jr.,3 son of the Middlesex Canal engineer, took the position as Virginia’s first principal engineer. Taking the position in 1817, Baldwin served the state for two years where the bulk of his work consisted of conducting river surveys for navigation improvements. He soon realized, however, that his position was more political than technical because the prioritization of his work took him in directions not necessarily in the best interest to the state. He resigned in short order and Thomas Moore,4 a Virginian, took the position in late 1818. Moore continued survey work in both the James and Kanawha River valleys. In the interim, the private enterprise of the James River Company was failing with its own mandate of navigation improvements, so that the state took control of the company in 1820. Moore died after becoming ill while conducting surveys of the Potomac River in the fall of 1822. He was able, however, to conduct a feasibility survey in 1819 for a canal along the James between Richmond and Covington. His report recommended a road west of Covington to traverse the mountains into the Kanawha River basin and elaborated further to discuss the Kanawha Falls, near Charleston, where a sluiceway could be implemented to circumnavigate the falls. Moore’s death came without any political action taken on his recommendation, but it was the first overall conceptual study for improved transportation over the mountains. During Moore’s tenure as principal engineer a young, soon-to-be engineer was a member of one of the former’s survey field crews: Moncure Robinson. He had little experience in the beginning but the crew he was working in did provide much of the data used by Moore in his report of 1819.

Benjamin Wright

166

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Robinson would later, with additional education and experience, become a key adversary to development of any canal in the James River corridor. Virginia advertised to fill the engineer’s position following Moore’s death. Included in the twenty or so applicants were the likes of Stephen Long5 and Ferdinand Hassler,6 but Claudius Crozet7 was selected, taking the position in 1823. Crozet was a French military engineer with experience in Napoleon’s army. Trained at the École Polytechnique, he entered the army in 1807 as an artillery officer, later transferring to a bridge construction unit that became attached to an artillery company forming part of the Grande Armée de la Russie. By July 1812, the entire military command crossed the Niemen River to begin what would become Napoleon’s ill-fated invasion of Russia. What saved Crozet was his being taken prisoner at the Battle of Borodino in September 1812. Upon returning to France in August 1814, he was in and out of military service until the Battle of Waterloo. He later married and traveled to America in the fall of 1816. Traveling on the same voyage was Simon Bernard, another French military engineer, coming to America at the suggestion of Sylvanus Thayer,8 superintendent of the military academy

Figure 28: Claudius Crozet. Source: Library of Virginia, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

167

at West Point. Through Bernard’s influence, Crozet was offered and accepted an appointment in 1816 to teach mathematics and engineering at the academy. Crozet became head of the academy’s engineering department and was well respected for his work in the topic of descriptive geometry. It was a subject on which Thayer wanted him to publish a text for use at the academy, but the relationship between the two had contentious moments. This was primarily over Thayer’s management of academy affairs and provides a glimpse into the difficulties that Wright would experience during Crozet’s tenure in Virginia. Expressing his feelings about Thayer’s style of management, Crozet contacted then secretary of war, John C. Calhoun, with his grievances: I have avoided it as long as I could, The superintendent has assumed by degrees an almost unlimited power; without regard either to the character or to the rights of such a respectable body as the Academical staff, he has given such absolute orders and from step to step, he has at last treated them in a manner approaching to scorn, It could not be borne any longer.9

At the time of Crozet’s departure from the academy in 1823, his relationship with Thayer was somewhat better, to the point that Thayer encouraged Crozet to complete his work on descriptive geometry, a work he would never complete owing to his work commitments in Virginia. With Crozet’s departure, David Bates Douglass took control of the academy’s engineering department and remained in the position until 1831, prior to his involvement with the water supply studies in New York City. In July 1823 Crozet assumed his position in Virginia, as Wright was both continuing to complete the Erie Canal and taking on engineering positions with other canal work in New England. Among his duties, Crozet became involved in a wide range of statewide projects, including proposed turnpikes and his first exposure to plans for improvement to the James River. It would be his focus on the James River improvements, or lack of focus, that caught the eye of two significant people—Joseph Carrington Cabell, and his close friend, John Hartwell Cocke.10 Crozet worked at the behest of the state and was charged with studying what was put in front of him by the legislature. When the state took control of the James River Company, the assets and mandate of the organization were placed under the control of a state commission managed by various commissioners, each from a region with a stake in the improvements. Given a new title, the James River and Kanawha Company, its first president was Joseph Carrington Cabell and it had a body of commissioners from within the James and Kanawha river basins. One commissioner was

Benjamin Wright

168

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Randolph Harrison,11 owner of a plantation along the James River in Cumberland County, forty miles west of Richmond. When Crozet took his position as state principal engineer, work was already underway west of Richmond. Crozet’s role was somewhat as an outsider since the company was self-managed with its own consultants. However, it had been the hope of Cabell that Crozet would get involved and make recommendations, something Crozet was reluctant to do since the company already had engineers involved. Randolph Harrison, taking a more than active role in management of the work, disagreed with company engineers regarding canal alignment and overruled their recommendations. To support his position, Harrison hired his own consultant, Moncure Robinson, who, once retained, endorsed Harrison’s plan. Thus, Crozet was being nudged into a position in which he would find himself between the company and an engineer consultant for the commission. Robinson, born in Richmond, studied at William and Mary College. He was tall with an aquiline nose and cold gray eyes. He traveled in Europe in the mid-1820s, studying math and science and conducting field trips to various public works projects. Except for a few engagements in other endeavors, the better part of his career was in railway engineering both in America and abroad. Earlier, however, having worked in the field under Thomas Moore, Harrison hired him for studies on the James River.12 The evolving situation as Crozet began his work was a cluster of antagonists, each cluster with differing opinions about the proper development in the river corridor. Cabell, as both legislator and company president, had his views. Crozet would develop his own independent opinions, and Robinson, acting on behalf of Harrison, would have his as well, and they all had differing views. With time, Wright would enter the argument, finding himself trying to stay out of the middle of the triangle. Joseph Carrington Cabell was a state legislator with an estate seventy miles west of Richmond. He was a political conservative with a progressive attitude about education. He played a key role in legislative support in Thomas Jefferson’s efforts to establish the University of Virginia. Having attended Hampden Sydney College for one year and later William and Mary College,13 he traveled a good deal for his health. On one occasion, he traveled on government business as a member of a Board of Commissioners sent to France to deal with issues regarding the Louisiana Purchase. During a side excursion he found himself in Naples, where in 1807 he made the acquaintance and became a close traveling companion of Washington Irving. The two, along with another board member, journeyed across Europe, and from his acquaintance, Irving considered Cabell “a gentleman of whose talents, information and disposition I cannot speak too highly.”14 Upon returning from Europe, Cabell studied law and entered politics in 1808 as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Within a few years

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

169

Figure 29: Joseph Carrington Cabell. Source: Library of Virginia, used with permission.

he was elected a state senator, serving for nineteen years until stepping down in 1829. Previously, in 1818, he attended the Charlottesville Convention for the improvement of navigation. From that moment, except for his tenure in state politics, Cabell, like DeWitt Clinton and the Erie Canal, became the driving force for what was to become the James River and Kanawha Canal. Crozet had not yet spent much time with his assignments when Cabell concluded that the engineer did not have the best interest of the canal at heart. Cabell’s good friend, John Hartwell Cocke, was planning a trip to New York that spring with an agenda to visit the Erie Canal. Prior to his departure, Cabell sent him a letter with a request to find an engineer willing to travel to Virginia and accompany Crozet the following spring to explore the upper portions of the James River. Cocke was also, if possible, to obtain what publications he could on canals and navigation. John Cocke was tall, had a rough appearance, and had been a commander of a state militia unit in the War of 1812. He was opinionated, anti-alcohol, and of all things for a Virginia plantation owner to be, anti-tobacco. His estate on the north bank of the James River was fifty miles west of Richmond and

Benjamin Wright

170

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 30: John Hartwell Cocke Sr. Source: Library of Virginia, used with permission.

like Wright, possessed a strong sense of faith. Cocke, like Cabell, was a close friend of Jefferson and worked alongside the other two in making the university a reality.15 Upon arriving in New York in 1823, he met Wright and toured the canal works, discussed the nuances of canal engineering, and no doubt, shared views and opinions on other matters as well. Although a northerner, Wright held similar sociopolitical views and no doubt created an impression with the Virginia planter. It was a business relationship at first, but soon turned to friendship and one that lasted the remainder of Wright’s life. After returning to Virginia, Cocke shared his recommendations to Cabell, setting the stage for Wright’s arrival in 1824 for consultations with Crozet and to provide an independent opinion. However, even before he left New York, Wright had some reservations about the visit. He was not oblivious to the situation and understood that Moncure Robinson was working as a consultant to the company commissioners, and on the other side, Crozet had differing opinions; Wright could see he may very well be caught in the middle, remarking to Cocke:

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

171

I have a lately heard : : : information : : : from : : : an assistant under Robinson of some coolness and collision of opinion between Crozet and Robinson. : : : If I should visit your river and give opinions which might clash with either of those gentlemen, I should hope that those opinions it could be secured in the same spirit and candor which they were given : : : .16

As principal engineer, Crozet was an overseer and advisor to the state and was not involved in the company’s designs. However, he was expected to offer recommendations. Wright came to Virginia in 1824; he initially found himself aligning with Crozet on several matters. One of these had both engineers criticizing the masonry retaining walls, a comment that was picked up by Robinson and rebuked with further remarks to discredit Wright in the eyes of both the public and the politicians. Writing his friend, Cabell elaborated to Cocke about a comment Robinson’s employer Harrison made: “constant conversation tends to discredit the canal and to destroy the influence of Judge Wright.”17 However, in the eyes of both men, Wright’s credibility was never in question. Time spent with Crozet found Wright examining survey data, maps, and plans wherein he rendered his findings and offered recommendations. The two were cordial and agreed on some issues but had differing opinions on others. There were differences regarding the spacing of feeder canals and Crozet felt Wright’s ideas for lock masonry were too “elaborate”, further suggesting, “Though prudence recommends to rather overrate the pressure than fall short of it, yet economy fixes a limit to the dictates of prudence.”18 The two did not agree on everything, but they both felt consideration of a railroad over the mountain was a possibility. Wright departed Virginia but remained in close touch with Cocke. They exchanged letters in the months that followed, with the engineer offering advice and comment about the progress of internal improvement efforts. He even extended an invitation to Cocke’s son, John Jr., to assume a position with some of Wright’s ongoing canal work on both the Delaware and Hudson and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canals. The young man had been working in one of Crozet’s survey crews and his shift in employment appears to have been done to give the younger man a better opportunity in lieu of staying with Crozet, in whom his father held doubts. Commenting to John Sr., Wright said, “ : : : he is certainly a most worthy young man and I take delight in giving him all the best I can upon every subject connected with civil engineering.”19 Following his 1824 visit, Wright offered several postscripts regarding his interactions with Crozet. The two had parted company with mutual respect for each other’s abilities, but differences of opinion on details, as well as suspicion on Wright’s part as to Crozet’s attitude toward the project in general, lingered. These were issues that Wright shared with Cocke, and were in turn, shared with Cabell, to which Cabell responded back to Wright, “ : : : In short it

Benjamin Wright

172

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

is my opinion that Crozet he is desirous to put down this work and if possible to put down the combined surveys.”20 Crozet continued his duties with other statewide projects, and from time to time rendered opinions regarding the river improvement which Cocke would, in turn, share with Wright. The divisive relationship between the two engineers begins to reveal itself as Wright continued to offer recommendations and comments through his letters with John Cocke, causing the void to grow wider to the point that Crozet dismissed Wright’s opinions altogether without saying so in public. With some strong words, Wright felt that Crozet did not have a good grasp of the requirements of the project and expressed: I am not a little surprised at the opinion of Captain Crozet when he says (in the report you were so good as to send me) that the great accuracy and minuteness of the survey, etc. will enable him to furnish as complete a view of the improvement (meaning James River) as may be desired. This to me is sufficient to show you either his ignorance of the duty of an engineer or his duplicity and he may choose either alternative.21

Nonetheless, Wright offered encouragement in the work of Cabell and Cocke and reinforced the idea as in the best interest to the state, if not the Mid-Atlantic region: : : : your James River Canal is a project which all good friends to the prosperity of Virginia ought to cherish and patronize I have had no doubt since I have seen the country that is the only great project which is to benefit and revive the general interest of the state.22

As situations evolved in Virginia, demand for his services continued and Wright took on engagements in various states. However, he still found time to communicate with both Cabell and Cocke, offering both technical advice as well as moral support towards a successful conclusion. Moncure Robinson had been absent from the state, touring Europe and returning in 1828. Wright felt encouraged that the younger engineer gained much from his travels and suggested, “I cannot but think he is much improved in his general opinions about civil engineering : : : I hope he may sustain the standing he now has as I cannot but think that the great interest of Virginia is strongly connected with the reputation of her native-born sons : : : ”.23 However, Wright did not cease in commenting about the urgency for Virginia to succeed in linking the state’s two diverse regions, suggesting, “ : : : Your case in Virginia now requires double exertion to regain what has been lost by delay and stop the growing tide of emigration from your state : : : you must consider yourselves as one family and if you give wealth and consequence to the west it will repay it all in its dependence on the east and the commerce it will give : : : ”.24

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

173

In 1831, Wright was again invited back in Virginia, this time at the invitation of the governor. He arrived at the end of July and suggested “ : : : I have come into the good state of Virginia to try to do some good.”25 He had every intention of conferring with Crozet to study plans, reports, and estimates. However, Crozet was absent to Wright’s surprise; his lack of presence was something that turned out to be an indicator of the tone of interaction that they would have when the engineer did arrive. Plans were studied, reports were reviewed, and the two conferred on the details. In the time that followed, Crozet shared in a rather encouraging tone his thoughts in a letter to Wright: “Our concurrence or difference of opinion will naturally result from a comparison of your report to mine. And whatever this may be, if it shall have the effect of putting to an end the irresolution and inactivity which threaten to be ruinous to the interior of a state to which I am devoted, I shall be satisfied.”26 Wright submitted his report that August, and both engineers at least agreed that all surveys had been made. It was concluded that there were three alternatives: a series of locks and dams on the river, a continuous canal system, and a railroad from Richmond to Lynchburg and westward. Crozet favored the lock and dam approach, but Wright felt that it could not be done for even double the money estimated, suggesting it would take well over $1 million rather than $600,000 as Crozet estimated. Wright favored a canal along the north bank of the river, feeling that a railroad would cost more to build; that engines required mechanical skills that few persons had; and that cargo would not be safe in transport. Thus, he proffered a canal with a width of fifty feet and a depth of five feet, estimating that the first portion from just west of Richmond to Lynchburg could be built for under $20,000 per mile, provided water cement could be obtained. It would carry boats seventy-five feet in length and fourteen feet wide and could accommodate a draft of four feet carrying seventy tons. He favored limited use of a railroad over the mountains to the New River but was vague on the means along the Kanawha. On a different matter, he did agree with Crozet on the recommendation for a railroad between the New River southward to Tennessee.27 Crozet was upset and believed a system of locks and dams to be the better alternative. He strongly felt that railroads were superior to canals in the transport of freight, pointing to the success of the Baltimore and Ohio as a recent achievement. He predicted that one day, freight coming up from Tennessee to Buchanan, Virginia, would continue to Baltimore, where in comparison, it would take a week just to reach Richmond. In a subtle manner, he trivialized Wright’s previous comment about cargo safety by saying, “I do not suppose it would require a great deal of mechanical skill to lock up a freight car.”28 Implementing railway technology was an important element in Crozet’s proposal, but he felt the lock and dam approach was much more cost effective

Benjamin Wright

174

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

in portions in which a canal would be implemented. In his argument in favor of a railroad, he cited the Baltimore and Ohio as an example, emphasizing that the railway brought costs down and comparing fifty-four miles of rail between Ellicott Mills to Point of Rocks that were constructed at a cost just over $20,000 per mile. Most canals had already cost more than that, with the Chesapeake and Ohio almost double that figure. The argument continued with Crozet taking exception to Wright’s comments about the mechanical skills necessary for railway operation: “Is this a general principle or merely applicable to Virginia : : : This gentleman objects on account of the great mechanical skill required and we shall find all along, that steam power will not do in any shape in Virginia, but that we must, now and forever, confine ourselves to negro power, and let the other states retain and enjoy the superiority which attends everywhere the application of mechanical skill.”29 Crozet was upset with Wright’s interference and in the days that followed, would soon resign his position. However, he did not leave Virginia without submitting his report in which he advised the board, and the state in general, remarking “For a long time a system of navigation was the only kind of improvement thought of, and the competition was between a lock and dam navigation and a canal. For two years past, railroads have acquired many additional advantages : : : Between these three modes we must now make choice the decision is important, it involves the best interests of Virginia, and I feel the weight of the responsibility I have to encounter, in giving an opinion at this decisive moment.”30 Having made his argument, Crozet closed his report by saying, “Canals have done their best; railroads, now at least equal to them, are still advancing toward perfection. The railroad system is the triumph of the age; the ultimate effects of its introduction are incalculable : : : ”.31 From the perspective of history, he was probably right, but there was also the factor of time. At that moment, the capability for locomotives to overcome the traction power for steep inclines was years away. Wright was not necessarily arguing against the use of a railroad and felt that once the alignment reached the foot of the Appalachians, it would have limited use in the country beyond. Canal work was already underway west of Richmond, advancing to Lynchburg. In his mind, why not let it continue and deal with the mountains once they are reached, even if not with a complete rail line, and possibly implement stationary power as on the Delaware and Hudson Canal? In any case, however, Virginia needed to do something and do it quickly. Following his 1831 meetings with Crozet and some short field visits along the canal, Wright departed Virginia in late August. He sent John Cocke a letter with a further thought: “The public mind is now so unsettled in their opinions, on the comparative advantages and disadvantages between railroads and canals, and considering that it will take some little time to have the good people of Virginia satisfied, I have had doubts in my mind whether it would be

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

175

useful for me to return here again.”32 In the weeks that followed, the canal issue was put on hold for unfortunate reasons having nothing to do with the canal per se. Not until March 1832 was a bill passed that created the James River and Kanawha Canal Company, with Joseph Cabell as president. Mandated to connect the James and Ohio Rivers, it was up to company management to determine the means to do so. Cocke, as a realist, remarked to Cabell regarding the hurdles to overcome: You have many and formidable obstacles to overcome : : : the greatest difficulty of all will be to obtain so general a cooperation among the various detached interests you will meet with in the house of delegates as to get a majority to vote the funds. I have always thought the cause of our failure of late years – was to be ascribed mainly to the want of some leader who was really qualified to command the public confidence in devising operations of such magnitude.33

Under Cabell’s leadership the canal company organized in 1835 and heeding Cocke’s advice, Cabell felt Wright would be the best choice to be that leader to command public confidence. To that end, Wright was sought out as chief engineer. In Cabell’s mind, Wright was indispensable to the canal’s success. Crucial to the success of engaging Wright was the underlying thought that if he did not accept the offer the company might be stuck with Crozet, who had just returned to the state again as principal engineer. Wright did have some misgivings including concern about his wife Philomela’s declining health, but in the end, he did accept the offer. Taking control, Wright began putting his engineering department in order, retaining assistant engineers for the first division, a length of 120 miles between Richmond and Lynchburg. Among his assistants were his son,

Figure 31: Route corridor for the James River and Kanawha Canal. Source: Penworx Studios, used with permission.

