Ethan Allen Brown
And Ohio's Canal System
By JOHN S. STILL*
The most important stimulus to Ohio's
economy in the first half
of the nineteenth century was the
construction of a canal system,
and the individual most responsible for
this accomplishment was
Ethan Allen Brown. Yeoman service, it
is true, was rendered by
Alfred Kelley, Micajah Williams, and
others, but from the years
when his was a voice in the wilderness
until the canals were actually
in use, Brown stood at the forefront.
There was nothing in Brown's early
background to presage such
a consuming interest in internal
improvements. Born in Connecticut
in 1776, he studied law with Alexander
Hamilton--a combination
not calculated to inspire concern for
the problems of frontier Ohio.
Like many of his contemporaries,
however, Brown turned his eyes
westward. Having become somewhat
familiar with the terrain
during a flatboat voyage down the Ohio
and Mississippi rivers in
1802, he returned a year later and
purchased several thousand
acres in his father's name at a
promising spot on the west bank
of the Ohio some thirty-five miles
below Cincinnati. There, with the
arrival of other settlers in the
ensuing decade, the village of Rising
Sun, Indiana, came into being. Brown
remained only long enough
to clear a few acres and to see one of
his brothers well established
on the new farm. Then, in 1804, he
moved to Cincinnati to launch
his legal and, ultimately, his
political career. In that "dirty little
village" of a thousand
inhabitants,1 he had the good fortune to
* John S. Still is curator of historical
collections of the Ohio Historical Society.
His doctoral dissertation, upon which
this article is based, was "The Life of Ethan
Allen Brown, Governor of Ohio"
(Ohio State University, 1951).
1 Edward D. Mansfield, Personal
Memories, Social, Political, and Literary, with
Sketches of Many Noted People (Cincinnati, 1879), 19.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 23
identify himself with one of the
leading citizens, John Cleves
Symmes. Taking a room in the Symmes
home, Brown was soon
on intimate terms with the family and
under the professional wing
of the elderly judge. This association,
coupled with Brown's gre-
garious personality and oratorical
talents, soon brought him a
measure of local prominence. For three
years, commencing in 1807,
he was commissioned by Secretary of the
Treasury Albert Gallatin
to examine the books of the land office
at Cincinnati. In addition,
he held his first public office,
succeeding Arthur St. Clair, Jr., as
prosecuting attorney for Hamilton
County.
Brown was thrust upon the state scene
as a result of a bitter
controversy over legislative and
judicial supremacy. Leaders of the
general assembly, infuriated by the
application of judicial review to
state laws, unsuccessfully impeached
Supreme Court Judge George
Tod and Common Pleas Judge Calvin Pease
and finally sought to
gain their end through the so-called
"sweeping resolution." This
measure enabled the assembly to oust
any judge it desired when the
seven-year judicial terms expired in
1810. The legislators wasted no
time in sweeping out all three members
of the highest tribunal.
Brown's conversion to Republicanism had
been so convincing that he
was elected to one of the seats on the
supreme court in January 1810.
He eventually became chief judge and he
was reelected in 1817.
Efforts to make him a gubernatorial
candidate in 1816 received
no encouragement from Brown. He did
throw his hat in the ring
two years later, however, when Thomas
Worthington announced
that he would not seek a third term.
Victorious by a landslide over
weak opposition, Brown was inaugurated
in December 1818.
