The Two Canals

A comparison between George Washington’s privately financed Potomac River canal and the publicly funded Erie Canal offers a striking exception to the common conception of efficiency. Most would argue that a profit-driven corporation with a strong financial base would have a greater chance of success than an unaffected group of disconnected politicians scrounging for pennies. Thomas Jefferson even said “public undertakings are carelessly managed, and much money spent on little purpose.” However, in the years building up to the construction of the Erie Canal in 1817, the opposite occurred.
George Washington was one of the first to identify the importance of connecting the developing west with the backbone of the United States along the eastern coast. He indicated how “one channel, supplying the wants [and] increasing the wealth … of each great section of the empire, will form an imperishable cement of connection, and an indissoluble bond of union.” With this perfect link in mind, The Patowmack Canal Company attempted to tame the fierce rapids and frequent waterfalls of the Potomac River in Virginia. Unfortunately, the company underestimated its ferocity and the river “[fought] against his plans for it almost every inch of the way” (72). Washington searched for day-to-day management to aid in designing the canal, eventually settling on James Rumsey, an innkeeper with little engineering knowledge. At this point, problems began to arise. Laborers were unprepared for the icy streams up to their thighs and started drinking heavily. Due to the small labor base interested in joining the chaos of a few drunk men, Washington “had no choice but to buy black slaves and to take over the indentures of Irish immigrants to add to his canal force” (74). The canal did become a functioning waterway, yet the task was not completed until after Washington’s death. Just years later, the Patowmack Company declared bankruptcy and the vision of massive amounts of goods flowing upstream was shattered. “While corn, whiskey, furs, and timber floated downstream toward the Atlantic without much difficulty, only trifling amounts of light manufactured goods moved upstream toward the mountain” (75).
The Erie Canal, in its slow progression, eventually became the surviving dominating force of the 19th century. This state-financed project luckily found the more geographically profitable section of land in New York from Lake Erie. Constant opposition pointed out the impossibility of the daunting task and the drain on funds that a young nation could not afford, especially when the War of 1812 exhausted some of the surplus. “Disbelief was real, not a blind for political discord: many people were simply unable to visualize how such a novel, gigantic, and hugely expansive project could ever fulfill those glowing promises” (181). Believers such as Joshua Forman stood their ground, indicating that “the state of New-York would never rest until the canal was accomplished” (125). Once construction began, “all the years of debate, doubt, and division seemed to melt away (180).” The pieces came into place for the Erie Canal. Laborers were free men, many contributing relevant technological growth to aid in the digging process. The final cost of the canal reflected the original estimate of approximately $6 million and the task was completed on schedule without any severe mistakes. Populations and economies boomed around the canal, with property values “tripling” in major areas as “the area’s rich production of wheat, barley oats, and corn found an artery of transportation to feed the east” (351).
The state of New York succeeded in achieving the dream of many Americans, opening up commerce to the world and bringing New York City the traffic that would lead to its great expansion. The Erie Canal is an outstanding example of a successful public undertaking that lead to the growth and prosperity of an entire nation.