Benjamin Wright

176

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Simon, and Charles Ellet Jr., with the latter having completed his engagement with Wright on the Erie Railroad. Ellet was to take control of the extreme western portion of the canal east of Lynchburg. Work got underway during the 1835 season with letting of contracts for grubbing, excavation, embankment, and some masonry walls. However, the railroad was catching people’s imagination as newspaper editorials touted the benefits. Already a line between Richmond and Fredericksburg was in place, with further talk of putting a bridge across the James River at Richmond to extend the line to Petersburg. Compounding the public discourse was the reappearance of Moncure Robinson, who acquired additional experience during an extensive trip touring engineering works in Europe. Wright had a rather complimentary comment regarding Robinson, but it did have some caveats, “ : : : I believe with you that Robinson will be a valuable man in Virginia whenever he learns to doubt his own correctness and admit that others can give him some useful hints.”34 Upon his return to Virginia, Robinson was engaged with work on the Petersburg Railroad, all the while making his presence known in Richmond by negating the canal, the state’s prime project. Crozet, having come back to the state and taking his old position as principal engineer, was not aligning himself one way or the other. Wright, however, may have spoken too soon because it was Robinson who was now the adversary to the canal’s progress, becoming more vocal and gaining support for his ideas. Cabell felt the man was “mischievous” for his “scheme of opposition.”35 In 1836, railway legislation was passed in Virginia for a rail line from Lynchburg into Tennessee, as well as other similar projects of interest to the state. As one positive outcome, the canal company was given authorization for the rail line between Lynchburg and Richmond, a situation causing further animosity between Robinson and canal proponents. His demeanor also included enmity toward Cabell whose integrity he began to publicly attack. Using the local Richmond newspapers as a lectern, he issued affronts to canal management and raised the question as to why even a canal at all, thus creating an atmosphere in which the public was beginning to waiver with their support of the project.36 Wright was not blind to the unfolding situation. Getting caught in the unfolding web of antagonism between railway interests and those supporting a canal was not a position he wanted to be in. Thus, this was the probable reason, but using his health as the public reason, he stepped down from his position as chief engineer in March 1836 and stayed on as a consultant. He was replaced with Ellet, a choice creating hard feelings with Wright’s son, Simon, to such an extent that the younger Wright resigned his position as an assistant engineer. Simon’s decision caught his father by surprise and the elder attempted to sway his son’s actions but to no avail. Simon left Virginia to join his older brother, Benjamin Hall, in Cuba.37

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

177

Work progressed under Ellet’s tenure, but not without difficulty. His relationships with Cabell became strained, he became antagonistic with Robinson’s constant rhetoric promoting the railroad over canal technology, and even developed an antagonism towards Wright, a situation about which the elder engineer commented, : : : Cabell and myself had a conversation with Ellet in relation to the way in which might be made in the use of water lime by dispensing with it in the dead work of the thick walls. We found him very tenacious upon that point and very unwilling to give up the use of it the same as had been done.38

Situations did not improve and the relationship between the two engineers became more volatile, to the point that Wright tendered his resignation as a consultant, citing the difficulties he was having with Ellet, because the latter would not accept any suggestions nor consult with him on any matter. However, Cabell persuaded Wright to stay on. To further detract from progress on the project, the relationship between Ellet and the board began to deteriorate in the fall of 1838. Ellet was away from the project and Wright was brought in to deal with a widening of the canal prism in an older section near Richmond. The entire work was plagued with labor shortage for much of that spring and summer and Wright took control of a labor force, the majority of whom were slaves. All the while the canal and Cabell were attacked in the press, with no help from Robinson, who extolled notions of poor management. On one occasion, Wright lamented the mismanagement of material supply arrivals and progress of work, “ : : : I believe if we had everything prepared as to our gauge gates and waste gates so that they could be put in the moment we are dug out and rock blasts out of the way : : : But somehow that team of engineers is not well organized there is delay in laying out the work : : : .”39 Nonetheless, Wright brought the work to completion by December to allow water to enter. Again, with Ellet away much of the time, eighty feet of an earth embankment near Richmond gave way in January of the following year in a section of the older canal; John Cocke blamed Ellet, feeling that the situation could have been avoided with proper vigilance.40 Wright was again brought in and a temporary dam was created to stabilize things, but in April, another 700 feet caved in. The cause originated with the quality of the older construction, and Wright ordered a complete overhaul of the earthwork, a process taking almost the remainder of the year to complete. The relationship between the two engineers continued to grow heated. In one situation they were both in Richmond while Wright was overseeing the embankment work. The elder engineer criticized Ellet’s plans, including his relationship with contractors, and the two had a rather heated argument in front of the entire canal board. This circumstance caused Ellet to later

Benjamin Wright

178

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

argue with Cabell, telling his employer he would no longer have anything to do with Wright.41 Beyond the character of personality, one of the contributing factors to Ellet’s circumstance throughout his affairs in Virginia was his ongoing work commitments besides the Virginia canal, most conspicuously, his work on his treatise, Essays on the Laws of Trade. It was a notion that Cabell was aware of, and he commented on one occasion that it was something that conflicted with the engineer’s time on the canal. However, the entangled relationships continued and Ellet’s contentious associations with those around him ensued. He bickered with Wright, he bickered with Cabell, and on one occasion while bickering with another, things went too far. While Cabell was away, Ellet and Robinson found themselves together in the canal company offices. As discussions ensued, Robinson started criticizing Cabell’s management of canal affairs, making a statement with which Ellet, to his credit took issue. Ellet took it upon himself to defend Cabell and the discussion turned to a rather heated argument, culminating in Robinson’s hitting Ellet over the head with an umbrella. Things became physical at that point and the altercation continued, ending in the street outside the office where the two had to be broken apart by bystanders.42 Putting Ellet’s display of chivalry aside, in the days that followed Ellet’s relationship with the canal board became untenable and he was removed from the chief engineer’s position. Wright’s earlier resignation had not been accepted because Cabell talked him into staying and continuing to serve as a consultant, although the condition of his health caused him problems.43 Canal construction continued, but upon reaching Buchanan after Wright’s death in the early 1850s, work came to a slow end, never reaching its goal. Ellet had served four years as chief engineer before being nudged out. He married a judge’s daughter from Lynchburg and on his separation from the Virginia canal work, his career began to take a different path. His treatise, Essays on the Laws of Trade, was completed in 1839 and comprised more than 280 pages. It presented ideas on internal improvements for which he advocated the use of railroads, and it was his preoccupation with the work on the essay that played a role in his disfavor with Cabell and other supporters of the canal. He was spending too much time away from the canal on other matters, compared to time he should have been spending on the canal. Prior to his work with Wright on the Erie Railroad, Ellet had spent time in Europe, where among other things, he saw the benefits of the suspension bridge concept. Consequently, he became an advocate and proponent of wire suspension bridges in America, which culminated with his successful completion of the Ohio River suspension bridge at Wheeling in 1849. Behind the scenes efforts by Charles Mercer were in Ellet’s favor. Although Ellet’s earlier proposal for the Potomac River crossing had not been accepted, Mercer did remember it. Mercer knew Ellet from his engineering work as an assistant

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

179

to Wright on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and used Ellet’s Potomac River report and his proposed design in a submittal to Congress. The Ohio River crossing for the National Road was of national interest and Mercer wanted Congress to consider Ellet’s concepts in its discussions for funding the bridge at Wheeling. Following his success at Wheeling, Ellet undertook another bridge project in New York where his inflexible personality would catch up with him as he entered a contract with a company that proposed a crossing of the Niagara River. It would be in the days prior to construction, when his relationship with Lot Clark,44 a key stockholder in the company, soon grew adversarial over management and financial issues. Litigation ensued, and Ellet was forced to withdraw from the project as a direct outcome of the case.45 Clark wanted John Roebling to step in to complete the work, an offer that Roebling would accept after his commitments with the replacement of aqueduct bridges, some of which were on the Delaware and Hudson Canal. Commenting to Clark, Roebling made an interesting statement, “I hope all the directors may feel, like yourself, a just pride in the erection of this work, which can and ought to be made a great national work : : : but by all means let us make it a railroad bridge.”46 During a span of close to twenty years, railway technology had advanced beyond what existed in 1831 as Wright and Crozet were countering each other’s arguments. By 1850, it was possible for locomotives to traverse steeper grades and it would be Crozet who, while retained by the Virginia Central Railroad, crossed the first hurdle. The Blue Ridge Tunnel with a length of 4,200 feet was completed in 1858 and is a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark, as designated by ASCE in 1976. However, even with Crozet’s tunnel west of Charlottesville, the mountains west of Staunton proved to be the more imposing obstacle. The driving force for the canal, Joseph Cabell, would see the final point of advancement at Buchanan in 1851, five years before he died. The company did operate for several years, but for canal development, there was no further work westward. ******************** The breakup of the Union and the road to the Civil War is a complex study and filled with questions of culture, economics, and politics. However, for Virginia, a question can be asked: If the project had traversed the mountains and reached the Kanawha River basin, whether by canal, lock and dam, or a combination with a railroad, would the state’s internal cultural dynamic have shifted? With commerce from Ohio, Indiana, and points west flowing through Virginia, the country would have achieved George Washington’s goal of linking East and West. Breakup of the Union was already in motion but

Benjamin Wright

180

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

keeping Virginia from being torn apart was another matter. Would the canal have made a difference? Virginia was to make one final attempt at connecting East and West. In the years following Crozet’s successful tunnel project, a French company offered to purchase the holdings of the canal company in 1859 and extend the canal over the mountains to a property that they were holding in western Virginia. It would take some time for the legislature to act, but the contract was approved in March 1861. It was too late, however; Fort Sumter fell two weeks later. In another effort, Virginia had tried to call a peace conference two months prior in the hopes of avoiding war. However, Congress would not listen, and ignored the proposals. From these failed eleventh-hour attempts, all that remained was something Wright had hoped would never happen: Would Virginia face the choice of secession with one ear listening to its neighboring Southern states? The late respected author, Virginia Moore, was a contemporary literary figure in the state, having her home on the James River near present day Charlottesville. She had written a history of the local area in a book titled Scottsville on the James, in which she offered some poignant glimpses into the culture shaping society in that earlier time: The James River and Kanawha Canal, also moving westward, had reached Buchanan 196 miles upstream. This was its heyday : : : The peak years were 1850 and 1851 : : : Social life quickened: picnics, dinner parties, quilting parties, teas, dances. People thought nothing of driving twenty miles for a square dance or Virginia reel : : : Summers, there was a great surge towards the springs, the spas, in the Blue Ridge; the Warm, the Sweet, White Sulfur, Orkney. People rolled off happily through the dust, in carriages, to live in elegant hotel rooms or “rough it” in little cabins, while drinking the waters. Yet all through the 1850’s darkness fell slowly : : : ”.47

Endnotes 1

2

George Washington to Benjamin Harrison, October 10, 1784. Harrison was then governor of Virginia, and Washington was promoting the possibilities of improving the James River as a link westward. This letter is also recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 21. This Harrison was Benjamin Harrison V, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who succeeded Thomas Jefferson as governor. He was the grandfather of William Henry Harrison, the president who, unfortunately, died one month after taking office. He was also the great-great-grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, also president. John Marshall (1755–1835) served as the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court, 1801 to 1835.

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13 14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

181

Loammi Baldwin Jr. (1780–1838) had attended Harvard and served in Virginia as principal engineer between 1817 and 1819. Thomas Moore (1760–1822) was born in Virginia and served as principal engineer from 1819 until his death in 1822. Stephen Long (1784–1864) served in various military engineering capacities, and in civilian work, was involved in railway work including the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. He had just returned from his Colorado/Rocky Mountain Expedition in 1819 just prior to his application for the Virginia position. Ferdinand Hassler (1770–1843) was a Swiss émigré and served as director of the US Coast Survey. Claudius Crozet (1790–864). Sylvanus Thayer (1785–1872) was Superintendent of West Point beginning in 1817, following Alden Partridge, and serving until 1833. Claudius Crozet to John C. Calhoun, June 16, 1819. This letter is also recounted in Hunter and Dooley, 1989, p. 24. John Hartwell Cocke (1780–1866) and Joseph Carrington Cabell (1778–1856) played prominent roles working alongside Jefferson in the formation of the University of Virginia. Without their political help, it is doubtful that Jefferson would have succeeded in establishing the school. Randolph Harrison (1769–1839) had an estate at Cartersville, in Cumberland County, forty miles west of Richmond. He served in the Virginia legislature and was a first cousin to Jefferson. One of his sons is buried at Monticello. Background information and aspects of Robinson’s early career can be found in Gibson, 2000, p. 86, also in ASCE Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers, 1972, p. 102, and in the Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. XVIII (1892), also in ASCE Transactions, Vol. 15, (1886). Gibson, 2000. p. 105. Cabell’s travels in Europe including his first meeting with Irving in Naples and their subsequent journeys across Europe are recounted in Jones, 2008, p. 38. Gibson, 2000, p. 111. Wright to Cocke, June 5, 1824. Gibson, 2000, p. 89ff. The comments of Crozet are taken from the Annual Report of the Board of Public Works, 1823, Vol. 8, pp. 221–230. This is recounted in Hunter and Dooley, 1989, p. 39. Wright to Cocke, December 31, 1825. Cabell to Wright, January 2, 1825. A copy of this letter resides in the Cocke letter collection at the Library of Virginia. Wright to Cocke, March 27, 1825. Ibid. Wright to Cocke, August 11, 1828.

Benjamin Wright

182

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

24 Wright to Cocke, March 29, 1831. 25 Wright to Cocke, July 27, 1831. This letter follows an earlier letter dated May 9 in which Wright elaborates on his invitation from then Virginia Governor Floyd offering Wright the position as Assistant Engineer to Crozet, a position Wright graciously turned down. His visit at the end of July 1831 was in the capacity as a consultant to study plans, confer with Crozet, and issue an opinion. 26 Crozet to Wright, August 6, 1831. Contained in Annual Report of the Board of Public Works, 1831, Vol. 16, p. 458. Recounted in Hunter and Dooley, 1989, p. 66. 27 Wright’s comments on Crozet’s ideas for a lock and dam system and the former’s thoughts on the use of a railroad are found in Wright to Governor Floyd, August 9, 1831. 28 Hunter 1989, p. 71. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid, p. 70. 31 Crozet to the Board of Public Works, December 16, 1831, contained in the Annual Report of the Board of Public Works, Vol. 16, pp. 395–408. Recounted in Hunter and Dooley, 1989, p. 72. 32 Wright to Floyd, August 9, 1831, recounted in Hunter and Dooley, 1989, p. 66. 33 Cocke to Cabell, September 3, 1871, recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 111. 34 Wright to Cocke, December 31, 1825. 35 Cabell to Cocke, December 28, 1835, recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 142. 36 Robinson’s attacks in the press are recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 145. 37 Wright to Cocke, April 1, 1836. Simon’s resignation and departure apparently caught his father off-guard, and the elder could not get a clear picture as to why his son took the action he did. It is suspected that his being overlooked for the position as chief was the reason. See Appendix B, “Children” for another possible explanation. 38 Wright to Cocke, December 20, 1837. The situation discussed in this comment revolves around Wright confronting Ellet on the use of water lime in excessive amounts, specifically around the culverts, aqueducts, and other masonry structures. Ellet’s argument was that excess was needed to prevent water from seeping under and around the masonry, although in Wright’s calculation there would be cost savings if a more appropriate amount was used. Wright suggests to Cocke that since Ellet is the chief engineer, the responsibility should rest on his shoulders, and if he were directed to do otherwise, any damage to the masonry would fall on the Board’s shoulders. 39 Wright to Cocke, 31 October 1838. 40 Cocke to Cabell, January 12, 1839, recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 183. Ellet’s demeanor during this period was creating further division between himself and the Board. Cocke warned Cabell that Ellet would be a cause

Benjamin Wright

DARKNESS FELL SLOWLY

41

42

43

44

45 46 47

183

for concern and Cabell felt that Ellet was “one who can listen to no counsels and hear no arguments in opposition to his own plans and suggestions” (Cabell to Cocke, June 6, 1838). Further characterization is tendered as the board considered Ellet to be unresponsive to the assistant engineers, contemptuous of the contractors, and discourteous to the proprietors of the land along the line; in Cabell’s and Cocke’s view, he neglected to take Wright’s advice. These additional remarks are discussed in Gibson, 2000, p. 182. Gibson, 2000, p. 184. Wright was in Richmond at the time and the two attended the monthly meeting of the Board. Wright had been brought back to the canal to deal with an embankment reconstruction. The two got adversarial over plans for circumventing the shoals of the lower James River below Richmond. Ellet wanted to have a bypass canal, and although Wright had originally thought a canal to be the choice, he had changed his opinion and favored dredging a deeper channel. Gibson, 2000, p. 146. Ellet and Robinson had been going at one another in the newspaper for several months during 1836, Robinson in favor of a railroad solution and Ellet acting as chief engineer of the canal. Coming to the defense of Cabell, Ellet felt Robinson to be a duplicitous and cowardly person in the latter’s remarks about Cabell. One day at the Board office, Robinson entered to demand the name of the author of a recent anonymous newspaper attack against him. Ellet was present, an argument ensued culminating with Robinson hitting Ellet over the head with his umbrella. The events of Wright’s departure from Virginia and correspondence between Cocke and Cabell about the engineer’s failing health are recounted in Gibson, 2000, p. 187. Lot Clark (1788–1862) was a New York lawyer and political figure. He moved to Buffalo in 1835 and served in the legislature from Niagara County in 1846. He presided as president of the Niagara Falls International Bridge Company (the American component) during the design and construction of the bridge. Ellet’s interactions with Lot Clark and the bridge company are recounted in Lewis, 1968, pp. 106–115. John Roebling to Lot Clark, February 1, 1849. Virginia Moore (1903–1993) was a distinguished author, having received both a master’s degree and a doctorate from Columbia University. Her name from a second marriage was Mrs. John Jefferson Hudgins and the couple resided in Scottsville. The quotations taken here from her book, as well as references to the attempted French acquisition of the canal, are found in Moore, 1969, pp. 72–73.