The new governor had long been aware of
the need for internal
improvements. Perhaps the days spent
astride a horse jogging
around the circuit from one county seat
to another helped to impress
him. At any rate, he is alleged to have
corresponded with New York's
Governor DeWitt Clinton relative to an
Ohio canal as early as
1816, and he broached the subject in
his inaugural address. "If we
would raise the character of our state
by increasing industry and
our resources," he declared,
"it seems necessary to improve the in-
ternal communications, and open a
cheaper way to market for the sur-
24
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
plus produce of a large portion of our
fertile country; connected with
this is the improvement of the
revenues."2
This plea soon became the subject for
debate in both houses of
the assembly. In the senate, John
Thompson of Columbiana County
on December 22 reported a bill "to
incorporate a company" to
construct a lake-to-river canal.3 Although
a step in the proper
direction, this measure did not satisfy
Brown, who wanted the work
to be done by the state rather than by
a private company. One editor
thought that Ohio's future prosperity
depended upon the success
of Thompson's bill,4 but it
became burdened with so many amend-
ments that it subsequently went down to
defeat.5 Meanwhile,
Nathaniel Beasley, Brown County's
senator, had offered a resolution
providing for the establishment of a
joint committee of three sen-
ators and five representatives. Their
assignment would be to prepare
a bill authorizing the governor to
employ engineers to survey four
possible routes: Miami-Maumee,
Scioto-Sandusky, Muskingum-
Cuyahoga, and Grand-Big Beaver rivers.6
At this juncture Governor Brown sent
another message to the
legislature. Presented on January 8,
1819, it dwelt at some length
upon education and then took up the
question of internal improve-
ments. Roads and canals he termed
"veins and arteries to the body
politic, that diffuse supplies, health,
vigor and animation to the
whole system." He strongly urged
the hiring of an experienced
engineer for "the grand object of
internal navigation."7
Both houses went as far as to approve a
resolution to appoint
engineers for the purpose of
determining the most eligible route
for a canal. A committee was instructed
to formulate a bill pro-
viding funds to defray the expenses of
the surveys. There, however,
a snag was struck; the bill never
became law.8 This was typical of
the impeded progress of canal
legislation in the assembly. At times
2 Ohio House Journal, XVII (1818-19), 79.
3 Ohio Senate Journal, XVII (1818-19), 139.
4 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, December 29, 1818.
5 Ibid., January 5, 12, 1819.
6 C. C. Huntington and C. P. McClelland,
History of the Ohio Canals (Columbus,
1905), 10-11.
7 Columbus Gazette, January 14, 1819.
8 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, February 9, 1819.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 25
one or the other of the houses would
show a disposition to accede
to the governor's requests, but they
seemed never able to act in con-
junction. Some of the legislators
opposed the scheme for sincere
reasons, economic or otherwise, but
much of the antipathy stemmed
from a feeling of jealousy. Too many
individuals were willing to
lend their support only as long as
their communities or counties
stood to benefit from the proposal.
Nevertheless, Brown proceeded to
accumulate as much informa-
tion as possible relative to the
potential waterway. Some of the data
submitted to him proved inaccurate,
stressing more than ever the
wisdom in his desire to employ a
competent engineer, but he
managed to amass a reservoir of facts
which were useful a little later.
In his second annual message the
governor alluded to internal
improvements in general instead of
focusing attention upon the
canals alone.9 This
strategy, he explained to a friend, he thought
"would be more prudential, and
more likely to produce a result
favorable to my hobby horse. . . . I
assure you it was from no
squeamish reluctance to take a share in
the glory of the enterprise."10
The subject of improvements was
referred to a joint committee on
internal navigation, whose chairman was
William Henry Harrison,
senator from Hamilton County. The
general brought in a report on
the evening of December 29 which
prompted Brown to remark
caustically, "I presume that, if
the canal should succeed, he will not
be disposed to disclaim his share in
the glory, more than I should in
like circumstances. I have not been
consulted on the report (to which,
of course, he is all sufficient) except
an enquiry, sometimes, for some
small items of information."11 One
reason for his not having specif-
ically mentioned canals in his message,
he said, was that he had
expected to elucidate the topic in
conversation with the committee,
"had they done me the honor to
consult me; preferring the success
of the grand object, to attempting to
shine out in an official
communication."12
9 Ibid., December 14, 1819.
10 Brown to Daniel Drake, December 29,
1819. Brown Letters, Ohio Historical
Society, Columbus. Cited hereafter as
Brown Letters.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
26
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The offended executive was somewhat
mollified by an invitation
from the house in mid-January to
communicate any information he
possessed with regard to the
practicability of connecting the lake and
the Ohio by a canal.13 Brown
was determined to make the most of
this long-awaited opportunity.
Marshaling his facts with great care,
he prepared a document which was
immediately recognized as the
most complete and authoritative
pronouncement on the subject up
to that time.14 He submitted
his report to the legislature on January
twentieth.15
Three routes, the legislators were
informed, seemed to be prac-
ticable. In the northeastern part of
the state, a swamp on the summit
between the Mahoning branch of the
Beaver and the Grand River
assured an adequate water supply for a
canal there. Moreover, a
canal could be constructed at the
portage between the Cuyahoga
and the Tuscarawas rivers, making
possible the use of the valleys
of the last-named streams. In the
southwest, according to informa-
tion received by the governor, a canal
would be entirely feasible.
This third possible route, Brown went
on, involved the portage
between the Loramie branch of the Great
Miami and the St. Mary's.
Relatively little was known about this
locality, however. Captain
James Riley, a surveyor, had estimated
the portage height at 1,394
feet above Lake Erie, but the consensus
was that this figure was
excessive.16
Brown believed that the enterprise could
be carried out for
$2,500,000, whatever the route.
Certainly three millions would be
a safe estimate. The cost could
conceivably be reduced by using in-
clined planes or some other means of
mechanical power instead of
constructing locks, which were quite
expensive. It was obvious that
Ohio could not support such an
undertaking without some sort of
assistance. The most likely source of
aid appeared to be the federal
government. If congress were to approve
the sale to Ohio of four
13 Ohio House Journal, XVIII
(1819-20), 201.
14 James Flint, Letters from America,
in Reuben G. Thwaites, ed., Early Western
Travels, 1748-1846 (Cleveland, 1904), IX, 308.
15 Ohio House Journal, XVIII (1819-20), 224-232.
16 Capt. Riley defended his reasoning in an indignant letter to Brown a
few months
later. Riley to Brown, June 15, 1820.
Brown Manuscripts, Ohio State Library,
Columbus. Cited hereafter as Brown
Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 27
million acres of land recently acquired
from Indian tribes at, say,
a dollar per acre for ten years without
interest, the state would be
able to resell the land for at least
three dollars per acre after the
canal opened. This would result in a
handsome profit and would
pay for the canal, as well. Even if
interest were charged, there was
an excellent chance for financial gain.
Although in several respects (for
example, the estimated cost
and his predicted absence of large
boulders) Brown's optimism later
proved unjustified, at this particular
time it did much to revitalize
public interest in the canal project.
In this he was ably assisted by
the newspapers, most of which could
foresee the important benefits
to be derived from a system of
artificial waterways. One inspired
editor, peering rapturously into the
future, averred: "An excursion
from New-York to the Ohio by means of
an interior water com-
munication, would be found to be the
most delightful of any in
America, and would soon be the most
fashionable. . . . In a very few
years after the canal should be
completed, its margins and neighbor-
hoods would furnish a gratifying
display of towns, villas, rich
improvements, and elegant
embellishments, from one end to the
other."17
There was some doubt that Brown's plan
for acquiring land from
the United States was practicable, but
it seemed to be worth trying.
Certainly some help, direct or
indirect, would have to come from
Washington.18 Also, a
variety of opinions existed as to the total
cost of a canal. Caleb Atwater of
Circleville, for example, "a
gentleman who is making some noise in
the literary world,"19
thought three million dollars too high,
but he admitted that he
did not have complete data at hand.20
The dilatory legislature finally
compromised its differences long
enough to appoint three canal
commissioners on February 22. These
were Simon Perkins of Trumbull County,
Alexander Holmes of
Licking, and William C. Schenck of
Warren.21 They were authorized
17 Inquisitor and Cincinnati Advertiser, February 15, 1820.
18 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, February 18, 1820.
19 Ibid., February
25, 1820.
20 Ibid., March 17, 1820.
21 Ohio Repository (Canton), March 15, 1820.
28
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
to employ a competent engineer, and to
survey and locate the route
for the canal.22 But because
the action of the commissioners was
made contingent upon congressional
acceptance of Ohio's proposi-
tion relative to the acquisition, by
purchase and donation, of public
lands, and because this was not
forthcoming, the commission was
unable to proceed.23
Ohio's two United States Senators,
William A. Trimble and
Benjamin Ruggles, spearheaded the
effort to obtain federal aid.
Trimble was especially diligent, but he
was not optimistic about
Ohio's chances for success. "Local
interests and local jealousies,"
he remarked, "have their effect
here as well as at Columbus."24
To Brown the attitude in congress was disturbing
and not altogether
logical. After all, he did not feel
that from a financial standpoint
any great favor was being sought. In
this period of depression, the
government would not be able to dispose
of the land on better
terms.25
A few weeks later Trimble reported that
the senate committee
on roads and canals had voted four to
one (the lone affirmative
vote being his own) to reject Ohio's
bid. The official explanation
given was that permitting states to
contract obligations to the United
States was unsound policy. The senator,
however, placed the re-
sponsibility upon the fact that
"from the south & even from the
east there is a strong jealousy of the
rising prosperity of the
northwest."26 In
accordance with a suggestion advanced earlier by
Brown, Trimble met this refusal with a
request that congress reserve
from sale six ranges of townships and
appoint commissioners to lay
out a canal through these lands between
the lake and the navigable
waters of the Scioto or Great Miami
rivers. No consideration was
accorded this proposal until after
congress had passed the new land
law of 1820. The committee at length
agreed to report such a bill
if the Ohio delegation was found to be
unanimously in favor of it.