Benjamin Wright

11 A Highly Respectable Meeting : : : the aim and end of all ought not to be a mere bag of money, but something far higher and far better : : : 1 Thomas Telford 1757–1834 First President, Institution of Civil Engineers London The name Thomas Telford joins such names as Stevenson, Brunel, Smeaton, and Rennie for inclusion in a small list of British engineers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, all of whom are considered prominent. Keeping to his own words, Telford put truth to the words by living a life and conducting a career never once choosing to pursue the “mere bag of money.” Without question, his accomplishments fall into the range of “far higher and far better.” Wright was of somewhat the same generation in America, with a professional career spanning fifty years. Telford’s words provide another standard of measure of separating an ordinary career from those reaching for something far higher and far better. Having made the transition from surveyor to engineer, Wright spent forty plus years of his career referring to himself as a civil engineer. In that time span, changes not just for him, but for the practice of engineering in

185

Benjamin Wright

186

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

general spread with each passing year. Innovative technologies evolved, advancements were made in science, and had he lived a few years longer, he would have witnessed the advent of the telegraph in 1844, the sewing machine in 1851, and the successful implementation of the McCormick style reaper for grain harvesting, just to mention a few. He was also unable to witness the successful careers of his protégés and associates; Charles Ellet completed the Wheeling Suspension Bridge in late 1849 and John Jervis brought fresh water into the Murray Hill reservoir via the Croton Aqueduct in 1842. Horatio Allen, following his work with Jervis on the Croton, established Novelty Works in New York City, which became the largest firm of its kind manufacturing marine engines, and Wright’s counterpart in Virginia, Claudius Crozet, brought the Blue Ridge Tunnel to completion. Wright accomplished a great deal in his career and never retired from work, working up until his last days. The passage of time did cause him to feel his years, even going so far as to admit he sometimes needed help with calculations and someone to double-check his work. However, he maintained his contact with his friend John Cocke through correspondence, which encompassed both personal thought, as well as issues regarding the canal in Virginia. What may have been his last venture outside New York was a visit to Cocke’s home west of Richmond in the spring of 1842. Having a court appearance regarding a land dispute with the canal, he traveled to Virginia with his daughter Frances and another young lady—Joanna Abeel—sisterin-law to Frances’ brother, Albert. Upon his return home he wrote, Joanna and Fanny were much delighted with their visit and spin long yarns in describing to their friends here their pleasures and enjoyment while under your hospitable mansion.2

Advancing age and the resulting limitations it created were evident to both Wright and others. Mentioning from time to time that he was under a doctor’s care, he was observed by Joseph Cabell in an earlier trip into Virginia as ailing and less effective in managing his assistants.3 However, Cabell respected Wright and gave him full support when affronts to his professional abilities were placed in question, including the period when Ellet served as chief and Wright as consultant. In 1839, Cabell wrote, “Regardless of the dangers of a sickly season or the terrors of a southern sun, he has not absented himself a single day from the valley of the river and has spent his whole time upon the work : : : ”4. His age may have been a limitation for Wright, but it was not a reason to stop feeling that there was much to be done. Holding his career in high regard, Wright was sensitive to society’s view of the profession. Even though for much of his career he managed more than one project at a time, he made the effort to give back by mentoring younger men. He shared the knowledge gained through his experience, and he was giving back to his profession. Civil engineering was his profession, and he was adamant about its stature and overall place in society. For a profession

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

187

to posture itself as such, the progression is for an inclusive organization of all engineers. Such an organization would encourage education, training, shared knowledge, professional attitudes, and above all, ethical behavior in undertaking works affecting society in general. All these were philosophies for what would later become the American Society of Civil Engineers. Tradition indicates that there was “a highly respectable meeting of members of the profession in Augusta, Georgia” held late in 1838.5 Who organized the meeting and any summation of the attendees is unknown; however, evidence indicates that Wright was not present. A framework was established for a convention of engineers to be held in February 1839 at a suitable location in Baltimore. Providing impetus for this effort was a much earlier action by civil engineers in England during March 1771. John Smeaton and his fellow practitioners met at the Kings Head Tavern in Holborn with a desire to “ : : : form themselves into a Society.”6 Although not an organization based on the profession’s technical advancement, it evolved into more of a social club and is still in existence to this day. Serving to organize engineers for a common purpose, a group of eight engineers met at a coffee house in London with the desire to expand their knowledge beyond the offerings of the more social Smeatonian Society. The coffee house meeting in 1818 led to establishing the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).7 American engineers did convene in Baltimore at Barnum’s Hotel on February 11, 1839, with forty attendees, Wright among them. This was a good response considering there were just twenty-six states in the Union and transportation was primarily by sailboat or horse-drawn coach. It was a group from eleven states, and Wright joined his fellow engineers to attempt to form a professional organization.8 Resulting from actions at the convention, a committee was created to draft an “address” to the nation’s civil engineers to serve as an announcement of the organization’s intent and to encourage active membership. Five committee members (John Jervis, C. B. Fisk,9 Isaac Trimble,10 George Whistler,11 and Solomon Roberts12) completed the task on March 20, 1839. To provide a model, they used Britain’s ICE as an example in compiling the address to the American engineers: “The success that has attended the labours of the London Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), its high standing and great usefulness, prove that such societies may be of great public utility, when properly conducted, and are incentives to induce us to imitate so excellent an example.”13 Resolutions of the Baltimore convention included an inference that the organization would be termed “a Society of Civil Engineers of the United States,” along with establishment of a working group comprised of seventeen members selected to prepare a constitution. This group contained such names as Jervis, Crozet, Benjamin Latrobe Jr.,14 Moncure Robinson, and

Benjamin Wright

188

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

others, with Wright as the committee chair. As an outcome, it was agreed that the committee would convene that April. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia provided the setting and the committee met on April 10, 1839, but only four of the seventeen members on the committee roster were in attendance. This poor showing may have been caused in part by some members’ also serving on the Committee of Five to draft the address. However, Wright was among the four, who also included William Campbell of Florida, C. B. Fisk of Maryland, and Edward Miller of Pennsylvania. It would be Edward Miller who became chief engineer of the Erie Railroad prior to Wright’s death and brought about first operations. Wright served as committee chair with Miller, presiding as the committee secretary. Miller had worked earlier in his career under Canvass White on the Lehigh Canal in Pennsylvania. With some railway engineering experience, Miller took the position as chief engineer for the Erie Railroad, and somewhat later, took control of the western division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, spending the balance of his career in the railway industry. In the years preceding professional organization activity, Fisk had worked under Wright on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and Campbell had worked with Moncure Robinson on railway work in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. If they were conducting the meeting in a formal manner, four attendees out of seventeen would not constitute a quorum, but business was conducted anyway with several points of discussion. One of these was agreement for the first-time use of the phrase “The American Society of Civil Engineers.” Going further, the exact phrasing for the organization’s name reads, “The American Society of Civil Engineers : : : instituted for the collection, and diffusion of professional knowledge, the advancement of mechanical philosophy, and the elevation of the character and standing of the Civil Engineers of the United States.” Another article to the constitution would become rather unpopular, as it stipulated that all members publish a paper or book once a year or face a fine of ten dollars if they did not. Nevertheless, upon conclusion of the committee’s work, the draft constitution was compiled, and copies forwarded to each of the remaining committee members for ratification.15 Ratification within the committee of the proposed constitution failed, and for all its positive efforts, this first organizational effort failed. Upon completion of the tally from the committee members, Miller reported to the entire committee: “From the (tone) of the letters received from the different members of the committee, I have been convinced, that a National Society on a broad and useful basis, cannot be formed by gentlemen holding such discordant opinions, unless they will take the pains to meet together, and give the subject a fair discussion : : : the proposed constitution is of course rejected : : : ”16 Differing opinions would be expected; however, the underlying obstacle to successful discourse on the matter was distance and efficient modes of transportation allowing ease of travel for members. Wright’s thoughts about the meeting outcome are not documented, but his willingness to travel for the

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

189

organizational meeting in Baltimore and again for the Philadelphia constitutional meeting speaks to his endorsement of the proposed engineering society. Examination of the committee’s ratification attempt shows that Wright, Moncure Robinson, and six others were in favor of the proposed constitution. John Jervis, among others, was not, with Crozet not having an opinion one way or the other. Charles Ellet was not part of the committee, nor was he at the convention, but he had been invited. After reading a local newspaper, his wife Ellie let him know that an organizational meeting was being held with many prominent engineers present and Ellet’s name was conspicuously absent. His reply had a rather off-hand remark expressing his disapproval of the idea. To his way of thinking, the organization would be “of no account” and although he had been among the invitees, he elected not to participate, “knowing it would be a failure.”17 The rekindled organizational efforts of 1852 brought a group of twelve engineers together to meet in Alfred Craven’s office at the Croton Aqueduct that November electing James Laurie18 the first president. Growth was stymied during the Civil War and activities went dormant for many years until 1869, when the idea was revived with an invitation to all civil engineers to join. The invitees were cataloged in the handwritten list held in the archives of ASCE; this list may very well be the first tabulation of all known American civil engineers at the time. Wright’s associates Stephen Long, Joseph Totten, and Moncure Robinson, among others, were accepted for membership in 1853. John Jervis joined in 1868, and Horatio Allen in 1874. With sustained growth in the intervening years it is unfortunate that the successful formation of the organization did not take place during Wright’s lifetime. Notwithstanding, he left behind a legacy that included a belief in the professional nature of the work he performed in that civil engineering is a profession, not a trade. Considering himself as such, with what time he did have, he devoted himself to societal awareness and supported the creation of an organization of professionals, and in many respects the success of ASCE is an honor to his memory. Following the Civil War, society membership grew in each succeeding year, with an emphasis on advancing the profession’s stature within which one element today is a fundamental understanding of the profession’s history. In the words of William Wisely,19 “members of the society have also cherished their professional identification and association with the great civil engineers of the bygone days who had much to do with the ascendance of the United States of America to world leadership.” One such way was in 1955 when ASCE was asked to provide recommendations for what should be considered the “Seven Wonders of American Engineering.” The society did provide input and it formed the basis for an article published in Reader’s Digest. The list of seven includes: the Chicago Sewage Works, Colorado River Aqueduct, Empire State Building, Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dam,

Benjamin Wright

190

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Panama Canal, and San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge.20 In many respects for ASCE this activity set in motion the establishment of a standing committee, The Committee on the History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering (CHHACE). By recognizing the importance of history for both the organization as well as the profession, ASCE established the committee in 1965 with Gail Hathaway as the first chairman.21 William Wisely again offered a remark by saying this “was one of many examples of ASCE leadership in the engineering profession.”22 To fulfill an ASCE mandate, one of the committee’s early directives was to initiate an ongoing program to recognize important historic engineering works. Projects would be chosen for historic importance in advancing civil engineering technology and as such, the committee created the “National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark” program. The first work given the designation was the Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge in Maryland, honored in 1966. This program, which has awarded historic civil engineering landmark status to many significant works, including the Erie Canal in 1967, continues to the present. Coupled with the ASCE landmarks program, the committee has also established the Civil Engineering History and Heritage Award. It is an award bestowed on “those persons who through their writing, research or other efforts have made outstanding contributions toward a better knowledge of, or appreciation for, civil engineering history.” Through a generous endowment from Trent Dames,23 principal with the firm Dames and Moore,24 and his wife, funding was provided for an annual income to support the award. Columbia University engineering professor James Kip Finch was the award’s first recipient in 1967.25 Also, among the early action items for the committee was a plan to identify and recognize the individual considered the “father” of the profession in America. Tracing the roots of civil engineering in America, this would be the individual from whom civil engineering would have its beginnings. As a starting point, by studying the documented writings of Ashbel Welch, James Finch, and other engineering historians, the name Benjamin Wright stood out more so than others. With his work on America’s first significant public works project and the full extent of work in his later career, the committee began to focus on Wright. His place of birth was known, and his career was documented, but there remained a final bit of information— his place of burial. However, finding that location was not as easy a task as first thought. The record of his date of death and the general location of New York City offered a good starting point for a search, and for a good part of 1968 and 1969, committee members worked aggressively to research Wright’s whereabouts. Simultaneously with attempts to contact Wright descendants, the committee undertook a location-by-location search for his burial site. Various trustee boards and custodians of cemeteries within the city were

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

191

Figure 32: Portrait of James K. Finch. Source: James K. Finch Collection, in possession of the author.

contacted to inquire if Wright was among those interred. Edward White,26 principal with Spencer, White, and Prentis;27 William Wisely, executive director of ASCE; and Herbert Hands, manager of Public Information Services with ASCE combined efforts to uncover Wright’s whereabouts. Information was solicited from a multitude of sources, including known Wright descendants. Following a series of field trips through the city, it was discovered that Wright is buried in New York Marble Cemetery.28 Located in the center of the block between East Second and East Third Streets and between Second Avenue and the Bowery, the cemetery was established in 1832. The cemetery is a grassy lawn containing underground vaults rather than individual burial plots, and thus, no traditional headstones, as discussed in an early newspaper advertisement. New York had banned burials south of Canal Street, and by 1830 several enterprising businessmen had opened New York Marble Cemetery as a profit-making venture. The city’s first nonsectarian cemetery- its 156 underground vaults were open to the wealthy of

Benjamin Wright

192

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Figure 33. Wrought iron entry gate to New York Marble Cemetery. Source: Liza Bear, used with permission.

any faith-situated on a half-acre plot just west of Second Avenue between Second and Third Streets. An inscription blazoned on its east wall read PLACE OF BURIAL FOR GENTLEMEN.29

Wright, along with his wife, Philomela, and several other family members are interred in vault number 83. Having a complete record of Wright’s personal and professional career, the next task for committee members was a formal submission to the ASCE Board of Direction to request a proclamation. The task to lobby for such a declaration was undertaken during the late 1960s and made urgent by the approaching bicentennial of his birth in 1970. With the first efforts to initiate an awareness of Wright’s being worthy of the title, it was soon discovered the declaration would not come without a few hurdles. Within any organization, a significant decision brings with it both discussion and rhetoric on both sides of the question and this decision was no exception. There were those in the profession with differing feelings. To go before the ASCE Board of Direction, a formal submission was to be prepared to include adequate documentation and recommendations from historians, academicians, and practicing civil engineering authors of historic publications. As was expected, when the idea was first discussed prior to

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

193

Figure 34: View of the lawn, New York Marble Cemetery. Source: Gresham Lang, used with permission.

submission, there were differing opinions. Within 1968 correspondence between the committee and the academic community, one suggestion was tendered: “Although I certainly agree that Wright deserves substantial publicity and reverence as an early pioneer, I fear I still have the lingering doubt that he is the George Washington of our profession.”30 However, this type of view was held by a small minority and the committee moved forward and the submission was prepared and presented to the ASCE board. However, the small minority still had a voice and on receipt of the submission, William Wisely, then ASCE executive secretary, in a letter to Gail Hathaway, chairman of the committee, summarized the feelings of the board: “Following considerable discussion, there was agreement that the resolution would be looked on with favor if the reference to his being named as ‘The Father of American Civil Engineering’ were deleted, or if the words ‘a pioneer’, or perhaps the words ‘the pioneer’ were substituted for “The Father”.31 The ASCE Board did reverse itself in the consideration of Wright. However, in most instances when undertaking any activity to move a body of people to collectively focus on a single outcome requires patience, a strong will, and knowledge that the question has a just answer. ASCE did make the decision,

Benjamin Wright

194

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

and to a large extent, the credit for that outcome is likely owed to the efforts of one man, the late Neal FitzSimons. FitzSimons worked for his entire career as a structural engineer and for many years was in private practice. During the turbulent months following the unfortunate Kansas City Hyatt structural failure, he was the face of ASCE in the eyes of the public. As chair of ASCE’s Research Council Subcommittee on Damaged and Failed Structures, he appeared on numerous radio and television shows discussing the engineering aspects of the failure. A year or so later, in 1972, he delivered a paper at an ASCE National Meeting. In his presentation he almost evoked an evangelical tone as he posed a question to civil engineers: “ : : : why does the civil engineer ignore his own heritage?” He proceeded to discuss various reasons and further suggested a reason not to: “ : : : There is an undeniable reason called professional responsibility.”32 This formed much of the guiding focus for himself and the CHHACE committee during that period, and to the recognition of William Wisely, he too became supportive of Wright’s consideration.33 Many of the preconceptions were overcome, and the resolution for Wright’s declaration was ratified on October 1, 1968, followed by a press release mentioning that he was “justly deserving of the appellation.” The date of October 17, 1970 was set aside for the ceremony in Wethersfield on his birth bicentennial. The site of the ceremony was the location of Wright’s boyhood home. Music from a local fife and drum corps rendered a sense of pomp and ceremony. Following a series of speeches, the event culminated in the plaque dedication. Neal FitzSimons, then chairman of CHHACE, delivered a brief synopsis of Wright’s life, followed by William Wisely’s remarks. Thomas Niles, the Society’s president, concluded with the dedication of the commemorative plaque, set in stone, and placed in the yard of the current home. Concurrent with the anniversary of Wright’s birth and the formal recognition by ASCE, The Smithsonian Institution organized and presented an exhibit in the engineering hall at the Museum of American History in Washington. The exhibit featured Wright’s survey leveling instrument he used while at work on the Erie Canal. Two years later in 1972, the University of Connecticut renamed one of its dormitories Wright Hall in honor of the achievements of the state’s native son. At the same time, however, the university declined placing a portrait of Wright in the main hall of the dormitory for fear the interaction between undergraduate students would prove detrimental to the artwork. Additional efforts undertaken to celebrate Wright’s bicentennial fell short of success. Inclusion into the Hall of Fame,34 an article proposed for publication in National Geographic, and his likeness placed on a US postage stamp were all proposals tendered without success. However, one successful idea that evolved earlier was a conference at Princeton University.

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

195

Upon a visit to the Smithsonian in 1968, a civil engineering professor at Princeton purchased a copy of a Smithsonian technical paper on Wendell Bollman. The paper was authored by Robert Vogel,35 then curator of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Division at the museum. A letter to Vogel mentioned the university’s interest in civil engineering history, and at that time, the plan for the development of a program in humanistic studies in engineering with a historical focus.36 Vogel forwarded the letter to ASCE CHHACE and correspondence ensued with the university in the remaining months of 1968 and into early 1969. As a result, the university’s engineering department arranged to host a history conference on the anniversary of Wright’s birth in October 1970.37 Princeton hosted the symposium—Civil Engineering History, Heritage, and the Humanities—from October 14 through October 16. International in scope, authors from the United States, England, The Netherlands, ten different universities, The Smithsonian, and ASCE presented papers celebrating civil engineering history and its place in the development of society from a humanistic perspective. The symposium created a prelude to the dedication the following week in Connecticut, where there would be celebration of the man, but more importantly, recognition of the legacy that he imparted.38 When reconsidering the words of Thomas Telford, Wright’s legacy evolves not so much from his work, for which he received compensation, but from his contribution to the profession. It was a legacy manifested through the engineers with whom he worked, those whom he mentored, and indirectly. those who followed in succeeding generations. The transfer of knowledge gained, tempered with observations of his conduct by the younger engineers, is but one aspect. Another was his desire for societal acceptance of civil engineering as a true profession to include the notion that civil engineers should embrace attributes of professional conduct. He displayed a character without arrogance or self-aggrandizement and felt that a lack of awareness to the needs of society had no place in the profession. Worthiness of the honor bestowed on him comes from eight primary reasons, but there were other considerations as well. Wright felt that for one to call oneself an engineer, one must be willing to undergo periodic self-examination and face basic truths of responsibility, honesty, and conduct: “ : : : I never considered it a part of my character to be too confident, and always feel it a noble act to acknowledge error of opinion : : : ”.39 The late Emory Kemp, past chairman of the Civil Engineering Department at West Virginia University, was a tireless proponent for the study of engineering history and wrote prolifically on the subject. He was the author of numerous books and contributed just as many papers throughout his career. One such paper was titled “Charles Ellet’s Contribution to the Development of Suspension Bridges” and was delivered before the ASCE National Environmental Engineering Meeting held in Houston in 1972, the

Benjamin Wright

196

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

same conference at which Neal FitzSimons spoke. Kemp’s opening remarks are quite appropriate as he shares his thought regarding civil engineering as a profession: One of the hallmarks of a profession is a lively and scholarly concern for its history. Not a narrowly conceived professional chauvinism but an attempt to develop insights on the influence of professional achievements on the society of its day. Further, it should develop an understanding and appreciation of the major contribution’s individuals have made to the profession.40

Wright never sought out acclaim, and when confronted, he reacted with a quiet reserve coupled with sound reasoning. If he was in error, he was the first to admit it. Open to the use of the title, he considered himself “an engineer,” accepting the moniker along with the responsibilities.

Endnotes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12 13

Beckett, 1987, p. 57. Wright to Cocke, May 21, 1842. Gibson, 2000, p. 187. Ibid, p. 185. Watkins, ASCE Transactions, Vol. 24, 1891. Skempton, 1981, p. 23. Watson, 1989, p. 43. Wisely, 1974, p. 7. C. B. Fisk worked with Wright on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and later developed plans for navigation improvements of the Yadkin River in North Carolina. Isaac Trimble (1802–1888) graduated from West Point in 1822 and early in his career became involved in railway work, including the Baltimore and Ohio and Boston and Providence Railroads. He was a native of Virginia and during the Civil War served as an engineer officer in the Confederate Army. At Gettysburg he was a participant in Pickett’s Charge where he was wounded and left on the battlefield. He was taken prisoner and remained as such until the end of the war. He spent the balance of his career serving in various engineering capacities. George Whistler (1800–1849) was born in Indiana and worked on early surveys for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and spent his career in railway engineering. Solomon Roberts (1811–1882) was born in Pennsylvania and spent the bulk of his career in railway work. Committee of Five Announcement, March 20, 1839, extract from Wisely, p. 8.