22 Ernest
Ludlow Bogart, Internal Improvements and State Debt in Ohio (New
York, 1924), 15; Brown to Simon Perkins,
February 29, 1820, in Simon Perkins
Manuscripts, Western Reserve Historical
Society, Cleveland.
23 Huntington and McClelland, Ohio
Canals, 12.
24 Trimble
to Brown, March 11, 1820. Brown Letters.
25 Brown
to Trimble, April 4, 1820. Brown Letters.
26 Trimble
to Brown, April 29, 1820. Brown Letters.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 29
A poll of the six representatives proved
that this was not the case.27
Consequently, even though the committee
changed its mind and
reported the bill, Trimble had little
hope for its success.28
Governor Brown made no attempt to
conceal his chagrin. Not-
withstanding Ohio's recent defiance of
the United States Bank, he
felt that she deserved better treatment.29
His disappointment and a
certain amount of resentment were
clearly expressed in a letter to
Senator Trimble:
If Congress would engage in the
formation of the Canal, we should be
content to have the United States enjoy
the benefits of the enhanced value
of the contiguous lands, belonging to
the public, and would go on, as before,
cheerfully to contribute to the defence
of the Seaboard, though our own
frontier be neglected--to the support of
the navy, on which our Atlantic
brethren doat [sic] (though God
knows, we have a heavy charge to convey
our property to the Ocean, to be protected
by a maritime force) and we
should not murmur at assisting to build
light houses and anchor buoys,
though an appropriation for a light on
Lake Erie be refused . . . . I regret,
extremely, this disposition in the East
and South to impede our improve-
ments: it tends to weaken the affection,
of the people northwest of the
River Ohio; whose strength is growing
too mighty to be treated with
contempt . . . and whose prosperity is
in most cases intimately blended
with their own. It requires no
extraordinary wisdom to perceive that we
cannot pay duties, on consumption of
foreign Merchandise or purchase
the manufactures of the East, unless we
can find a market for our own
productions; and of this they seem
willing to deprive us. We must therefore
be thrown on our own resources more
rapidly, in my estimation, than is
consistent with the interest of certain
States bordering on the Sea--more
suddenly than may suit the interests of
the Treasury, if it be desirable to
avoid direct taxes. I sympathize with
you . . . at being compelled to struggle
against ignorance and prejudice.30
In addition to the western states,
whose people were vitally aware
of the need for internal improvements,
New York was sympathetic
toward Ohio's aspirations. Some
newspapers of that state pointed
out the benefits which would redound to
other parts of the nation
as well as to Ohio and urged her sister
states to support the cause.
27 Ibid.
28 Trimble to Brown, May 3, 1820.
Brown Letters.
29 Brown to Benjamin Ruggles, May
10, 1820. Brown Letters.
30 Brown to Trimble, May 12, 1820. Brown Letters.
30
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Ohio's resources-her people,
enterprise, industry, and credit--were
considered abundantly adequate to
ensure success.31
Encouragement of a more concrete nature
was extended by Charles
G. Haines, secretary of the New York
Corresponding Association
for the Promotion of Internal
Improvements. Advising Brown to
forget about federal assistance and to
concentrate his energies within
the state, he predicted eventual
fulfillment of Ohio's dream. He
posed a number of questions, the
answers to which would be used
by the association to publicize the
proposed waterway. Its practic-
ability and the expected benefits to be
derived were of primary inter-
est to him. Also valuable would be
technical information relating to
the length, fall, and number of locks
that would be required, and the
lateral canals which could be connected
with the principal artery.32
The governor replied at great length to
this heartening inquiry.33
A copy of his message of January 20,
1820, was sent in answer to the
question concerning the practicability
of a canal. As to the distance,
fall, and number of locks, the route
which was yet to be selected
would be the determining factor. Brown
was enthusiastic about the
potential advantages. Salt, iron, and
other heavy but indispensable
commodities could be imported at a
lower cost, he asserted. Western
agricultural products would be provided
an easy and inexpensive
conveyance to the East, at the same
time enabling New York to
increase her trade at the expense of
Baltimore and Philadelphia. To
illustrate Ohio's promise as an
agricultural state, Brown cited a few
statistics concerning the fertile Miami
country. In 1819, he stated, an
area comprising 400 square miles
produced 246,000 bushels of
wheat, 43,500 of rye, and 463,000 of
corn. Moreover, 4,000 hogs
had been driven to market during the
preceding winter. Even in those
depressed times the cost of land
carriage ranged from 50?? to 75??
per hundred pounds, much higher than
canal charges would be. The
difference would obviously go far
toward alleviating the unfavorable
economic conditions.
Ohio was portrayed as a state with a
most auspicious future, if
31 New York Statesman, quoted in Liberty Hall
and Cincinnati Gazette, August 26,
1820.
32 Haines to Brown, August 4, 1820.
Brown Manuscripts.
33 Brown to Haines, September 20, 1820.
Brown Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 31
only the proper stimulus was provided.
Much of the central portion
was good farm land, while the less
populous Western Reserve was
better suited to grazing than to
planting. Hence the topography of
this section would be conducive to the
establishment of dairy farms.
In addition, deposits of iron ore and
coal had been discovered in
northeastern Ohio.
Taking note of the recent rebuff by
congress, Brown voiced the
fervent hope that Ohio would be able to
undertake the project
herself. In the event, however, that
capital could not be acquired
from New York, he was willing to permit
a private company to
build the canals rather than to abandon
the idea altogether. He
sounded a little discouraged but
nonetheless determined as he con-
cluded, "I cannot consent to lose
sight of it, while its practicability
remains probable; patience and
perseverance may, at length,
prevail."34
He had already begun to investigate the
possibility of borrowing
money from New York financiers. Late in
May he wrote to Governor
Clinton introducing William Steele of
Cincinnati, to whom he re-
ferred as "one of the most ardent
and industrious" friends of the
canal project. Steele, he explained,
was en route to New York City to
try to induce some of the leading
capitalists to invest funds in the
venture. Brown sought Clinton's opinion
as to the advisability of
incorporating a company to carry out
the plan if financial support
from outside the state did not
materialize. In reviewing the numerous
beneficial results to be obtained from
a canal, he emphasized the
now-familiar arguments and added that,
by transporting their pro-
duce to New York, Ohioans could avoid
the unhealthy climate of
New Orleans, where heat and humidity
often destroyed provisions
before they could be sold.35
Brown again trained the spotlight upon
the subject of canals in
his second inaugural message, December
5, 1820.36 With a trace
of exasperation showing through the customary
veneer of courtesy
and humility, he warned that an ample
reserve of private capital
34 Ibid.
35 Brown to DeWitt Clinton, May 29,
1820. Brown Letters.
36 Brown had recently been reelected
in a lopsided victory over Jeremiah Morrow
and William Henry Harrison.
32
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
was waiting to subsidize the waterways
if the legislature continued
to procrastinate. That the state would
be willing to forego the glory
and revenue which would accrue from a
well-developed canal system
was to him unthinkable.37
The members of the house and senate
listened, applauded, and
turned their attention to other
matters. There was some discussion
relative to canals, to be sure, but
local prejudice, combined with a
depression-born spirit of retrenchment,
foredoomed any decisive
action.38 The only
encouraging move was the legislature's approval
of the state's participation in a
survey for a three-mile canal around
the falls of the Ohio and its
authorization to Governor Brown to
negotiate for an engineer and a loan of
$20,000.
Encouraged by Governor Clinton's
assurance that in New York
there was "a vast unemployed
capital . . . continually seeking in-
vestment,"39 Brown
began to make serious overtures in that direc-
tion. At the same time the loan was
sought from various state banks,
including those located at Lancaster,
Chillicothe, Warren, and
Steubenville. These institutions were
unanimous in their refusal.
Most of them signified a desire to
cooperate but felt such an exten-
sion of credit impossible at the time.40
A subsequent public adver-
tisement was no more fruitful.41
The horizon was further darkened by
news from the East. Clinton's
and Haines's optimism, it seemed, had
not been entirely justified.