Benjamin Wright

A HIGHLY RESPECTABLE MEETING

197

14 Latrobe Jr. (1806–1818) worked on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and was involved with the Hoosac Tunnel in Massachusetts. He was a committee member to which Roebling first submitted his East River Bridge design for approval. 15 ASCE, Proposed Constitution with Proceedings, April 1839. 16 ASCE, Miller to the Committee, July 15, 1839. 17 Correspondence between Ellie (his wife) and Ellet, August 1839. 18 James Laurie (1811–1875) was ASCE’s first president. Born in Scotland, he came to America and spent the better part of his career in railway engineering. Upon reaching America he, along with James P. Kirkwood, also from Scotland, worked in Boston for the Norwich and Worchester Railroad. 19 William Wisely (1906–1982). 20 Wolfert, Reader’s Digest, November 1955. 21 Gail Hathaway graduated from Oregon State College and worked for may years as a civilian in the Army Corps of Engineers, primarily in hydraulics and hydrology. In the early 1960s he participated as a member of engineering consultants for UNESCO in the efforts to save Egyptian temples from being inundated by the water behind the Aswan Dam. 22 Wisely, 1974, p. 352. 23 Trent Dames (1911–2000) was a founder and principal of the firm Dames and Moore headquartered in California. 24 Dames and Moore is a worldwide consulting firm specializing in general civil engineering, environmental consulting, transportation planning, and construction services. 25 Wisely, 1974, p. 401. It was unfortunate that Finch died within a few weeks prior to receiving the award. It was accepted posthumously by his son, Edward. 26 Edward White graduated from Harvard and served as president of the firm during the period of the foundation construction of the original World Trade Center. 27 Spencer, White, and Prentis was first established in 1919 by Charles Spencer, Lazarus White, and Edmund Prentis. The firm specializes in construction services for foundations and underpinning. 28 Luquer to White, January 15, 1969. 29 Burrows and Wallace, 1999, p. 582. 30 Billington to FitzSimons, June 10, 1969. 31 Wisely to Hathaway, August 28, 1968. 32 FitzSimons, 1973, p. 327. This paper delivered at the 1972 Houston Annual Meeting is reprinted in Engineering Issues and recounted here. 33 ASCE, Aims and Activities, 1936, p. 19. 34 This reference to the Hall of Fame refers to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans at New York University. In 1970, the CHHACE committee was active in lobbying the various electors for their favorable

Benjamin Wright

198

35

36 37 38 39 40

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

consideration of Wright. The likes of Hubert Humphrey, former US vice president; John Sherman Cooper, then US senator from Kentucky; and Nathan Pusey, then president of Harvard, were contacted with each offering their open-minded consideration before voting. Robert Vogel is the former curator of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Division of the Smithsonian’s American Museum of American History. He served in that capacity between 1957 and 1988. Billington to Vogel, July 1, 1968. FitzSimons to Billington, August 11, 1968. Princeton University, Meeting Number 103, October 14–16, 1970. Wright to Cocke, June 5, 1824. Kemp, 1972, p. 1.

Benjamin Wright

12 A Social Conscience

You will meet difficulties, you will at times become discouraged and wonder if it is all worthwhile. The real man will find a way through or around these difficulties and the experience that he gains will be worth all the efforts he has put forth to conquer them. Ore is not steel until it has undergone the baptism of fire, and the real test of a man comes when he meets trouble.1 John Frank Stevens2 December 1927 At the time when John Frank Stevens voiced the above remarks he was serving as president of ASCE and delivering the Aldred Lecture at MIT. It was 1927, he was soon to retire, and his work with the Great Northern Railway and the Panama Canal was behind him. Although his remarks were directed at faculty and students, his words apply to everyone in all walks of life both past and present. In many respects, Benjamin Wright’s character was shaped by his actions and reactions to challenges confronting him both in his business and private personal life. He faced direct assaults on his professional integrity in the press, the courts, and in the eyes of those whom, for whatever reason, felt slighted. He did not turn away but faced each instance with forthrightness, accepting responsibility in whatever the outcome. He accomplished a great deal in

199

Benjamin Wright

200

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

his career, and with that came the burdens of success. Yet he remained a very introspective man and did not hesitate to place himself in the background as events deemed necessary. During his later years, following the death of Philomela in 1835, he was staying with his son, Albert, and his family. Frances, Wright’s youngest child, was still at home and she joined her father as they moved into her brother’s home on Pine Street in New York City. Albert had married Elizabeth Abeel and Frances enjoyed maintaining her friendship with Elizabeth’s sister, Joanna. It was in this home that he died seven years later, on August 24, 1842. The cause of death was ascites/edema, a condition caused from swelling of body tissue owing to an excess of fluids. His obituary appeared in several newspapers. A common thread to many of them imparts “No individual did more for internal improvements. He was also a man of acknowledged probity.” He was survived by all his children except Henry. He and Philomela had been married just shy of forty years and it was by her side that he was buried. The successful completion of canal projects in antebellum America and the transition into the era of railway expansion brought with them a myriad of social outcomes, some positive and others negative, and all resulting from increased commerce. The flow of trade goods, increased communication, and mobility of passengers were uppermost in the minds of the populace, but there were other hidden benefits as well. The evolving engineering profession was grappling with the ever-changing demand for services while implementing the parallel advancements in technology, power supply, metals fabrication, and industrial processes in general. Improvements to infrastructure also brought benefit to the profession as an aid to improved education. As colleges began to establish themselves, students, staff, and faculty were drawn together via better transportation and the flow of communication. There was progress in advanced study and research in both the physical and natural sciences, giving the profession theories based not on experience alone but with scientific basis as well. One example coming from canal construction was to the field of geology. With the field excursions of Amos Eaton along the alignment of the Erie Canal, his fieldwork through the cuttings and excavations uncovered large quantities of fossils and took the first steps toward a better understanding the stratigraphy of what lay beneath the surface.3 Also, in the field of paleontology, excavations on the alignment of the Delaware and Hudson Canal uncovered a complete mastodon skeleton, discovered while excavating in a peat bog in Sullivan County, New York. Referred to as a “beautiful and perfect” specimen, it was nine feet long, and is now housed in the collection of the New York State Museum in Albany.4 However, there were also hidden negative outcomes to the advances in transportation. One well-documented negative outcome from the successful completion of the Erie Canal, the Welland Canal, and bypass work around the rapids at Montréal is that they collectively allowed the spread of an unfortunate environmental problem—the introduction of lamprey into the fresh

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

201

water of the Great Lakes. A lamprey is a parasitic eel that preys on other fish; although it was not understood at the time, today it is still an environmental concern with its effect on fish populations.5 So, as with any project, it is not the end in and of itself, where lessons are learned and the profession has grown as a result. Regional infrastructure projects whether a canal or railroad improved the flow of commerce, but the spread of disease travelled just as quickly, affecting the unwitting populace at the time. Wright and his family survived New York’s 1832 cholera epidemic, but it would not be the only tragedy the city would face during his lifetime. By the winter of 1841 to 1842, as John Jervis was advancing the Croton Aqueduct ever closer to Manhattan, the city was struck again, this time with scarlet fever and smallpox. It would be these events that would draw Wright to face his own mortality, and in so doing become more introspective. Writing John Cocke in Virginia, who at the time was feeling ill himself, Wright suggests that his friend should also be prepared for a change. What is unwritten are Wright’s feelings that death is in God’s hands; he urged his friend to “do all in our power to render those happy whom we leave behind us. To make good citizens and good men and women.”6 His friend would recover from his sickness, but Wright was aging, and it was unfortunate that it would be in the years following the engineer’s death that the results of his mentoring legacy would be revealed. For one, the New York aqueduct project reached successful completion and allowed the city to take the first step in providing a better quality of life for its populace. However, during Wright’s lifetime, the aqueduct project had its moments during the years of planning implementation when the question of a successful outcome was in doubt. John Jervis was selected to replace Douglass as chief engineer for the Croton project and the decision was construed by many as controversial. With time, that decision weathered the controversy; although it was not an easy process, the project did move forward. When considering Wright’s involvement in the years during the overall water supply effort, his involvement in the attempt to reach a solution to the city’s water supply appears to have fallen into the background. Then again, his presence may have had a more direct effect with the city’s ultimate success than would appear at first glance. In particular, the retention of John Jervis as a replacement for David Douglass. City aldermen were having difficulty with Douglass over his style of work and his rate of progress. While Jervis was engaged with the Chenango Canal project, he entered correspondence with city alderman Stephen Allen. Jervis was providing sample construction specifications as used on the canal, and according to Jervis there was no inference on the part of the city for him to replace Douglass. As Douglass’ favor with the aldermen began to fade, discussions were happening somewhere over a possible successor. These were all discussions behind the scenes, whether in Albany, the city itself, or

Benjamin Wright

202

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

possibly at the Democratic National Convention in Baltimore. Whatever the venue, the decision was made, and there is a good possibility that at some point those discussions included Wright. It had been during the period when Douglass still served as chief engineer for the aqueduct, that Jervis left his engagement with the Chenango Canal and took a position with the Erie Canal enlargement project. This was the era of state governorship by Martin van Buren and it was during his administration that the group known as the “Albany Regency” established itself. They controlled the tenure of canal commissioners while underneath the surface, the nefarious dealings of the “Canal Ring” controlled the flow of lucrative construction contracts for the enlargement of the canal. Wright was aware of this activity and commented Our state here has worked all her canals into party – for which the pay about 50 to 200 thousand dollars yearly in the mismanagement of them. And every important election will cost hereafter 100 thousand dollars for her canal partisan efforts. The organization has more become so perfect that there is no remedying the evil and as shall continue to go on so – because the people generally cannot understand the waste of money which is every year thrown away for want of good judgement in repairing and renewing the works from time to time. It is a source of great mortification to me : : : 7.

Graft, bribery, fraud, and a whole range of reprehensible activities swallowed the good intentions of the endeavor and Wright, no doubt, felt that the environment swirling around the project would be detrimental to his former assistant’s career; in short, Wright may have taken steps. He knew full well the damages that could arise from being attached to such a project. To protect the younger engineer, evidence suggests that Wright used his own brand of political and professional power to get him out of there and maneuver Jervis into a position with the Croton. The relationship between Wright and Jervis originated in Rome during the early days of settlement after the war. Upon their arrival in the Fort Stanwix area, Wright’s parents, Ebenezer and Grace; his uncle, Thomas, and his wife, Martha; as well as three other families put their names to the original church covenant, establishing the community’s first church. One of the covenant signers was Daniel Knight, who was unmarried at the time. In the years that followed, he married Betsy Jervis, John’s younger sister. As the church and community grew, the families shared the humanistic constituents of life— hope, compassion, and faith—and it was the church covenant that bound them together. It would be those same human qualities that played a role in any intervention by Wright to aid his younger protégés. Just as he did with his son, Joshua, when facing the harsh punishment by Yale, by placing John Cocke’s son, John Jr., with a position on the Chesapeake and Delaware

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

203

Canal to offer him better tutelage from that of Claudius Crozet, he took steps to remove John Jervis from the detrimental effects of corruption on the Erie enlargement. In doing so, it was not because all three young men personified family but because Wright understood human behavior.8 To repeat his own words, “Do all in our power to render those happy whom we leave behind us. To make good citizens and good men and women.”9 ******************** When Wright was at home in between his travels, he enjoyed catching up with Philomela and the children, and keeping abreast of all things political, economic, and cultural. It was also a time to attend church and on one Sunday morning in the spring of 1840, he and family attended services, sitting in the congregation and listening to a message by the Reverend George Cheever.10 Cheever, besides his ecumenical stature, was also a New York literary figure of the time, who in the words of Edgar Allen Poe was “ : : : rather small in stature with a vivacious countenance : : : otherwise there is nothing very observable about his appearance.”11 During Wright’s attendance, Cheever had taken over the pulpit of New York’s Allen Street Presbyterian Church in 1839 and was considered a rather rigid and controversial intellectual, holding the self-perceived notion that he alone knew the path to righteousness. However, that Sunday morning, his words made an impression on Wright, who shared his reactions in a letter to his friend, John Cocke: I send for yourself and Mrs. Cocke : : : some pieces such as “Cheever’s Letters From Egypt”, some of these are particularly interesting : : : Cheever, you may recollect was the author of “Deacon Giles Distillery.” I have heard him from the pulpit and think him no ordinary man.12

Cheever is best known for his editing of The Commonplace Book of American Poetry but also from among his work is a pamphlet titled Deacon Giles Distillery, published about 1835 in Salem, Massachusetts. It follows the story of a fictional character, Amos Giles, and his habit of distilling and selling spirits, even on the Sabbath. Cheever proclaimed through the voice of the pamphlet, “ : : : every time I see his advertisement, “Inquire at Amos Giles’ Distillery,” I think I see Hell and Damnation, and he, the proprietor.” Wright embraced similar thoughts, commenting, “ : : : Man is bad enough in his sober moments, but when filled with alcohol he is a devil : : : ”13 As commerce flowed through the Erie Canal, it brought New York City positive benefit, but on the negative side the city was being transformed into what businessman Anson Phelps characterized as “our stupid, polluted, and perishing city.”14 Western grain coming through the city created a

Benjamin Wright

204

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

proliferation in the number of distilleries. To counter this growing stigma, clergymen railed against the dilemma from the pulpit. In retaliation, distillery and tavern owners fought back. From this ongoing battle, the New York City Temperance Society arose in the early 1830s. Among the leadership of the Society were the likes of Arthur Tappan,15 an editor of The Journal of Commerce and leader in the colonization movement. Another was Eleazar Lord, president of the Manhattan Insurance Company and the eventual driving force for the New York and Erie Railroad. Except for the desire to build a railroad, the common belief in the adverse effects of alcohol may very well be the solidifying bond between the two men, Wright and Lord. It no doubt had been the hope of the elder for his son, Henry, to build a career in engineering after his missteps at Hamilton College. Henry worked with his father on construction of both the Farmington Canal and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, but reconsidering Henry’s misguided activities at Hamilton College raises an interesting question. In revisiting the story, while Wright was busy with his engagement on the Erie Canal, he received word that his son was expelled from the school, because of some indiscretions. It started as a youthful prank when one evening, he and a few of his friends were caught rolling logs down the staircase of the main school building. He and his parents were notified that if he did not “mend his ways,” further action may become necessary. Henry’s academic work continued, but his indiscretions also continued to the point that the school acted. Henry was expelled, and although he would be allowed to re-enroll, the result was that he never returned to the school.16 As the firstborn child, Henry spent many weeks without his father while growing up. He was sixteen years old when he entered Hamilton College and rolling logs down the stairs inside the college main building may seem like a harmless prank, but then again could it have been something else? Much like Charles Adams, John Adams’ second son streaking naked across Harvard Yard under the influence of drink, could the same have been the case with Henry? Was the prank an act of an intoxicated student having lost a sense of right and wrong? The question goes unanswered, but his son’s death fostered in the elder a realization that there is a price that comes with a successful career. Wright may have been a man of high morals and integrity, but he was not infallible; he was human and did what he could to manage both sides of his career. ******************** Wright had a sense of what he was getting into from an engineering perspective with his engagement in Virginia. He was also keenly aware that Virginia had a disposition analogous to a boiling kettle. It was with the James River and Kanawha Canal where he witnessed first-hand the anguish of slave labor. Owners contracted their slaves outside the planting season for one

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

205

dollar per day per slave plus winter clothing, with the slave receiving the clothing but not the money. White workers would not work with them, forcing the slaves into the unskilled tasks of earthwork with backbreaking pick and shovel work. By 1838, two-thirds of the workforce on the James River and Kanawha Canal was Black and working conditions were so horrid it caused Ellet to put it bluntly, “ : : : travelling all along the route of the canal there is nothing but “ : : : Niggars and filth, filth and Niggars : : : ”17 John Cocke, although having a compassionate attitude toward the slaves, felt that those working the canal were the undesirable slaves put there by their owners to get them away from the balance of the plantation workers for which he described as. “ : : : slaves of the worst character, as the most worthless of the Negroes were so hired : : : ”18 As Cabell and Cocke were pushing the canal west of Richmond, the state may not have realized it at the time, but Virginia would soon learn it had become that boiling kettle. While Wright was working in Richmond during August 1831, the ugliness of slavery turned from harsh reality to unspeakable violence. He had arrived around August 1 for his second consultation with Crozet. Wright stayed for just three weeks, a duration for which Cabell regretted the shortness of his visit. Although the reason is not mentioned, it seems understandable as to why he left when he did. On August 21, 1831, three weeks after Wright’s arrival in Richmond in Southampton County, southeast of Richmond, the slave Nat Turner embroiled slaves on surrounding plantations to rise in revolt. What followed was a gruesome attack on owners and overseers. On a northward path, violent killings took the lives of sixty-two men, women, and children, with fear that it would reach Petersburg in short order and Richmond soon to follow. Wright’s feelings could well be understood, because there was fear that the revolt would spread along the alignment of the canal with large quantities of slaves working throughout its length. The canal would provide an easy path for the violence to travel westward. However, the insurrection was contained, but the backlash of retribution was just as violent as the revolt itself. Wright did return to Virginia but the “socio/political” climate had not changed, and he knew full well what was to come. The world seems to me to be in a state of fermentation beyond anything I have ever known. Some great event is to be brought about by the hand of God to scourge the inhabitants of the earth; I fear. But we must wait and see what it is his pleasure to afflict upon man for this wickedness and his sins which are great.19

When Cocke arrived in New York to tour the canal, he may or may not have known anything about the man he would soon meet. Cocke came to the Erie Canal to lobby for his cause, that of gaining knowledge of canals and obtaining the services of an experienced engineer. Having met Wright, he

Benjamin Wright

206

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

extended an invitation for him to come to Virginia and consult with Crozet, an invitation that Wright may have accepted for reasons beyond those purely business. As he did on so many occasions in his career, he could see the goodness in a man, in this case, one struggling with his own reality and in one of his letters, Wright shared an anecdote with his friend. He mentioned an old story that he intended as an analogy for the troubled situation in Virginia and which he said made him “tremble.” “When we look at what has been said and threatened by southern people in relation to a separation, we can apply the old adage; ‘That one man may steal a horse, and another will be punished for looking over the hedge.’”20 For men such as Cocke and Charles Fenton Mercer, just looking over the hedge at the problem would not bring about a solution. To put words into actions, they did something about it. It was an idea that at the time seemed the best alternative to rid the country of its misdeeds, and although conceived in the North, it would require southern action if it were to succeed. To that end, the two Virginia plantation owners were willing to make the attempt and embraced the idea of colonization. The year 1820 found Wright completing construction of his middle division of the Erie Canal. That winter, after years of political lobbying and negotiation, a solution to America’s social injustice would take its first step. It would be a grand experiment to rectify a wrong and it saw reality that year in the ice-clogged waters of New York harbor. In the predawn hours on February 6, the ship Elizabeth, accompanied by a naval vessel from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, struggled in the ice and a steamship was summoned from Staten Island. The Elizabeth was put in tow and, after hours of ramming and pulling, the Elizabeth found open water. Bound for the west coast of Africa, the ship carried a manifest of human cargo comprised of slaves whose freedom had been obtained by the American Colonization Society. John Cocke was a good friend of Charles Fenton Mercer, and both men were unique among fellow southerners for a couple of reasons. Cocke for one felt almost to the point of obsession that tobacco was a scourge to the health and well-being of mankind. Tobacco was the principal commodity that Virginia could offer the world, and it was almost a heresy for a Virginia plantation owner to take the stand that Cocke took. However, anti-slavery was the common point. In Wright’s mind, he felt that if the North would stay out of the way, slave culture would die out of its own accord as changing economic dynamics would force a change. However, the reality found Cocke wrestling with the stigma of slavery and the survival of his plantation without the toil of those considered his property. Putting aside thoughts of their own personal gain, Cocke and Mercer, as strong believers in colonization, felt repatriating the slaves back to Africa was worthwhile. This was so much so that Cocke, in fact, sent some of his own slaves back to Liberia. Those making the journey from his plantation included the Peyton Skipwith family, arriving in Liberia in late 1833 after a fifty-six-day journey.