Financiers at both Philadelphia and New
York were displaying
a peculiar reluctance to gamble on
Ohio's future.42 Brown was more
worried about the effect of this lack
of confidence on the legislature
than he was about the loan itself.
With renewed determination the governor
hammered away in
37 Ohio Senate Journal, XIX (1820-21), 10.
38 Brown to Haines, February 7, 1821.
Brown Manuscripts.
39 Clinton
to Brown, April 21, 1821. Brown
Manuscripts.
40 John Crudy to Brown, February 14, 1821, Thomas James
to Brown, February 15,
1821, L. Fitch to Brown, March 3, 1821,
J. C. Wright to Brown, February 21, 1821,
and Bezaleel Wells to Brown, March 24, 1821. Official
Governor's Papers, 1818-1821,
Ohio Historical Society.
41 "Public Notice," May 23, 1821, in Brown Manuscripts.
42 Robert Toland to Dr. Lincoln Goodale, April 19, 1821, William Steele to
Brown,
August 16, 1821, in Official Governor's
Papers, 1818-1821; Brown to Haines,
November 1, 1821, in Brown Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 33
his next annual message, December 4,
1821. He urgently recom-
mended that the engineer who was to
conduct the survey at the
falls of the Ohio be retained to
perform a similar service between
the river and Lake Erie. Perhaps, he
reasoned, this would be the
lever by which his ultimate goal could
be attained.
The house referred Brown's
recommendation to a committee
headed by Micajah T. Williams, a
Cincinnati lawyer.43 Formerly
Hamilton County auditor, he was then
serving the second of his five
consecutive terms in the legislature.
He was recognized as one of
the strongest partisans of the canal
project and, as such, he became
a close friend of Brown.
Williams, perhaps because of his energy
and intelligence, suc-
ceeded where others had failed. The
report which he presented to
the lower house on January 3, 1822, was
a masterpiece of organiza-
tion and exposition.44 After
referring to canal navigation as the
safest, easiest, and cheapest mode of
conveyance yet devised by man,
Williams revealed that the committee
had approved the governor's
recommendation.
There were, he said, three important
considerations: the cost, the
profits, and the means. By comparing Ohio's
topography with that
of New York, it was shown that a canal
in Ohio should cost not
more than half the five million dollars
which was to be expended
upon the Erie Canal. In constructing
the latter, it had been necessary
to cut for miles through deep beds of
solid rock and to erect huge
aqueducts--extremities to which Ohio
would not be driven. Hence
the expense in Ohio should fall
somewhere between $2,000,000 and
$2,500,000.
Next Williams discussed the potential
profits. This part of his
argument unquestionably convinced many
skeptics of the value of
the proposed canal. Two striking
economic examples were given.
According to Williams, flour was
selling for $3.50 per barrel at
Cincinnati while at New York it was
bringing $8.00. The committee
had calculated the cost of transporting
flour to New York via
43 Besides Williams, who had proposed
the resolution, the committee included
Thomas Worthington of Ross, Thomas Howe
of Trumbull, William H. Moore of
Muskingum, and John Shelby of Wood and
Logan counties.
44 Ohio House Journal, XX
(1821-22), 177-187.
34
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
an Ohio canal, Lake Erie, and the Erie
Canal at $1.70 per barrel,45
leaving a profit of $2.80 on each. The
total profit on 130,000 barrels,
the number exported from Cincinnati in
the year 1818-19, would
have been about $364,000. The case of
Pickaway County furnished
another vivid illustration. The 400,000
bushels of wheat grown there
annually would make 80,000 barrels of
flour, which could be shipped
to the lake via a canal for $24,000 as
compared with $200,000 by
land carriage. With regard to the
revenue which the state would
receive, the committee believed that as
much as $600,000 in tolls
from exports alone would be collected
annually.
Williams recommended that the work be
undertaken by the state
and be financed by loans. There would
be no necessity for levying
additional taxes. As a last resort, the
project could be carried out by
a company incorporated for the purpose,
but it was hoped that this
could be avoided. "The world owes
much to New York," Williams
declared, "for their practical
refutation of the doctrine which has so
long prevailed, that the public could
not accomplish works of this
kind so cheap as a corporation."46
In closing, he reminded the legislators
of the importance such a
canal would assume in the event of a
future war, especially one with
England. The present time, he
concluded, was certainly most auspic-
ious for beginning this enterprise. The
stagnation of commerce
throughout the world had left capital
without opportunities for
profitable investment, and the
depression had greatly reduced the
cost of labor. Finally, in 1823 New
York would complete the Erie
Canal, leaving many skilled workmen
available for employment
in Ohio.
The words, so ably presented, were
Williams' but the ideas were
obviously Brown's. Some of them he had
himself advanced in
previous years; evidence of others
appears in his correspondence.
After three years of persistent and
unflagging effort, he was about
to see his dream become a reality. The
report still had to be
translated into law, but the scent of
victory was in the air. In a
45 This figure included 20?? for freight
charges and 30?? for tolls in Ohio; 20??
for transportation across the lake; 80??
total for the Erie Canal; and 20?? trans-
portation from Albany to New York.
46 Ohio House Journal, XX (1821-22), 186.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 35
sense, the canal committee's report was
Brown's valedictory, for
on the very next day, January 4, 1822,
he resigned as governor,
having been elected to the United
States Senate to complete the un-
expired term of William A. Trimble, who
had died in office. Three
days later he set out for Washington.
Accompanying Williams' report was a
bill authorizing "an
examination into the practicability of
connecting Lake Erie with the
Ohio river by a canal." The debate
in the lower house lasted for
three weeks. So strong was the
opposition that after a week and a
half the success of the measure was far
from assured.47 At length,
by trading votes with the proponents of
the establishment of a public
school system, the canal supporters won
out, 54 to 12.48 Through the
senate, too, the bill had "a
stormy passage." "It is not quite in port,"
wrote Williams, "but is off the
capes, and with good pilots will . . .
make the harbour."49
Opponents came within one vote of having the
bill recommitted, which would have been
fatal, but it finally passed
by a vote of 21 to 9.50
By its terms, the governor was
authorized to employ an engineer,
a canal commission was appointed to
have surveys and cost estimates
made for each of the proposed routes,
and $6,000 was appropriated
to defray the expenses incurred. The
seven commissioners named
were Brown, Alfred Kelley, Benjamin
Tappan, Jeremiah Morrow,
Thomas Worthington, Isaac Minor, and
Ebenezer Buckingham, Jr.
The last two, Williams wrote to Brown,
were included to allay
sectional jealousies (Buckingham lived
at Putnam, near Zanesville,
Minor at Columbus), and one
commissioner was appointed because
it was good policy, not because he was
wanted. "It is not necessary
to name him," he concluded.51
Kelley, however, minced no words
in referring to Worthington as "a
bad selection, but necessary."52
Ironically, the Chillicothean, who had
led the movement for state-
hood in Ohio and who had devoted much
of his time to public
47 Alfred Kelley to Brown, January 16,
1822. Brown Manuscripts.
48 Williams to Brown, January 27, 1822.
Brown Manuscripts.
49 Ibid.
50 Orris Parish to Brown, January 29, 1822. Brown Manuscripts.
51 Williams to Brown, January 31,
1822. Brown Manuscripts.
52
Kelley to Brown, February 3, 1822. Brown Manuscripts.
36
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
service, had become generally unpopular
in political circles.
Although an ardent Jeffersonian
Republican, Worthington, partly
because of his wealth, was considered
too aristocratic by many. In
the recent controversy between Ohio and
the United States Bank,
he had supported the bank, which most
westerners regarded as an
instrument of oppression wielded by
ruthless eastern capitalists.
Finally, Worthington's personality did
not endear him to many.
Except by a small coterie of close
friends, he was respected but
hardly revered. Some were alienated by
his sarcasm and innate
obstinacy, and a growing sense of
disillusionment and failing health
were making him even more cynical and
pessimistic. Nevertheless,
as Williams' and Kelley's comments
indicate, Worthington was
still a man of great influence.