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

207

For Wright, colonization was a concept with merit. His first exposure to the idea came from reading summaries of the debate on the matter in January 1827 at a meeting in Washington. He construed, “ : : : it was a subject of great interest to the Union and I was pleased with the views of : : : the speakers : : : .”21 He even went so far as to recount a conversation in New York, where it was suggested the former slaves, with proper tutoring, could learn to navigate the ships themselves. Although the idea may not have become fact, Wright did help and support Cocke, in a small way, with the latter’s efforts with colonization. There is evidence that Wright assisted Cocke in procuring a gun for Skipwith and arranging for shipment to Liberia.22 At the time, it would have been a heresy to provide a gun to a slave. Once out of American territory, though, the situation could have been different. In a letter from Skipwith to his former master, he mentions one occasion of having to take his rifle and join his fellow settlers in battle with interior tribesmen, a skirmish they successfully waged in April 1840. Wright began his efforts to help Cocke procure a rifle in early 1837, suggesting that a newly developed Cockram gun should be considered. After some issues with patent validity and switching manufacturers, Wright arranged for shipment to Cocke via Richmond, suggesting that his friend send all packages directly to the colonization society in New York for shipment on the next vessel bound for Liberia in December 1838. With time, the colonization experiment proved unsuccessful, owing to a myriad of causes. Nonetheless, at that moment, it was felt to be a positive attempt to undo the indignity breaking the country apart.23 In some small way, Wright attempted to do what he could to assist, but the country was, as he put it, “in a state of fermentation”. Acts of legislation created with what was thought to be good intention did nothing more than drive the wedge deeper. Annexation of Texas as a slave-holding republic, the Tariff Act, the three-fifths rule, and the Missouri Compromise brought further separation over an already contentious question. Unfortunately, for such men as Cocke, Mercer, and others, actions and rhetoric fell short and, the “state of fermentation” as Wright suggests would continue to pervade the country but the great event that he predicted would be one he would not live to witness. ******************** In looking back at those early morning hours of February 6, 1820, when the sailing ship Elizabeth was struggling through the ice filled water of New York harbor, a steamboat was summoned from Staten Island to pull the tall ship to reach open water. Maneuvering with almost reckless abandon, the steamboat was able to free the ship, allowing it to continue its journey eastward toward Africa. Performing this rescue mission was a steamboat captained by a young Cornelius Vanderbilt.24

Benjamin Wright

208

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Vanderbilt’s biographer inferred that the man’s career and character were formed by actions from things happening by events that play out around him, whether by accident or evolved.25 It is a similar thought to that of John Stevens, expressed in his remarks at MIT. As for Vanderbilt, the reactions to the events that played out around him were both tenacious and risky and could be considered almost to the point of bordering on insanity. As with Vanderbilt’s career, Wright’s career was also shaped by the events forming around him, and had it not been for the wave of internal improvements sweeping the country, Wright would have remained a country surveyor in upstate New York. Where Vanderbilt’s business philosophy evoked an aggressive tenacity that lacked compassion for those over whom he trampled, Wright took a much softer route. Both men were versed in the ways of business and politics. Where Vanderbilt built an empire by abusing the personal connections of those around him, Wright took a different route by developing a professional network of political, business, and social connections. Vanderbilt amassed many holdings—railroads and steamboats for example, whereas Wright amassed a reputation of professionalism with a degree of veracity. Vanderbilt, in a manner, opened doors by pushing his way in, whereas Wright opened them with a strong sense of compassion in a varied range of sociopolitical circles. From the very beginning when George Huntington endorsed Wright for the engineer’s position with the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, his career was driven by his connections with people. It was a life’s work of evolving personal relationships. In the years following the successful completion of the Erie Canal, David Hosack sent his letter to Wright asking for input about DeWitt Clinton for whom he was working on a biography. Wright replied and provided some background where he summarized his work on the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company as a precursor to the Erie Canal. Sharing detail about his transformation from a country surveyor to canal engineer, his words offer a self-examination of his early career. Describing in a rather unassuming manner, Wright mentions In 1802, the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company determined upon improving the navigation of Wood Creek from near Fort Stanwix to a small tributary stream six miles westerly, called Little Canada Creek. In this distance there was a descent of nearly twenty-four feet, and the navigation very indifferent and troublesome. The plan decided upon was by means of dams and locks, of which they constructed four in the distance above mentioned. George Huntington, Esq. of Rome (New York), was their agent, and I was their engineer.26

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

209

Figure 35: Benjamin Wright (later in life). Source: The Jervis Library, Rome, New York, used with permission.

Along with his professional reputation, Wright was sensitive to the needs of his family, his faith, and society in general. To him, these were what mattered, and when placed in the framework of the words of Stevens, Wright met with difficulties and found a way to overcome them, taking the experience learned to better himself. On the one hand, his persona could open doors, and he used what political or business influence he had with care and for the right reasons. First, to admit shortcomings, he never postured himself as better than anyone else. On the one hand, he assessed his shortcomings but never passed judgment on them, feeling that was for a power greater than himself to undertake. During his lifetime, Wright had no way of knowing the true outcome of his place in the profession. However, it has been history that has judged his life and career and bestowed on him a fitting title as the “Father” of the civil engineering profession in America.

Endnotes 1

This excerpt is from a lecture titled The Future of the Engineer and given by John Frank Stevens as part of the Aldred Lecture Series at MIT, December 1927.

Benjamin Wright

210

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

John Frank Stevens (1853–1943) was born in Maine and spent a good deal of his career in railway work. In 1905, he was appointed chief engineer of the Panama Canal, a position he held until 1907. He returned to railway work where he spent the balance of his career. Van Rensselaer provided funding for Eaton’s geologic excursions along the alignment of the canal. His first field trip was in 1822 and would be followed by three more. His first encounter with fossils was the discovery of a fossilized tree near the town of Chittenango in November 1822. Accounts of Eaton’s various outings and his discoveries in both geology and paleontology can be found in Spanagel, 2014, pp. 98–116. Accounts of the discovery of mastodon remains in Sullivan County during excavation of the Delaware and Hudson Canal is found in Hartnagel and Bishop, 1922, pp. 59–60. It is also discussed in Warren, 1852, p. 207. USGS Water Supply Paper 2038, 1976, pp. 62–63. The Water Supply Paper recounts various technical papers and attributes the presence of lamprey in Lake Erie as early as 1921, but it appears to have been present in Lake Ontario beforehand. It is felt that both the Welland and the Erie Canals were contributing factors to the spread of the parasitic fish into the entire Great Lakes system. Wright to Cocke, December 2, 1841. Wright to Cocke, March 10, 1835. Timothy Jervis, his wife, Phoebe, and oldest son, John, traveled to the settlement in Rome about 1798. Betsy was a younger sibling to John and married Daniel Knight. Wright to Cocke, December 2, 1841. George Cheever (1807–1890) was born in Maine and was both a clergyman and a reformer. He was active in movements to rid society of both slavery and alcohol consumption. Poe, 1846, pp. 267 and 268. Wright to Cocke, May 20, 1840. Wright to Cocke, March 6, 1839. Burrows and Wallace, 1999, p. 437. Anson Phelps was founding partner in the firm Phelps, Dodge, and Company. Starting in the export/import business, they later ventured, following Phelps’ death, into mining interests in the west in the late nineteenth century. He was a devout Congregationalist and supported several charitable causes. Arthur Tappan (1786–1865) was born in Massachusetts, and along with his brother and Samuel F. B. Morse, established The New York Journal of Commerce in 1827. Academic records of Hamilton College, various notations for Henry in the years 1816 to 1818. Gibson, 2000, p. 151. Ibid, p. 113. Wright to Cocke, January 10, 1842.

Benjamin Wright

A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

211

20 Ibid, February 1, 1842. 21 Ibid, January 20, 1827. 22 References to Wright interceding in the purchase of a gun (rifle) for Cocke can be found in correspondence between the two during 1838. Wright to Cocke, April 30, August 10, and November 14. Wright had arrived home on the morning of November 13, and the next day he ventured to the offices of the Colonialization Society in New York. He learned the December departure status of the next vessel to Liberia and advised Cocke for shipment of his package accordingly. 23 Discussion regarding the Peyton Skipwith family and their life in Liberia can be found in a published collection of letters titled Dear Master, Letters of a Slave Family, edited by Randall Miller, 1978. The specific letter with reference to the rifle can be found in: Peyton Skipwith to John H. Cocke, April 22, 1840. The original letter collection is housed in the John H. Cocke Papers in the University of Virginia Library. A recount of the Skipwith letters is also found in The Making of African American Identity, Vol 1, 1500–1865, as published by the National Humanities Center. 24 Stiles, 2010, p. 51. 25 Stiles, 2009, p. 136. 26 Wright to Hosack, December 31, 1828.

Benjamin Wright

Appendix A Business, Professional, and Civic Activities of Benjamin Wright Birth Parents Marriage Death Burial

October 10, 1770, Wethersfield, Connecticut Ebenezer Wright and Grace Butler Wright Philomela Sarah Waterman, September 27, 1798 August 24, 1842 New York Marble Cemetery, New York City, Vault # 83

Education Apprenticeship in the fundamentals of surveying Mentoring in basics of law and civic affairs from his Uncle Joseph Wright

1786

Surveying Activity Central New York Military Tract Scriba’s Patent Macomb’s Purchase

1791 1792–1796 1800

Navigation Improvements WILNC Surveys with Hardenburg WILNC Wood Creek activity Surveys along Mohawk River from Seneca Lake to Albany Quantico Creek (Virginia)

213

Benjamin Wright

1792 1803 1812 1825

214

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Corridor between Tennessee River / Altamaha River (Georgia / Alabama) Rivanna River studies (Virginia / E. H. Gill, this is date of report)

1829 1842

Canal Engineering Middle Division of the Erie Canal Chief Engineer for the Erie Canal Housatonic / Saugatuck and New Milford Canals Farmington Canal Delaware and Hudson Canal Illinois and Michigan Canal Blackstone Canal Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha River Canal Chenango Canal (branch to the Erie Canal) Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Trenton Water Power Canal Chambly Canal / Richelieu River Delaware and Raritan Canal (with Canvass White) Welland Canal James River and Kanawha Canal

1816–1820 1820–1825 1822–1824 1822–1824 1825–1828 1825 1828 1828 1829 1824–1829 1828–1830 1830 1830 1833 1834 1835

Public Works Engineering Street Commissioner for the City of New York Water supply study (work with Canvass White) Activity with New York Water Works Water supply study (post-Cholera epidemic)

1832–1834 1823 1825–1827 1832

Railway Engineering First locomotive studies, D and H Canal (later by John Jervis) New York and Harlem Railroad New York and Albany Railroad (Later the Hudson River Railroad by John Jervis) Manchester (NY) Railroad (precursor of the Lehigh Valley Railroad) New York and Erie Railroad (initial studies) Railway construction on the Island of Cuba New York and Erie Railroad (construction) Tioga and Chemung Railroad study

Benjamin Wright

1827 1831–1832 1833 1834 1835 1835 1836 1836

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND CIVIC ACTIVITIES OF BENJAMIN WRIGHT

215

Troy and Schenectady Railroad study Mohawk and Saint Lawrence Railroad study

1838 1838

Civic, Business, and Political Activity New York State Assemblyman Committee to elect Van Rensselaer Taberg Iron and Glass Works Design of Presbyterian Church Meeting House County Judge

1797–1808 1801 1804–1817 1807 1812 to 1816

Professional Activity ASCE (precursor) organizational meeting, Baltimore ASCE (precursor) Constitutional Committee meeting, Philadelphia

Benjamin Wright

February 1839 April 1839

Appendix B Children

Benjamin Wright (1770–1842), born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, married Philomela Sarah Waterman (1776–1835), born in Wallingford, Connecticut. They were married in 1798 in Plymouth, Connecticut, and are buried together in New York City. They had nine children, seven boys and two girls. Current research has not discovered any likeness of Philomela, either a portrait or daguerreotype. Also, there is little in the way of known correspondence between her and others. So, in that regard, it is difficult to obtain a view of her character. However, by having a look into Wright’s character, his attitudes about issues of the day, and concerns for his family, it is possible to picture the relationship they might have had and the impact his wife would have had on his life and career. She, no doubt, was an ever-present influence in his life. At the time of her death, she had not been well for many months. They were residing at 212 Thompson Street when she died of palsy on May 18, 1835. Following her death, Wright resided in the home of his son, Albert, and his wife, Elizabeth. Henry (1799–1826) unmarried Henry attended Hamilton College, but did not finish. He worked with his father on canals in Connecticut and while working on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal he was tragically killed in an accident. It has not been documented, but with the time gap from Henry’s expulsion from Hamilton College and his father’s work in

217

Benjamin Wright

218

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Connecticut, there is the possibility the elder put his son to work in some capacity on the Erie Canal. Present research has not revealed that Henry had a middle name. Benjamin Hall Wright (1801–1881) m. Henrietta Huntington Benjamin Hall is named for the maiden name of Philomela’s mother. He graduated from West Point with a commission in the infantry. He served briefly and resigned his commission to undertake work with his father, first in Georgia, and later in Cuba. He had obtained engineering engagements in Cuba prior to his father’s involvement in that country. There is a curious story in the family that originates with a letter that Benjamin Hall wrote to Robert E. Lee after the Civil War. The young Wright wanted Lee’s thoughts regarding the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg had there been a differing attack pattern by the Federal Army on the advance northward. Lee took some time but did respond. His reply was cordial, and he thanked Wright for his thoughts but felt the outcome would not have been any different. James Wright (1803–1857) m. Sarah Markoe James had left Rome for New York City and was living in the city at the time his father arrived to set up his office and move the family. He was educated in Montréal, possibly McGill College. He worked in business in the financial sector. At one point, he was working in Philadelphia, and at the time of his death, he was living in Orange, New Jersey. His son, Francis Markoe Wright, was the descendant who pursued the Wright genealogy. At present, there is no indication of James having a middle name. Mary Smith Wright (1806–1862) m. Thomas S. Nelson Nelson was in business in the mercantile sector. He and Mary Smith resided in New York City. Simon Waterman Wright (1808–1854) unmarried Simon is named for his mother’s maiden name. He attended Partridge Military Academy. The school was opened following Alden Partridge’s departure from his position as Superintendent of West Point following the appointment of Sylvannus Thayer. Simon worked with his father on the James River and Kanawha Canal; at his father’s resignation and with the position filled by Charles Ellet Jr., Simon joined his brother, Benjamin Hall, in Cuba. A peculiar situation evolved while Simon was working on the canal in Virginia. At his father’s resignation, Simon felt that he should have been offered the position as chief engineer. His departure for Cuba may have been at his displeasure with the Canal Board’s decision to select Ellet. There may be another story however, and it could have a romantic element to it. In the summer of 1832, Simon unexpectedly showed up at the front door of

Benjamin Wright

CHILDREN

219

John Cocke’s home west of Charlottesville. The elder Wright had no explanation for his son’s action but appreciated Cocke’s hospitality. A possible reason for Simon’s presence was Sally, John Cocke’s daughter. At the time of his visit, Sally would have been sixteen years old and he, twenty-four. The two would have been acquainted through the ongoing work on the canal and her father’s active participation in canal developments. At the time of Benjamin Wright’s resignation, she would have been twenty-one and at a more appropriate age for marriage. There could have been the possibility that along the way, Simon suggested marriage once she had become of age. Now at the time of the Board’s decision, her acceptance would have been reason for him to stay. If he did ask her, she turned him down, and it may have been a reason for Simon’s sudden departure. It was a situation that caught his father completely off guard and a development for which the elder had no explanation. Research has not revealed if this is, in fact, the real scenario, but the young man’s actions seem curious. Albert Wells Wright (1810–1876) m. Elizabeth A. Abeel Albert was educated at Hamilton College and worked in business in the mercantile sector. He and Elizabeth lived in New York City. It is with Albert and his family that his father lived during his last days. When the elder Wright went to Virginia on his last trip to the state in early 1842, he took with him Frances (Fanny) and Joanna, a sister to Elizabeth. While Wright attended to business, the two young ladies spent time with Sally Cocke. In 1779 Benjamin’s father, Ebenezer, was granted guardianship of the children of James Wells. This was done so for the selling of land left to the underage children. The children would have been of the same age range as Benjamin and they all may have played together and been well acquainted. It is possible Albert’s middle name originates with a boyhood friend of Benjamin. Joshua Butler Wright (1812–1878) m. Susan L. Bradford Joshua is named for Grace Butler, his grandmother’s maiden name. Joshua attended Yale and graduated from Rutgers. He, along with his roommate from Rutgers received law degrees, and later became partners in a law practice. Joshua and Susan had an estate north of the city on the Hudson River. George Smith Wright (1814–1893) m. Susan M. Pratt George had attended Yale, but his father voluntarily removed him to attend to an issue with property holdings in upstate New York. George later travelled to Michigan, no doubt, via the Erie Canal and passage by steamboat through the Great Lakes. He settled in Marshall, Michigan, where he met his wife Susan. He worked in the banking sector. It is from the line of descendants of George that a unique modern-day descendant appears, and one with public exposure. In the movie version of

Benjamin Wright

220

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

the musical, The Sound of Music, with Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer, there appears a German Army officer about halfway through the movie. The name of the officer is Herr Zeller and he has come to escort Von Trapp back to re-enter service in the Navy. At the climax of the movie, Zeller and his associates sit in the audience at the festival theater as the Von Trapp family sing Austrian folk songs. The actor that portrayed Zeller was named Benjamin Wright and was a direct descendant of George Wright, son of Benjamin, the engineer. Benjamin Wright, the character actor also did voice over work in the animated Disney movie, The Little Mermaid. Frances Eunice Wright (1820–??) m. Chauncey L. Mitchell Frances Eunice, or “Fanny” as she was called, is named for Eunice Hall, Philomela’s mother. Fanny married Chauncey Mitchell, a doctor, and the two lived in Brooklyn. If there would be any evidence of Simon’s interest in Sally Cocke, it would be something that Fanny would more than likely have become aware of because of her visit and subsequent correspondence with Sally. In discussion with some Wright descendants, Frances’ date of death is unknown.

Benjamin Wright

Appendix C Resolution

Press Release by the Public Information Office of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York City, October 1, 1968 Page three of the press release document with the text of the resolution.

221

Benjamin Wright

222

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Benjamin Wright

Appendix D Extract from 1869 List of Engineers

223

Benjamin Wright

224

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Benjamin Wright

Bibliography

Achenbach, J. 2004. The grand idea: George Washington’s Potomac and the race to the west. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ackerman, K. 2005. Boss tweed: The rise and fall of the corrupt pol who conceived the soul of modern New York. New York: Carroll & Graf. Alexander, D. 1906. A political history of the state of New York. New York: Henry Holt. American Colonization Society. 2009. Accessed April 30, 2009. http://en.wikiopedia.org/wiki/ American_Colonization_Society. ASCE. 1839. Constitution proposed for the American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE. 1869. “Original list of names proposed by the board of direction, ASCE.” In Constitution, By-Laws, Act of Incorporation, 1852–1869. Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE. 1936. Aims and activities. Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE. 1968a. Correspondence between William Wisely (executive secretary) and Gail Hathaway (chairman of CHHACE). Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE. 1968b. Press release: Benjamin Wright named “father of American civil engineering.” Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE Committee on History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering. 1970. The civil engineer: His origins. Reston, VA: ASCE.

225

Benjamin Wright

226

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

ASCE Committee on History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering. 1972. A biographical dictionary of American civil engineers. Reston, VA: ASCE. ASCE Committee on History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering. 1984. Guide to history and heritage programs. Reston, VA: ASCE. Andrist, R. 1964. The Erie canal. New York: American Heritage. Annals and Recollections. 1992. Peter Colt, 1744–1824. Rome, NY: Rome Historical Society. Armroyd, G. 1830. The whole internal navigation of the United States. New York: Lenox Hill. Asbury, H. 1928. The gangs of New York. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Barnes, J. 1974. Bridging the lower falls. Rochester, NY: Rochester Public Library. Bateman, C. 1951. The Baltimore and Ohio: The story of the railroad that grew up with the United States. Baltimore: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Printing Plant. Bayliff, W. 1959. The Maryland–Pennsylvania and Maryland–Delaware boundaries. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Board of Natural Resources. Beckett, D. 1987. Thomas Telford. London: David & Charles. Bedini, S. 1964. Early American scientific instruments and their makers. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Museum of History and Technology. Bernard, S. 1828. Quotation in newspaper article. The Savannah Georgian, May 30, 1828. Bernstein, P. 2005. Wedding of the waters: The Erie canal, and the making of a great nation. New York: Norton. Berry, D. 2010. A history of the Chesapeake & Delaware canal. Charleston, SC: History Press. Bethell, L., ed. 1993. Cuba: A short history. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Blake, N. 1956. Water for the cities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Boatner, M. 1994. Encyclopedia of the American revolution. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Booth, M. 1966. “Roebling’s sixth bridge, ‘Neversink’.” J. Rutgers Univ. Lib. 30 (1), (13–20). Botkin, B., and A. Harlow. 1989. A treasury of railroad folklore. New York: Bonanza Books. Brooklyn Historical Society. 1999. Guide to the Pierrepont papers. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Historical Society. 1761–1918. Burrows, E., and M. Wallace. 1999. Gotham, a history of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. Burstein, A. 2003. The passions of Andrew Jackson. New York: Knopf. Burton, A. 1972. The canal builders. London: Eyre Methuen.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Cable, B. 1993. A cloud of witnesses: A history of the first Presbyterian Church of Rome, New York. Rome, NY: Canterbury Press. Cajori, F. 1890. The teaching and history of mathematics in the United States. Washington, DC: Commissioner of Education, US Dept. of the Interior. Calhoun, D. 1960. The American civil engineer: Origins and conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carter, C. 1909. When railroads were new. New York: Henry Holt. Carter, E. 1976. Benjamin Henry Latrobe and public works: Professionalism, private interest, and public policy in the age of Jefferson. Washington, DC: Public Works Historical Society. Cheever, G. B. 1891. “Deacon Giles’s distillery.” In A library of American literature, an anthology in eleven volumes. Edited by E. C. Stedman and E. M. Hutchinson. New York: Charles L. Webster & Company. Child, H. 1890. Geographical gazetteer of Jefferson County 1865–1890. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Journal Company. Churchill, J., ed. 1895. “History of Mexico, New York.” In Landmarks of Oswego County. Syracuse, NY: D. Mason. Civil Engineering: History, Heritage, and The Humanities. 1970. Brochure of program activities, Conference meeting no. 103. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Clark, A. 2005. Cipher / Code of dishonor: Aron Burr, an American enigma. Bloomington, IN: Author House. Clayton, R., R. Sisson, and C. Zacher. 2006. The American midwest: An interpretive encyclopedia. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. DeLorme. 2007. New York atlas and gazetteer. Yarmouth, ME: DeLorme. Dente, M. 2012. Paterson Great Falls, From local landmark to national historical park. Charleston, SC: History Press. Dill, D. 1990. “The life of Alexander Macomb.” Watertown Daily Times, September 9, 16, and 23, 1990. Dilts, J. 1993. The great road: The building of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dupuy, E. 1958. Sylvanus Thayer. West Point, NY: Association of Graduates, US Military Academy. Editor. 1786. “Newspaper notice: Lots for sale along the Mohawk River.” Weekly Monitor, January 24, 1786. Editor. 1788. “Newspaper notice: Declaration of bankruptcy by Ebenezer Wright to the general assembly.” Collier’s Weekly Monitor, April 28, 1788. Editor. 1958. “Man on an iron road.” In Ties. Magazine of the Southern Railway Historical Association. Editor. 2003. “Old Croton aqueduct and dam.” Civil Engineering News, April, 2003. Ellsworth, R. C. 1940. “Early settlers forced to conquer wilderness.” Accessed September 1, 2020. http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~twigs2000/ genealogy/earlyroads.html.

Benjamin Wright

228

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Feller, D. 1995. The Jacksonian promise: America 1815–1840. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ferguson, E. 1965. Early engineering reminiscences (1815–1840) of George Escol Sellers. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Museum of History and Technology. Finch, J. 1948. A brief history of industrial development in Connecticut. New York: Columbia University Press. Finch, J. 1951. Engineering and western civilization. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001511631 Finch, J. 1952. “A hundred years of American civil engineering, 1852–1952.” ASCE Centennial Trans. 2576: 28–96. Finch, J. 1929. “Horatio Allen.” In Early Columbia engineers. New York: Columbia University Press. Finch, J. 1960. The story of engineering. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books. Finch, R. 1925. The story of the New York State canals. Albany, NY: Office of the State Engineer and Surveyor. Fischer, D. 2004. Washington’s crossing. New York: Oxford University Press. FitzSimons, N. 1970. “Benchmarks in Civil Engineering: Gallatin’s report, A transportation plan for the United States.” Civil Eng., April 76–77. FitzSimons, N. 1971. The reminiscences of John B. Jervis. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. FitzSimons, N. 1973. “Civil engineering history: An appraisal.” Eng. Issues 99 (3): 327–329. FitzSimons, N. 1986. Engineer as historian, A series of historical columns in Civil Engineering Magazine, 1965–1973. Kensington, MD: Self-published. Francis, W. L. 1966. “Carrington’s ditch.” Yankee Magazine, October, 94–96, 164–165. Frascella, T. n.d. “Peter Cooper (1791-1883), founder Cooper-Hewitt Trenton Iron Works.” Accessed August 9, 2019. www.sanfelesesocietynj.org/ history articles/Cooper-Hewitt_Trenton_Iron_Works.htm. Fredrich, A. 1989. Sons of Martha: Civil engineering readings in modern literature. Reston, VA: ASCE. Fries, R. 1975. “European vs. American engineering: Pierre Charles L’Enfant and the waterpower system of Paterson, NJ.” Northeast H. Archaeol. 4 (1): 9. Frusciano, T. 1952. “From Queen’s College to Rutgers College.” J. Rutgers Univ. Lib. 68 (1) 19–28. Gibson, L. 2000. Cabel’s canal: The story of the James River and Kanawha. Richmond, VA: Commodore Press. Gould, A. 1974. “History of the Blackstone canal, 1828–1848.” Am. Canals 9 (May): 3–4. Green, A. 2015. “The Yale chalkboard rebellion of 1830.” Accessed December 5, 2018. http://mentalfloss.com/article/68749/yale-chalkboard-rebellion1830.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Greenburg, K. 2017. The confessions of Nat Turner. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. Griggs, F. 2001. “1852–2002: 150 Years of civil engineering in the United States of America.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 127 (4): 148–159. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/40594%28265%293. Guignino, G. 2005. The Farmington canal 1822–1847: An attempt at internal improvement. Chapter 4, Curricula Unit 81. New Haven, CT: Yale–New Haven Teachers Institute. Hahn, T. F., and J. R. Prentice. 1976. George Washington’s canal at Great Falls, Virginia. Shepherdstown, WV: American Canal and Transportation Center. Harlow, A. 1947. “Enter the leading man.” In The road of the century, 113–139. New York: Creative Age Press. Harte, C. R. 1933. “Some engineering features of the Old Northampton Canal.” In Proc., Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers 49th Annual Meeting. Deep River, Connecticut. Harte, C. R. 1938. “Connecticut canals.” In Proc., Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers 54th Annual Meeting. Deep River, Connecticut. Hartnagel, C., and S. Bishop. 1922. The mastodons, mammoths, and other Pleistocene mammals of New York State. Albany, NY: University of the State of New York. Hepburn, B. 1914. Artificial waterways of the world. New York: Macmillan. Hinman, R. 1842. A historical collection from official records, files, etc. of the part sustained by Connecticut during the war of revolution. Hartford, CT: E. Gleason. Holbrook, S. 1947. The story of American railroads. New York: Crown. Holland, R. 1927. Historic railroads. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Holloway, M. 2013. The measure of Manhattan: The tumultuous career and surprising legacy of John Randel, Jr. New York: Norton. Homberger, E. 2005. The historical atlas of New York City: A visual celebration of 400 years of New York City’s history. New York: Henry Holt. Hosack, D. 1829a. “Claims of Jesse Hawley.” In Memoir of De Witt Clinton: With an appendix, appendix note T. New York: J. Seymour. Hosack, D. 1829b. “Claims of Joshua Forman.” In Memoir of De Witt Clinton: With an appendix, appendix note U. New York: J. Seymour. Hosack, D. 1829c. “Services of Benjamin Wright and Canvass White, correspondence from Wright dated December 31, 1828.” In Memoir of De Witt Clinton: With an appendix, appendix note JJ. New York: J. Seymour. Hough, F. 1854. A history of Jefferson County in the state of New York. Berwyn Heights, MD: Heritage Books. Howe, D. 2007. What hath God wrought: The transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press.

Benjamin Wright

230

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Hungerford, E. 1946. Men of Erie: A story of human effort. New York: Random House. Hunter, R. 2005. Power to the city: The Trenton waterpower. Trenton, NJ: City of Trenton and New Jersey Dept. of Transportation. Hunter, R., and E. Dooley. 1989. Claudius Crozet: French engineer in America, 1790–1864. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. IWR (US Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources and US Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center). 1979. Vol. 1 of History of the commercial waterways and ports of the United States. Washington, DC: Dept. of Defense, US Government Printing Office. Jackson, A. 2002. “Teaching math in America: An exhibit at the Smithsonian.” Not. Am. Math. Soc. 49 (9): 1082–1083. Jacobs, D., and A. Neville. 1968. Bridges, canals, and tunnels. New York: American Heritage Publishing. James Kip Finch Collection. 1920. Memo from the office of the engineer of structures regarding the Starrucca viaduct. New York: Erie Railroad Company. James Kip Finch Collection. n.d.-a. Misc. notes regarding Canvass White and hydraulic cement. New York: In the Possession of the Author. James Kip Finch Collection. n.d.-b. Misc. notes regarding the Camden and Amboy Railroad and the Jersey canals. New York: In the Possession of the Author. James Kip Finch Collection. n.d-c. Misc. notes regarding the Pennsylvania canal and the Allegheny Portage railroad. New York: In the Possession of the Author. Jensen, R. 2019. “Watery waymaking.” Am. Hist. 54 (5): 52–61. Jervis, J. 1876. “A memoir of American engineering.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 6 (1): 39–67. John A. Roebling’s Sons Company. 1943. Suspension bridges: A century of progress. Trenton, NJ: John A. Roebling’s Sons. John Bloomfield Jervis Collection. n.d. Correspondence between Benjamin Wright and John Jervis. Rome, NY: Jervis Library. John Hartwell Cocke Collection. n.d. Correspondence from Benjamin Wright. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Library. Jones, B. 2008. Washington Irving, An American original. New York: Arcade. Kapsch, R. 2004. Canals. New York: Norton. Kapsch, R. 2007. The Potomac Canal, George Washington, and the waterway west. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press. Kapsch, R. 2010. “Historic canals of Maryland and Virginia, USA.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 163 (4): 205–218. Kapsch, R., and E. Kapsch. 2005. Monocacy aqueduct on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Poolesville, MD: Medley Press. Kelley, B. 1974. Yale: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Kemp, E. L. 1972. “Charles Ellet’s contribution to the development of suspension bridges.” In Proc., ASCE Annual and National Environmental Engineering Meeting. Houston. Kemp, E. L. 2000. The great Kanawha navigation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Kemp, E. L., and B. B. Fluty. 2006. The Wheeling suspension bridge: A pictorial history. Charleston, SC: Pictorial Histories Publishing. Kirby, R. S. 1930. “Some early American civil engineers and surveyors.” In Proc, Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, 46th Annual Meeting. Deep River, Connecticut. Koeppel, G. 2000. Water for Gotham, A history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1807. Correspondence between George Huntington and Albert Gallatin. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1816–1818. Misc. notes and correspondence with Hamilton College, Office of the Registrar. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1835. Correspondence between Benjamin Wright and Jesse Hawley. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1839. “Correspondence between Edward Miller (committee secretary) and Committee Members (constitutional committee).” In Circular no. 2, informing the committee of the rejection of the constitution. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1849. Correspondence between Lot Clark and John Roebling. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1851. Correspondence between Asher Wright and William Wright. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1854. Correspondence between George A. Smith and William Wright. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1869–1870. Correspondence between Frances Markoe and H.G. Somerby. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1968. Correspondence between Robert Vogel (The Smithsonian Institute) and David Billington (Princeton University School of Engineering). In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1969a. Correspondence between Edward White (Spencer, White, & Prentis) and Evelyn Luquer (Trustee of New York Marble Cemetery). In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1969b. Correspondence between Neal FitzSimons and David Billington (Princeton University School of Engineering). In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1970. Correspondence between Herbert Hands (ASCE Public Information Office) and Robert Vogel (Smithsonian Institution). In the Possession of the Author.

Benjamin Wright

232

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1972a. Correspondence between Herbert Hands (ASCE Public Information Office) and Victor Scottron (University of Connecticut School of Engineering). In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1972b. Correspondence with the Manuscripts and Archives Division of Yale University. In the Possession of the Author. L. Neal FitzSimons Collection. 1996. Correspondence with Steve Wright. In the Possession of the Author. Lankton, L. 1977. The ‘practicable’ engineer: John B. Jervis and the Old Croton aqueduct. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society. Larkin, D. 1990. John B. Jervis: An American engineering pioneer. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Lawson, D. 1997. Nathan Roberts, Erie canal engineer. Utica, NY: North Country Books. Lee, J. 1974. The Morris canal: A photographic history. York, PA. Canal Press. Leonard, L., ed. 1945. “Financial records of activity between Joseph Webb and Ebenezer Wright.” In Vol. VI of Records of the state of Connecticut. Hartford, CT: Lockwood & Brainard. Lewis, G. 1968. Charles Ellet, Jr.: The engineer as individualist, 1810–1862. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Linsley, S. 2014. “Saving the Jews: Religious toleration and the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews.” J. Early Republic 34 (4): 625–651. https://doi.org/10.1353/jer.2014.0075. Lockwood, J., E. Bagg, W. Carson, H. Riley, E. Boltwood, and W. Clark. 1926. Western Massachusetts, 1636–1925: A history in four volumes. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing. Lord, P. 2001. “The covered locks of Wood Creek.” J. Soc. Ind. Archeology. 27 (1): 5–15. Lucas, J. 2001. Families and pilgrims: Edward Doty. Boston: Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants. Ludwig, E. 1979. The Chesapeake and Delaware canal: Gateway to paradise. Elkton, MD: Cecil County Bicentennial Committee. Manning, J. 1880. “Joshua Butler Wright.” In Biographical memoranda respecting all who ever were members of the class of 1832. New Haven, CT: Yale College. Mathews, C. 1908. Andrew Ellicott: His life and letters. New York: Grafton Press. McCullough, D. 1972. The great bridge. New York: Simon and Schuster. McCullough, D. 2005. 1776. New York: Simon and Schuster. Meacham, J. 2008. American lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York: Random House. Miller, P. 1908. The story of Robert Fulton. New York: Knickerbocker Press. Millington, J. 1839. Elements of civil engineering. Philadelphia: J. Dobson. Moore, V. 1969. Scottsville on the James. Charlottesville, VA: Jarman Press.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Mordell, D. 1966. Sketch history of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company. The Horse Ocean, a University College Course. Syracuse, NY: Erie Canal Museum. Mott, E. 1901. Between the ocean and the lakes: The story of Erie. New York: John S. Collins. New Georgia Encyclopedia. n.d. “Transportation.” Accessed 2007. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/canals. Accessed September 1, 2020. Niles, T. 1970. Remarks by Thomas Niles, president of ASCE. Ceremony in honor of Benjamin Wright. Reston, VA: ASCE. Organizational Committee. 1917. “David S. Bates, builder of locks.” In Memorial of centennial celebration of the turning of the first shovelful of earth in the construction of the Erie canal. Rome, NY: Rome Chamber of Congress. Osborn, H. 1923. Mastodons of the Hudson Highlands. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Passaic County Historical Society Genealogy Club. 2000. The society for establishing useful manufactures (S.U.M.). Patterson, NJ: Patterson Museum. Penfold, A. 1980. Thomas Telford: Engineer. London: Thomas Telford. Philbrick, N. 2006. Mayflower: A story of courage, community, and war. New York: Penguin. Pierson, J. 1836. “Machine for cutting and heading wire for manufacturing wood screws and rivets.” New York Patent Letters, Patent No. 86. Poe, E. A. 1846. “George B. Cheever: The literati of New York City, No. II.” In Godey’s lady’s book. Baltimore: E. A. Poe Society of Baltimore. Pressey, P. 1956. “Old New England canals.” Soc. Preserv. N. Engl. Antiquities 46 (164): 96–99. Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Superior Court and Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Delaware. 1837. “Randel vs. Wright.” In Delaware general assembly. Dover, DE: A. M. Schee. Richeson, A. 1966. English land measuring to 1800: Instruments and practices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Robortella, J. 2004. Steps west: The field notes of Col. Hugh Maxwell’s preemption line survey in the Phelps and Gorham purchase. Geneva: New York Historical Society. Rogers, J. 2015. “The historic formation of civil engineering societies in the U.K., the U.S., and Canada.” In Proc., Presented at the ASCE Convention 2015. New York. Rolt, L. 1960. The railway revolution: George, and Robert Stephenson. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Rome Historical Society. 1967. The Erie canal and its early engineers. Rome: Rome Historical Society. Rubin, M. 2003. The Chesapeake and Ohio canal. Charleston, SC: Arcadia.

Benjamin Wright

234

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Sanderlin, W. 1946. The great national project: A history of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Sayenga, D. 1983. Ellet and Roebling. York, PA: American Canal and Transportation Center. Scribner’s Monthly. 1877. “Croton water.” Scribner’s Monthly, May–October 161–176, 1877. Seymour, G. 1941. Documentary life of Nathan Hale, comprising all available official and private documents bearing on the life of the patriot. New Haven, CT: Self-published. Shank, W. 1965. The amazing Pennsylvania canals. York, PA: Historical Society of York County. Shank, W. 1982. Towpaths to tugboats: A history of American canal engineering. York, PA: American Canal and Transportation Center. Shank, W. 1991. The canals of New York State. York, PA: American Canal and Transportation Center. Shaw, R. 1990a. Canals for a nation: The canal era in the United States, 1790–1860. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Shaw, R. 1990b. Erie water west: A history of the Erie Canal, 1792–1854. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Sherk, H. H. 2002. “David Hosack, MD, and Rutgers: The politics of medical education in the nineteenth century.” NJ Med. 19 (2002): 17–22. Simms, F. 1837. A treatise on the principles and practice of levelling. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas. Skempton, A. 1981. John Smeaton, FRS. London: Thomas Telford. Smiles, S. 1904. Lives of the engineers, George, and Robert Stephenson. London: John Murray Albemarle Street. Spanagel, D. 2014. DeWitt Clinton and Amos Eaton: Geology and power in early New York. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stapleton, D. 1975. “Moncure Robinson: Railroad engineer, 1828–1840.” In Regional conference in economic history, 33–60. Baltimore: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation. State Engineer and Surveyor of the State of New York. 1898. Annual report, fiscal year ending September 30, 1897. Albany, NY: Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford. Stevens, J. 1928. “The future of the engineer.” In Aldred lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stiles, T. 2009. The first tycoon: The epic life of Cornelius Vanderbilt. New York: Vintage. Stuart, C. 1871. Lives and works of civil and military engineers of America. New York: Van Nostrand. Surname Genealogy Archive. 2008. “Catalog of death records including the death of Henry Wright on 25 Oct 1826.” Accessed January 18, 2012. http://surnamearchive.com/records058.htm.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Swank, J. 1881. Statistics of the iron and steel production of the United States. Washington, DC: Dept. of the Interior, Tenth Census of the United States. Swanson, L. 1964. Canals of Mid-America. Moline, IL: Author. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. n.d. Correspondence: Letters between the various engineers, the canal president, and the canal board of directors. Washington, DC: National Archives of the United States. The Delaware and Hudson Company. 1925. A century of progress: The Delaware and Hudson company, 1823–1923. Albany, NY: J.B. Lyon. The Occident and American Jewish Advocate and Leeser, I., ed. 1843. “The American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews, and its origin, the Jewish chronicle.” Accessed August 9, 2017. http://www.jewishhistory.com/occident/volume1/april1843/meliorate.html. Thomas, E. 1947. ASCE: Its rise and growth. Indiana Section of ASCE. Reston, VA: ASCE. University of Michigan Special Collection. n.d. “Correspondence of Charles Ellet, Jr. re: the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 1828–1830.” In Transportation history collection. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Unrau, H., and K. Gray. 2007. Historic resource study: Chesapeake and Ohio canal. Hagerstown, MD: US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. USGS. 1976. Hydrology and environmental aspects of the Erie Canal (1817– 1899), Water supply paper 2038. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Van Zandt, F. 1976. Boundaries of the United States and the several states. Washington, DC: USGS. Vogel, R. 1971. Roebling’s Delaware and Hudson canal aqueducts. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Wager, D. 1878. “Pioneers of Rome.” In Rome, NY: Rome Daily Sentinal. Wager, D. 1896. “The town of Rome.” In In Our county and its people. Boston: Boston History Company. Waite, D. 1972. History of a nineteenth century urban complex on the site of Fort Stanwix. Albany, NY: New York State Historic Trust. Wardell, P. 2012. “Pierson.” In Early Bergen County families. Englewood, NJ: Author. Warren, J. 1852. The Mastodon giganteus of North America. Boston: John Wilson and Son. Watson, G. 1989. The Smeatonians: The society of civil engineers. London: Thomas Telford. Watson, H. 2006. Liberty and power: The politics of Jacksonian America. New York: Hill and Wang. Weingardt, R. 2005. Engineering legends: Great American engineers. Reston, VA: ASCE. Welch, A. 1882. “Address before the society in Washington.” ASCE Trans. XI: 167.

Benjamin Wright

236

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

White, D. 1998. Exploring 200 Years of Oneida county history. Utica, NY: Oneida County Historical Society. Whitford, N. 1905a. “Building the Erie.” In History of the canal system of the state of New York, Section II. Albany, NY: Dept. of the State Engineer and Surveyor. Whitford, N 1905b. “The canals as a school of engineering.” In History of the canal system of the state of New York, Section XXIV. Albany, NY: Dept. of the State Engineer and Surveyor. Whitford, N 1905c. “The Delaware and Hudson canal.” In History of the canal system of the state of New York, Section XX. Albany, NY: Dept. of the State Engineer and Surveyor. Whittemore, H. 1909. “Misc. notes regarding the train ride by Helen and Henry Pierson.” In Fulfilment of three remarkable prophecies in the history of the great Empire State, 63–64. New York: Self published. Widmer, T. 2005. Martin van Buren. New York: Henry Holt. Willison, G. 1945. Saints and strangers. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock. Winant, E. 1995. “Copious water: The hydraulic design of the New York’s Croton aqueduct.” In Field notes, 1–8. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology. Wisely, W. 1970. “Remarks by William Wisely, executive director of ASCE.” In Ceremony in honor of Benjamin Wright. Reston, VA: ASCE. Wisely, W. 1974. The American civil engineer, 1852–1974, The history, traditions, and development of ASCE. Reston, VA: ASCE. Witcher, T. 2018. “Creating engineers: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.” Civil Eng. 88 (6): 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1061/ciegag.0001299. Wolfert, I. 1955. “The seven wonders of American engineering.” Reader’s Digest, November, 123–130, 1955. Woodruff, R. 1945. Erie Railroad: Its beginnings! 1851. New York: Newcomen Society of England. Wright, B. 1805. Correspondence with his brother, William Wright, 1805. Albany, NY: John Hughes Collection. Wright, B. 1821. “Lime for water cement.” Am. J. Sci. Arts 3: 230–232. Wright, B. 1822a. Canal by the Housatonic Valley. Engineering study report to the canal committee. New Haven, CT: A. H. Maltby. Wright, B. 1822b. Report of the proposed. Letter report to the canal committee. Sheffield, CT. Wright, B. 1822. The Farmington canal. Series of engineering study reports to the canal committee during the month of March. Farmington, CT: Letter Reports Both in Print and Handwritten. Wright, B. 1828. “Notice from the Savannah Georgian with remarks by the engineer.” Southern Patriot. 4 (July 5): 2.

Benjamin Wright

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Wright, B. 1835. Report of the proposed route for a railroad between the city of New York and Lake Erie. Engineering and feasibility study. New York: Appointment by the Governor of New York. Wright, B., and J. Sullivan. 1824. Report of the proposed canal, from the Hudson to the head waters of the Lackawaxen river. Feasibility report and engineering study. Philadelphia, PA: John Young. Wright, B. H. 1870. Origins of the Erie canal: Services of Benjamin Wright. Rome, NY: Sanford and Carr. wright-brothers.org. n.d. “Wright genealogy and ancestry.” Accessed April 3, 2019. http://www.wrightbrothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/ Wright_Family/Wright_Genealogy/Wright_Genealogy.htm. Wyld, L. 1967. 40 x 28 x 4: The Erie canal–150 years. Rome, NY: Oneida County Erie Canal Commemoration Commission. Yale University Library. 1907. Biographical sketches of the graduates of Yale College. New Haven, CT: Henry Holt. Zanetti, O., and A. Garcia. 1987. Sugar and railroads: A Cuban history, 1837–1959. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Benjamin Wright

Index

Abeel, Elizabeth, 200 Abeel, Joanna, 186, 200 Adams, Charles, 204 Adams, John Quincy, 68n, 81–83, 137, 155, 204 Adolf Bleichert & Company, 130 Albany and Schenectady Railroad, 143 Albany Regency, 202 Allegheny Portage Railroad, 105, 107n Allen, Horatio, 100, 101f, 103, 105, 122, 146–147, 155, 186, 189 Allen, Stephen, 113, 118, 120, 123f, 201 Allen Street Presbyterian Church, 203 Allyn, Hannah, 13, 14 Allyn, Joseph, 13 America, The, 104, 107n American Colonization Society, 206, 211n American Gazetteer, 111 American Society for Ameliorating the Condition of the Jews, The, 138, 141n American track system, 155

André, John, 17 Anglican Church, 15 “Anthracite Canals,” 96, 106n Apollo 13, 1 Aquia sandstone, 84, 92n Army Corps of Engineers, 91n, 197n Arnold, Benedict, 17, 36 Articles of Confederation, 39n ASCE, 124n, 187; archives, 8; Board of Direction, 192–193; Civil Engineering History and Heritage; Award, 10n, 190; Committee on the History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering (CHHACE), 190, 194–195 , 197n; Constitution, 189; creation of, 6, 8, 187, 188, 189; National Environmental Engineering meeting, 195; National Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks, 29, 39n, 122, 131, 179, 190; National meeting, 194; October 17, 1970, 1–2; organizational constitution, 6; organizational meeting, 5–6, 189; Public Information Services, 191;

239

Benjamin Wright

240

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Research Council Subcommittee on Damaged and Failed Structures, 194; Seven Wonders of American Engineering, 189–190; 1882, 2; 1899 address, 57 Austrian Succession, 9n Baldwin, Loammi, Jr., 67n, 165, 181n Baldwin, Loammi Sr., 19, 24n, 46, 67n, 106n Baltimore and Ohio (B & O) Railroad, The, 86–87, 93n, 146, 153, 160n, 174, 181n, 196n Barnum’s Hotel, 187 Bates, David Stanhope, 61; Erie Canal, work on, 57, 58, 60 Battle of Harlem Heights, 17–18, 24n Battle of Waterloo, 166 Bayard, Stephen, 67n Beach, Ephraim, 96 Beggar’s Opera (Gay), 34 Bernard, Simon, 6, 10n, 76, 80, 166–167 Black Death, 115 Blackstone Canal, 57, 75, 87–88, 91n Blue Ridge Tunnel, 179, 186 Bollman, Wendell, 195 Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge, 190 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 166 Boston and Providence Railroads, 196n Bouck, William, 124n Boudinot, Elias, 129, 139n bricks, manufacture of, 46–47 British banks, 156 Broadhead, Charles, 37, 53, 56, 68n, 83 Bronx River watershed, 112–113, 116, 125n Brook Hall, 14

Brown, George, 86 Browne, Joseph, 111–112, 115, 123n Buchannan, James, 157 Bunker Hill, 16 Bureau of Topographical Engineers, 116, 124n Burnet, William, 66n Burr, Aaron, 24n, 67n, 111–112, 123n, 136, 140n Cabell, Joseph Carrington, 167–172, 175, 177–179, 181n, 183n, 186, 205 Calhoun, John C., 68n, 167, 181n Camden and Amboy Railroad, 9n, 145 Campbell, William, 188 Canal Bill of 1817, 53 canal boats, 71, 105, 109 Canal Era, 4 Canal Ring, 202 Canandaigua state prison, 49–50 Canton Iron Works, 144 Carey, Matthew, 75, 79, 91n, 103 Central New York Military Tract, 31–32, 45 Chambly Canal, 87 Charleston-Hamburg Railroad, 146–147 Charlottesville Convention, 169 Cheever, George, 203, 210n Chenango Canal, 105, 118, 119, 201, 202 Chesapeake & Delaware (C&D) Canal, 9n, 10n, 76–87, 89, 91n, 100, 103, 105, 133, 171, 202–203, 204; alignment, 78; aqueducts, 84; Board of Engineers, 6, 76, 83; budget, 78–79, 83–85; completion, 80; construction, 78–79; excavation, 79; groundbreaking ceremony, 83; health issues of workers

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

during, 79–80; locks, 80; planning convention, 82, 92n; route, 83–85, 133; termini, 83, 85 Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Company, 75, 83 Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Canal, 10n, 58, 81–82, 92n, 93n, 129, 150, 153, 160n, 164, 165, 179, 188; Board of Directors, 130 Chester, John, 24n Chicago Sewer Works, 189 cholera, 115, 201 Church, Philip, 146, 148, 160n, Church of Christ, 22 Church of England, 11 civil engineer, origin of term, 5 Civil War, 8, 13, 157, 179–180, 189, 196n, 207 Clark, Lot, 179, 183n Clarke, Faith, 13 Clay, Henry, 88, 145 Clinton, DeWitt, 52, 53, 62, 64, 66n, 67n, 81, 87, 97, 109, 113, 135–136, 154, 169, 208 Clinton, DeWitt Jr., 81, 116–117, 124n coal, 95, 106n, 127; American, 95–96; anthracite, 95–96; bituminous, 95; British, 96; Native Americans and, 96–97 Cocke, John Hartwell, 65, 82, 90, 167, 169, 170–172, 177, 181n, 205–207; Benjamin Wright’s letters to, 6, 174–175, 186, 201, 203 Cocke, John Jr., 171, 202 Colden, Cadwallader, 44, 64, 66n College of New Jersey, 111, 148 College of Physicians and Surgeons, 136 Colles, Christopher, 44, 64, 66n–67n, 111–112 colonization, 206–207

241

Colorado River Aqueduct, 189 Colorado/Rocky Mountain Expedition, 181n Colt, Peter, 129, 139n Columbia University, 7, 10n, 108n, 127n, 138n, 141n, 183n, 190 Commissioners Plan of 1811, 77, 91n Committee of Correspondence for Commonwealth, 68n Commonplace Book of American Poetry, The, 203 Confederate Army, 196n Congregational Church, 15, 21 Conic Sections Rebellion, 132, 140n Connecticut Journal, The, 27 Constable, William, 36 Constitutional Convention, 39n Continental Army, 16, 40n, 128 Continental Congress, 39n, 44, 139n Cooper, John Sherman, 198n Cooper, Peter, 130, 140n, 144 Cooper-Hewitt Iron Works, 130, 140n Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, 140n Cope, Thomas P., 71 Corning, Erastus, 145, 159n Corps of Engineers, 10n cotton, 128 cotton gin, 128 Craven, Alfred, 122, 125n, 189 Croton Aqueduct, 5, 8, 92n, 117–120, 123, 186, 189, 201–202; cost analysis, 116–117; Harlem River, 122; High Bridge, 122, 124n; Murray Hill, 122; route, 121f Croton Watershed, 116–118, 124n Crozet, Claudius, 81, 92n, 140n, 179, 181n, 186–187, 189, 203; James River and Kanawha

Benjamin Wright

242

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Canal, work on, 166–168, 171–174 Cruger, Alfred, 82, 92n, 158 Cuba, 155; annexation, idea of, 156–157, 161n; construction difficulties, 158; economy, 156–157; railroad, 155–156, 158; slavery, 157–158; sugar, 155, 156 Dames, Trent, 190, 197n Dames and Moore, 190, 197n De Chastellux, Marquis, 66n de Nemours, E.I. Dupont, 54, 68n Deacon Giles Distillery (Cheever), 203 Deane, Silas, 21, 24n Declaration of Independence, 29, 39n, 180n Delaware, The, 104 Delaware and Hudson (D&H) Canal and Railroad, 4, 81, 96–105, 106n, 118, 120, 124n, 125n, 146, 153, 155, 171, 174, 200; alignment, 97, 138; aqueducts, 100, 179; budget, 97–98; construction, 100–104; Delaware river crossing, 131; feasibility study, 97, 99–100; gravity railroads, 107n; inclined planes, 100; Lackawaxen River crossing, 131; Neversink River crossing, 131; Roundout River crossing, 131; route, 98f; termini, 99–100 Delaware and Hudson Company, 95, 107n Delaware and Raritan (D&R) Canal, 9n, 60, 77, 87, 96, 106n, 114, 129–130 Delaware Breakwater, 77 Democratic National Convention, 120, 202

DeWitt, Simon, 31, 40n, 51, 68n District of Columbia, 31 Dixon, Jeremiah, 28, 39n Doolittle, Isaac Jr., 27 Doty, Edward, 12–13, 23n Doty, Mary, 13 Douglass, David Bates, 117–120, 124n, 167, 201 Douglass, Irene, 117 Drew, Daniel, 161 Dutch Reformed Church, 15 East River Bridge, 37, 197n Eaton, Amos, 134–136, 140n, 200, 210n École des Ponts, 143 École Polytechnic, 166 Eddystone Lighthouse, 5, 9n Effie Afton, 122, 125n Elgin Botanic Garden, 140n Elizabeth, 206–207 Elizabeth I, 11 Ellery, William, 24n Ellet, Charles Jr., 83, 92n, 105, 143, 150–151, 176–179, 182n, 183n, 186, 189 Ellet, Ellie, 189 Ellicott, Andrew, 31, 39n–40n, 68n, 117 Ellicott, Joseph, 51–52, 62, 68n Empire State Building, 189 English Channel, 9n Erie Canal, 2, 19, 30, 43, 47–48, 65–66, 77–83, 87, 91n, 96, 105, 113, 116, 135–138, 149, 164, 165, 169, 194; alignment, 135, 136, 200; aqueducts, 55, 57–58; Board of Canal Commissioners, 133–134, 139n; budget, 55, 56, 63; central division, 53; completion of, 3f, 5–6, 64, 67n, 81, 100, 133, 136, 167; construction, 53–63, 72, 75, 110; eastern division, 53, 60;

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

enlargement, 119, 202–203; excavation of, 53–55, 63; groundbreaking ceremony, 53, 60; locks, 58, 59f, 133; “marrying” water of Lake Erie with Atlantic Ocean, 64, 109; middle division, 56, 71–72, 91n, 165, 206; origin of idea for, 43, 50–51, 64, 66n; profile of, 54f; termini, 51–52, 61–63, 72, 91n, 133–134; western division, 53 Erie Railroad, 154, 160n, 176, 178, 188; Board of Directors, 161n Erie School of Engineering, 57 Essays on the Laws of Trade (Ellet), 178 “European” method of excavation, 53–54 Fairmont Water Works, 32, 75, 120 Farmington Canal, 74–75, 90n, 204 Farnum, Henry, 125n Finch, James Kip, 10n, 190, 197n; on Benjamin Wright, 7–8 First Congregational Congress, 21 First Religious Society of Rome, New York, The, 35 Fisk, C. B., 187–188, 196n Fisk, Jim, 154 FitzGerald, Desmond, 57, 69n FitzSimons, Neal, v, 194, 196 flour, 49 Forman, Joshua, 50–51, 64, 68n Fort Erie, 58 Fort Monroe, 10n Fort Stanwix, 22, 31, 35, 43, 47, 60, 66n Fort Sumter, 180 Foster, Rastrick, and Company, 104 Franklin, Benjamin, 21, 24n, 44 Franklin Institute, 188 French and Indian War, 20, 66n Frey, Joseph, 141n Fulton, Robert, 40n, 48, 67n

243

fur trade, 36, 40n, 45, 49 furlong, history of term, 28 Gallatin, Albert, 48, 51, 67n “Gangs of New York, The,” 110 Gay, John, 34, 40n Geddes, James, 49, 61, 83; Erie Canal, work on, 51–53, 56–58, 67n, 83 Genesee Messenger, 49–50, 64, 68n Genesee River Aqueduct, 57–58 German Flats Canal, 47 Goethals, George Washington, 93n gold, 154 Goodrich, Carter, 69n “gore, the,” 31 Gorham, Nathaniel, 29–30, 39n Gould, Jay, 145, 154 Grand Coulee Dam, 189 Grande Armée de la Russie, 166 Great Northern Railway, 199 Greene, Nathanial, 24n Gregory, D. S., 56–57 Greenwich Observatory, 39n Griscom, John, 140n Gunter, Edmund, 28, 39n Gunter’s chain, 28 Hale, Nathan, 16–18, 24n Hale, Samuel, 24n Hall, Benjamin, 33–34 Hall, Charles Henry, 144 Hall, Eunice, 33, 34, 82 Hall of Fame for Great Americans, 194, 197n Hamburg Railway, 105 Hamilton, Alexander, 19, 22, 24n, 36, 66n, 67n, 111, 128–129, 136, 140n; federal money policies, 112 Hamilton College, 22, 65, 74, 89, 204, 210n Hampden Sydney College, 168 Hancock, John, 106n

Benjamin Wright

244

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Hands, Herbert, 191 Hardenberg, Abraham, 31, 45 Harrison, Benjamin, 180n Harrison, Randolph, 168, 181n Harrison, William Henry, 180n Harvard University, 181n, 197n, 198n Harvard Yard, 204 Hassler, Ferdinand, 166, 181n Hathaway, Gail, 190, 193, 197n Hawley, Jesse, 43, 49–51, 64, 67n–68n Henry VIII, 13 Henry Clay, 123n Hoffman, Josiah Ogden, 41n Holland Land Company, 30, 48, 51, 62, 68n Hone, Philip, 98, 107n, 118, 124n Hoosac Tunnel, 197n Hoover Dam, 189 Hopkins, Elizabeth, 12 Hopkins, Stephen, 12, 13, 23n “horse ocean sailors,” 71 Hosack, David, 47, 66n, 67n, 136–138, 140n, 141n, 208 Housatonic Valley project, 72–73, 91n House Committee for Roads and Canals, 82 Hubbard, Nehemiah, 128, 139n Hudgins, John Jefferson, 183n Hudson, The, 104 Hudson River Railroad, 145 Humphrey, Hubert, 198n Huntington, George, 35, 37–38, 45, 47, 48, 89, 129, 208 Huntington, Henrietta, 89 Huntington, Henry, 35 Hurd, David, 74–75, 91n Hutchinson, Holmes, 57, 75, 87, 91n, 93n Hydropower, 128–129

Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal, 87 Industrial Revolution, 2 Ingle, John, 130, 139n Institution of Civil Engineers, 185, 187 “internal improvements,” 4, 72, 165 Irondequoit Creek, 55 Iroquois, 29–30 Irving, Washington, 41n, 109, 168, 181n Jackson, Andrew, 6, 7, 68n, 82, 88, 144, 148 James I, 11 James River Company, 164–165, 167 James River and Kanawha Canal, 5, 158, 169–179, 204–205; accidents, 177, 205; budget, 173; dams, 173–174, 177; feasibility studies, 165, 173; feeder canals, 171; locks, 171, 173–174; retaining walls, 171; routes, 173, 175n James River and Kanawha Canal Company, 175 James River and Kanawha Company, 167 Jay, John, 133 Jefferson, Thomas, 48, 82, 111, 164, 168, 170 Jervis, Betsy, 202 Jervis, John, 5, 35, 60, 62f, 120, 123, 140n, 145, 155, 180n, 181n, 186–189, 202–203, 210; Chenango Canal, work on, 118–202; Delaware and Hudson Canal, work on, 98–105, 124n, 131, 143; Erie Canal, work on, 57–58, 98; Letters from Benjamin Wright, 6, 101–102 Jervis, Phoebe, 35, 210

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

Jervis, Timothy, 35, 118–120, 210n John A. Roebling’s Sons Company, 130 Journal of Commerce, 204, 210n Journal of the Franklin Institute, 59–60 Kemp, Emory, 195 Kelvedon, 13–14 Kings Head Tavern, 187 Knight, Daniel W., 11, 22, 202, 210n Knight, Jonathan, 86, 93n, 153, 160n, 210n Knox, Henry, 16, 19 Lake Champlain and Hudson River (LCC) Canal, 91n lamprey, 200–201, 210n Latrobe, Benjamin Henry, 32, 48, 67n, 75, 77, 91n Latrobe, Benjamin Jr., 187, 197n Laurie, James, 189, 197n Lee, Charles, 21 Leckie, Robert, 85, 92n Lehigh Canal, 188 Leister, Edward, 12, 13 L’Enfant, Pierre Charles, 128–129, 139n Leutze, Emanuel, 19, 24n Lexington Green, 16 Lichfield Weekly Monitor, 20 limestone strata, 59 Lincoln, Abraham, 122–123 Little Falls, 45–46 Liverpool and Manchester Railway, 103 Long, Stephen, 86, 92n–93n, 155, 166, 181n, 189 Long Island Railroad, 117 Lord, Eleazar, 147–149, 153, 160n, 204 Louisiana Purchase, 168

245

Macomb, Alexander, 36, 40n Macomb, William, 40n Macomb’s Purchase, 36, 41n, 48 Madison, Janes, 53, 71 Manifest Destiny, 2, 7, 27 Manhattan Company, 111–114, 136 Manhattan Insurance Company, 148, 160n, 204 Manning, John, 138, 141n Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, 153 Markoe, Francis, 13–14, 23n, 65, 157, 161n Markoe, Sarah, 89, 161n Marshall, John, 164, 180n Martineau, John, 83, 92n, 117, 124n Mason, Charles, 28, 39n Mason and Dixon Line, 29, 39n Massachusetts, 29–30 Maxwell, Hugh, 29, 30, 31, 39n Mayflower, 12, 23n Mayflower Compact, 12, 23n Maysville–Lexington Turnpike, 88 Maysville Road bill, 145 McAlpine, William, 119, 124n Medical College of New York, 136 Mercer, Charles Fenton, 82, 84, 86–87, 92n, 154, 165, 178, 206–207 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19, 24n Mexican American War, 76 Middlesex Canal, 19, 24n, 41n, 46, 67n, 106n, 165 Mill Yard Tract, 29 Milledoler, Philip, 137, 138, 141n Miller, Edward, 153, 160n, 188 Mills, John, 99 Minot’s Ledge lighthouse, 91n Mississippi River bridge, 125n Missouri Compromise, 157, 207 MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), 199

Benjamin Wright

246

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Mohawk and St. Lawrence Railroad, 158 Monroe, James, 53, 71, 82 Monroe Doctrine, 72 Moore, Thomas, 165, 168, 181n Moore, Virginia, 180, 183n Morris, Robert, 29–31, 39n, 160n Morris Canal, 83, 96, 100, 106n, 107n, 125n Morse, Samuel B., 210n Murray, James, 144 Museum of American History, 194 Nast, Thomas, 154 National Geographic, 194 National Institute for the Promotion of Science, 161n National Mechanics Bank of Baltimore, 86 National Road, 82–83, 88, 93n, 179 nationalism, 72 Nelson, Thomas, 89 New Jersey, Trenton, 129–131, 140n New Light Movement, 34, 40n New York, 4, 165; colony, 29; frontier, 3–4; Geneva, 30–31, 45, 49; limestone strata, 59; Manhattan Island, 77; Port of, 144; Rochester, 30; Rome, 11, 35, 37, 46–47, 133, 202; surveying activity, 30f, 31–32; Syracuse, 49; topography, 44; Troy, 133–134; Vera Cruz/ Mexico, 32–33; Watertown, 37 New York and Albany Railroad, 145 New York and Erie Railroad, 106, 149–154, 158, 204; alignment, 153–154; Board of Directors, 154; bridges, 152; budget, 150, 152–154; completion, 154; route, 150–151, 152f, 153; tracks, 152

New York and Harlem Railroad Company, 144–145 New York Central Railroad, 145–146, 154 New York City, 5, 64; benefits of Erie Canal to, 144, 165, 103–104; breweries, 110; Bronx River watershed, 112, 113, 116; Bryam Ponds, 116; City Hall, 113, 122; Collect Pond, 110–111; Common Council, 111; Council’s Board of Health, 116, 124n; Croton River watershed, 116–117, 122; fire of 1835, 118, 153; Fire and Water Committee, 111; Five Points, 110; government structure, 109–110; Harlem River, 122; health issues and epidemics, 112–113, 115, 123n, 124n, 201; Murray Hill, 122; paved streets, 110; population figures, 64, 110; Rye Ponds, 112–113; sanitation systems, 110, 115; Tea Water pump, 111; the “Tombs,” 110; Union Square, 122; Water Committee, 111, 116, 118; water supply, 5, 110–117, 201 New York City Temperance Society, 204 New York Customhouse, 159n New York Evening Post, 113–114 New York Legislature, 64 New York Marble Cemetery, 191–192 New York Morning Courier and Enquirer, 95, 106n New York State Museum, 200 New York University, 117 New York Water Works, 113–114, 136, 140n Niagara Escarpment, 58 Niagara Falls International Bridge Company, 183n

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

Niles, Thomas M., 1, 9n, 194 Nineteenth Connecticut Continental Infantry, 16, 24n; Knowlton’s Rangers, 17 Nineteenth Regiment of Glover’s Brigade, 24n Norwich University, 89 Novelty Works, 186 Oath of Allegiance, 17 Ogden, Thomas, 41n Ohio and Erie (O&E) Canal, 83 Oneida Iron and Glass Works, 139n Oneida Lake, improvements, 47–48 Order of the Cincinnati, 20 Oregon State College, 197n “Original Covenant of 1793, The,” 22 Ousatonic Canal, 72 paleontology, 200, 210n Panama Canal, 93n, 190, 199, 210n Partridge, Alden, 181n Partridge Military Academy, 89 Paterson, William, 129, 136, 139n Patowmack Company, 164 Pennsylvania Main Line System, 104 Pennsylvania Mainline Public Works System, 104–105 Pennsylvania Railroad, 188 Petersburg Railroad, 176 Phelps, Anson, 203–204, 210n Phelps, Oliver, 29–30, 39n Phelps Gorham Purchase, 31 Pickett’s Charge, 196n Pierrepont/Pierpont, Hezekiah, 36–37, 41n Pierson, Elizabeth, 160n Pierson, Helen Maria, 147, 160n Pierson, Henry, 160n Pierson, Isaac, 160n Pierson, Jeremiah, 160n Pilgrims, 12, 15

247

Pleasants (Governor), 133, 140n Poe, Edgar Allen, 203 Poinsett, Joel, 161n Polk, James, 88n Pope, Alexander, 34 Portage Railroad, 104 Pre-emption Line, 30–31; “New,” 31 Princeton University, 148, 194 Provost, Catherine, 111 Provost, Theodosia, 111, 123n Puerto Prince to Nuevitas Railroad, 158 Pusey, Nathan, 198n Quakers, 15 Queen’s College, 136–137, 141n railroad: American track system, 155; block signalization system, 9n; inclined planes, 104; rails, 104, 144–145; steam engines, 127; tracks, 152–153; wire cables, 105, 107n, 140n Ramsden, Jesse, 39n Randel, John Jr., 77–80, 89, 91n, 133 Ranney, Mary, 11, 22 Ranney, Willett, 11, 22 Reader’s Digest, “Seven Wonders of American Engineering, 189–190 Redfield, William, 146, 160n Rees, Abraham, 68n Ree’s Cyclopedia, 50–51, 68n Reformed Dutch Church, 141n Rensselaer School, 135–136 Renwick, James, 103, 107n, 122, 125n Renwick, James Jr., 107n Renwick Gallery, 107n “Report of Manufacture,” 128 Revolutionary War, 2, 9n, 15–19, 23n–24n, 27, 29, 36, 66n, 110, 155, 163; British surrender at Yorktown, 20; diplomatic visit to

Benjamin Wright

248

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

France, 21, 24n; economic problems after, 20, 31, 36; titling to war veterans of, 31 Richmond and Lynchburg Railroad, 175–176 Rittenhouse, Benjamin, 39n Rittenhouse, David, 28, 39n, 67n Roberts, Nathan, 57, 58, 61, 83, 87, 93n Roberts, Solomon, 187, 196n Robinson, Moncure, 153, 160n, 165–166, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 183n, 187–189 Rochambeau, Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de, 3, 9n, 21 Rock Island Bridge, 122, 125n Rock Island Railroad, 125n Rockefeller Center, 140n Roebling, John, 37, 104–105, 107n, 130–131, 140n, 179, 183n, 197n Roebling, Washington, 135 Roosevelt, Nicholas, 32, 40n, 67n Roosevelt, Theodore, 32 Royal Society, 39n Rutgers, Henry, 136–137, 141n Rutgers College, 136, 138, 141n, 158; Queen’s Building, 137 Saint Lawrence Turnpike, 37 salt, 49 San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, 190 Saugatuck and New Milford Canal, 72, 90n Savannah Georgian, 81–82, 89 Schuylkill and Susquehanna Navigation, 46, 67n Schuyler, Philip, 38, 43, 45–47, 66n, 129 Schiff, Judith, 140n Scottsville on the James (Moore), 180 Scriba, George, 32, 36, 40n, 57, 129 Scriba’s Patent, 32, 36, 57

Sea Venture, 23n Second Great Awakening, 7 Secession, 66, 89, 157 Seventh Connecticut Regiment, 16, 17; Fourth Company, 17; Third Company, 17 Shakespeare, William, 23n Shays, Daniel, 20 Sixth Battalion of Sargents’ Brigade, 24n Sixth Regiment of Connecticut Militia, 17 “Sketch of a Geographical Route of a Great Railway, A Route from the Hudson to the Mississippi, A” (Redfield), 146 Skipwith, Peyton, 206–207, 211n slavery, 66, 83, 139, 157–159, 205–206 Smeaton, John, 5, 9n, 187 Smeatonian Society, 187 Smithsonian Institute, The, 107n, 122, 161n, 194–195, 198n Society for Useful Manufacturers (SUM), 128–129, 136–137, 139n Society of the Cincinnati, 17 Society of Civil Engineers, 9n, 187–188 Southern Railroad, 147 Spain and island possessions, 156–157 Spanish Consulate, 157 Speedwell, 12 Spencer, White, and Prentis, 191, 197n St. George’s Creek, 78–79 St. George’s Lock, 80 Stamp Act, 34 State Engineer’s Department of New York, 69n steamboats, vertical paddle, 40n Stephenson, George, 9n, 86, 103–104 Stephenson, Robert, 86, 103–104

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

249

Turner, Nat, 205 Tweed, Boss, 154

Stevens, John Frank, 199, 210n Stockton and Darlington Railway, 4, 9n, 103 Stourbridge Lion, The, 104 Strickland, William, 77, 91n Stuart, Charles, B., 38 Sugar, 155 Sullivan, James, 106n Sullivan, John L., 97, 106n, 155–156 surveying instruments, 28, 67n, 194 suspension bridges, 105, 150, 178, 186 Swartwout, Samuel, 144, 159n Swift, Jonathan, 34 Syracuse University, 69n

Union Canal, 46, 60 United Brethren Church, 14 United States: Coast Survey, 181n; Constitution, 7, 39n; Consular Bureau, 161n; Diplomatic Bureau, 161n; Mint, 139n; State Department, 157; Supreme Court, 139n, 182n University of Connecticut, 194 University of Virginia, 168, 181n Upper Wood Creek Navigation, 47–48 Utica and Schenectady Railroad, 159n

Taberg Iron and Glass Works, 129, 131, 139n Taberg Iron Works, 129 Tallmadge, Benjamin, 17–18, 24n Tammany Hall, 144, 159n Tappan, Arthur, 204, 210n Tappan Zee Bridge, 153 Tariff Act, 88, 207 Telford, Thomas, 185, 195 Tempest, The, 23n Thayer, Sylvanus, 166–167, 181n Thomas, Philip, 86 Tioga and Chemtung Railroad, 158 tobacco, 206 Tom Thumb locomotive, 140n, 144 Tompkins, Daniel, 53, 68n Totten, Joseph, 76, 80, 91n, 189 town/township, origin of word, 40n Trenton Canal, 130–131, 143 Trenton Delaware Falls Company, 130 Trenton Iron Company, 130 Trimble, Isaac, 187, 196n Trivia, Or the Art of Walking the Streets of London (Gay), 34 Troy and Schenectady Railroad, 158

Van Buren, Martin, 6, 7, 53, 68n, 82, 88 Van Cortlandt, Philip, 67n Van Rensselaer, Catherine, 66n Van Rensselaer, Cornelia, 136 Van Rensselaer, Elizabeth, 66n Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah, 67n Van Rensselaer, Margarita, 66n Van Rensselaer, Stephen, 66n, 81, 92n, 132–138, 140n, 141n, 210n Van Rensselaer, Stephen III, 66n Van Schiack, Myndert, 116, 117, 124n Van Slyke, Daniel, 93n Vanderbilt, Cornelius, 145, 154, 161n, 207–208 Vernier scale, 28 Vietnam War, 1 Virginia, 5, 167–180; Alexandria, 45; Board of Public Works, 81, 92n, 133, 140n, 165, 182n; economy, 5, 164–165; Fredericksburg, 82; General Assembly, 82; Hampton Roads, 10n; House of Delegates, 168; Mount Vernon, 44–45;

Benjamin Wright

250

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Richmond, 164–165, 168–169, 173, 176 Virginia Central Railroad, 179 Vogel, Robert, 195, 198n War of 1812, 52, 58, 75, 76, 81, 92n, 96, 124n, 169 Washington, George, 3, 5, 9n, 46, 64, 75, 82, 110, 128–129, 163–164, 179, 180n; Revolutionary War, 16–19, 21, 24n; visit to New York, 43–45, 83 Waterman, Eunice, 34 Waterman, Simon, 34 water-powered looms, 128 waterwheels, 127 Watson, Elkanah, 44–45, 67n Webb, Charles, 24n Webb, Joseph Jr., 24n Webb, Joseph Sr., 21, 24n Webb house, 24n–25n Welch, Ashbel, 2, 9n, 190 Welland Canal, 87, 148–149, 200; routes, 149f West Point, 69n, 76, 82, 91n, 181n, 196n West Point foundry, 147, 167 West Virginia University, 195 Western Inland Lock Navigation Company (WILNC), 37, 41n, 45, 48, 53, 66n, 129, 208; Board of Directors, 37, 47 Western Sun, The, 143, 159n Weston, William, 37–38, 41n, 46, 47, 67n, 112–113 Wethersfield Conference, 9n, 21 Wheeling Suspension Bridge, 186 Whistler, George, 86, 93n, 187, 196n Whistler, James McNeill, 93n White, Canvass, 60, 61f, 80, 87, 96, 129, 188; Delaware and Hudson Canal, work with, 100; Delaware and Raritan Canal, work with,

96; Erie Canal, work with, 57, 58, 59, 113; New York Water Works, work with, 114, 116–117 White, Edward, 191, 197n White, Hugh, 58 White, Lavinia, 58 Whitford, Noble, 57, 69n Whitney, Eli, 74, 128 Willes, Joshua, 11, 22 Willes, Zeuriah, 11, 22 William and Mary College, 160n, 168 Wilmington Watchman, 93n Wisely, William, 2, 189–191, 193, 197n Wood Creek, 45–48 World Trade Center, 197n World War II, 24n Wright, Abigail, 15 Wright, Albert Wells, 89, 186, 200 Wright, Benjamin, 43, 181n, 182n; American Society of Engineers, 189–190; apprenticeship, 21, 27–28; birth, 2, 15, 194; birth, bicentennial of, 2, 195; Blackstone Canal, work on, 75, 87; Chambly Canal, work on, 87; character, 56–57; Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, work on, 6, 76–87, 103, 171; Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, work on, 81–82, 89, 105, 129, 150, 179, 188; childhood, 19, 20; commissioner of New York, 110; death, 124n, 146, 153–154, 157, 160n, 178, 188, 190–191, 200–201; Delaware and Hudson Canal, work on, 81, 96–103, 138, 155, 171; Delaware and Raritan Canal, work on, 87; designation as the “Father of American Civil Engineering, 1–2, 6, 193, 194, 209; early surveying career,

Benjamin Wright

INDEX

28–29, 32–33, 36, 38, 41n; education, 3, 22; Erie Canal, work on, 2, 3f, 5, 19, 53–56, 58, 61–66, 72, 75, 80, 83, 96, 110, 136, 138, 149, 165, 194, 206; faith, 7, 35, 83, 170, 203; Farmington Canal, work on, 74–75; funerary vault, 192; George Washington, visit with, 83; health issues, 89, 102, 186; Housatonic valley project, 72–73; Illinois and Michigan Canal, work on, 87; Institution of Civil Engineers, 187; involvement with WILNC, 47–48; James Finch on, 7–8; James River and Kanawha Canal, work with, 170–172, 204–205; John Randel Jr., relationship with, 77–80, 89; letters to John Cocke, 6, 174–175, 186, 201, 203; letters to John Jervis, 6, 101–103; on limestone, 59–60; marriage to Philomela, 4; mentorships, 6, 57, 186, 202; move to New York City, 81; move to Rome, 35, 47; New York and Erie Railroad, work with, 149–154, 158; New York and Harlem Railroad Company, work with, 144–145; New York Water Works, work with, 113–118; obituary, 200; politics, 6–7; portrait of, 3f, 191f, 209f; serving in the General Assembly, 50; Society of Civil Engineers, 187–188; Trenton Delaware Falls Company, work with, 130–131, 143; water supply studies, 5, 113–114; Welland Canal, work on, 87, 148–149, 200 Wright, Benjamin Hall, 56, 69n, 89, 92n; Chesapeake and Ohio

251

Canal, work on, 82; railway work in Cuba, 156–158, 176 Wright, Ebenezer Sr., 11, 13–14, 21; education, 14–15 Wright, Ebenezer Jr., 3, 15, 19–22, 35, 202; business difficulties, 21–22; move to New York, 3, 22; move to Sharon, 20, 21; Revolutionary War, 16, 20, 23n Wright, Ebenezer III, 20 Wright, Elder John, 14 Wright, Frances Eunice “Fanny,” 89, 186, 200 Wright, George Smith, 89, 159 Wright, Grace Butler, 11, 15, 22, 35, 131, 202 Wright, Hannah, 13, 14 Wright, Henry, 34, 65, 82, 200, 204; death, 89–90, 100; Farmington Canal, work on, 74 Wright, James, 81, 89, 157, 161n Wright, John, 13–14 Wright, Joseph Allyn, 2–3, 15, 19–22, 27; Revolutionary War, 16, 17, 18, 23n Wright, Joshua Butler, 89, 131–132; education, 131, 138, 140n, 141n, 158, 202 Wright, Martha, 11, 22, 202 Wright, Mary Smith, 89 Wright, Middle John, 14 Wright, Milton, 14, 23n Wright, Orville, 14 Wright, Philomela Sarah Waterman, 4, 33, 35, 47, 65, 81–82, 89, 131, 138, 203; birth, 34; death, 118, 192, 200; health issues, 159, 175; marriage to Benjamin Wright, 33 Wright, Robert, 14 Wright, Sarah, 14 Wright, Samuel, 14

Benjamin Wright

252

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Wright, Simon Waterman, 89, 176, 182n Wright, Thomas, 11, 14, 22, 202 Wright, William, 129, 139n Wright, Wilbur, 14 Wright, Younger John, 14 Wright’s Bridge, 14 Wurtz, Charles, 106n Wurtz, Maurice, 96, 106n

Wurtz, William, 96, 106n Yale College, 14–15, 17–18, 34, 89, 117, 124n, 129, 138, 141n, 158, 202; mathematics program, 127, 131–132, 139n yellow fever, 112–113, 123f zenith sectors, 28–29

Benjamin Wright

About the Author

Steve Pennington Steve Pennington has been a member of ASCE since college when he was a student chapter member at Marshall University. He is active in the National Capital Section, where he has been a two-time recipient of the section’s Meritorious Service Award, advocating for the history of the profession. He currently serves as a corresponding member of ASCE’s History and Heritage Committee (HHC). Steve is a senior manager with Geo Instruments, Inc., an affiliate of Keller North America. The company operates out of several regional offices throughout the country, specializing in the design and implementation of instrumentation systems for evaluation of field performance, primarily, investigation of engineering systems, both structural and geotechnical. He is based in the company’s Washington, DC, office. He holds two degrees in civil engineering and is a licensed professional engineer in eight states, as well as a professional land surveyor in two states. Steve first became acquainted with Benjamin Wright through his association with the late Neal FitzSimons. Neal was active in ASCE, serving as both a member of the HHC and as a member of the Structural Institute’s Subcommittee for Damaged and Failed Structures. Neal was also active in the establishment of the HHC, the formation of the Landmarks Program, and efforts to designate Wright as the “father” of the profession in America. 253

Benjamin Wright

254

BENJAMIN WRIGHT

Steve has previously coedited publications and conference proceedings and has presented several papers, both technical and historical. This book on the life and work of Benjamin Wright is the first one that he has authored. He, along with his wife, Joan, reside in Fairfax Station, Virginia.

Benjamin Wright