Brown's senatorial duties, meanwhile,
did not prevent him from
giving some attention to his first
love, the canal project. In April
he dispatched a letter to Cadwallader
D. Colden, one of New York's
congressmen, asking a number of
questions relative to the possibility
of borrowing money in New York for
Ohio's canal. Emphasizing
the good reputation enjoyed by the
state, her thriving towns and
farms, and her population, which had
increased from around 40,000
in 1800 to nearly 600,000 twenty years
later, he inquired whether
the necessary sum could be obtained in
New York and what the
terms would be.53
Another query elicited a rather discouraging
reply from DeWitt
Clinton. It would be best, he advised,
for Ohio not to broach the
subject of a loan at that time, for an
extraordinary demand for money
and the resulting pressure on the banks
had left the money market
in New York City in a state of
confusion. He did feel, however,
that the situation would be of short
duration.54
Governor Allen Trimble, in seeking an
engineer, had followed
Brown's example and had enlisted the
aid of DeWitt Clinton. The
latter had then prevailed upon James
Geddes, "one of the most skilful
and experienced engineers in the state
of New York," to take the
position.55 Geddes plunged
into his work with enthusiasm. Leaving
53 Brown to Colden, April 17, 1822. Brown Manuscripts.
54 Clinton to
Brown, May 11, 1822. Clinton Manuscripts, Columbia University
Library.
55 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, April 6, 1822.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 37
New York in the middle of April 1822,
he met Alfred Kelley at
Cleveland and traveled with him through
the northern part of the
state before journeying to Columbus in
May.56 In the space of a few
weeks the new engineer explored and
took levels on the summits
between the Grand and Mahoning, the
Cuyahoga and Tus-
carawas, and the Black and Killbuck
rivers. The heights of the three
summits were found to be 360, 395, and
330 feet, respectively--
greater than anticipated--but they
could apparently be easily sup-
plied with water. Geddes and Kelley
also made a hasty examination
of the Sandusky-Scioto summit, which
appeared favorable except
that there were no reliable feeders in
the vicinity.57 A meeting of
the canal commission had been scheduled
for the last week of the
month, and there Geddes met all the
other members except Brown.
The senator had planned to attend but
at the last minute found it
impossible.58 Kelley in a
letter to Brown, observed that there was
considerable unanimity and much
apparent friendship among the
commissioners, but that he "was
not altogether pleased with the
appoint [sic] of the Chairman of
our board."59 The newly elected
chairman, it is almost superfluous to
add, was Thomas Worthington.
Late in June Brown spent a couple of
days examining some small
lakes in Logan County to determine
their potential use as feeders.
Then he proceeded to Upper Sandusky,
where he met Geddes and
with him investigated the country
between the Maumee and Miami
rivers.60 Their itinerary in
succeeding weeks took them to Springfield,
and then into the territory between the
Miami and Scioto rivers.
The latter proved disappointing, for it
was discovered that no
navigable communication between the two
was possible because of
the great height of the intervening
table land. Brown and Geddes
parted company at Columbus, the former
journeying to Cincinnati
via Dayton, the engineer going on to
Wooster.61
A special meeting of the commissioners
was held at Columbus
56 Ibid.
57 Kelley to Brown, May 31, 1822. Brown
Manuscripts.
58
Ibid.; Columbus Gazette, May 23, 1822.
59 Kelley to Brown, May 31, 1822. Brown Manuscripts.
60 Columbus Gazette, July 4, 1822.
61 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, July 27, 1822; Brown to John
Johnston,
July 19, 1822, quoted in Piqua Gazette and
reprinted in Hamilton Intelligencer and
Advertiser, July
29, 1822.
38
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
early in September, but again Brown was
absent. Kelley, who sent
out the call on his own initiative,
expected Worthington to be
offended, but he decided to risk it in
order to meet without delay.62
As it turned out, Tappan and Minor were
the only members who met
with Kelley and Worthington. The most
important decision reached
by the group was the abandonment of the
idea of a canal anywhere
east of the Scioto.63
The canal commission was a year old when
one of its members
resigned. Jeremiah Morrow, with Brown
out of the gubernatorial
picture, had realized his ambitions in
the autumn of 1822 by de-
feating Governor Allen Trimble in his
attempt to succeed himself.
Receipt of Morrow's resignation from
the commission touched off
a violent dispute in the general
assembly. The members of the lower
house favored John Johnston, the Indian
agent at Piqua, for
Morrow's replacement, while the senate
insisted upon Trimble, the
defeated candidate for governor and the
erstwhile speaker of that
body. The issue was referred
successively to two joint committees,
neither of which could come to a
satisfactory decision. Finally, a
third committee compromised and named
Micajah Williams.64 The
other members continued to serve, and a
year later General Nathaniel
Beasley was added to the group.65
Brown was attending to his official
duties at Washington when
the commission met in regular session
at Columbus in December.
Kelley, however, kept him informed of
the proceedings.66 The five
commissioners (Buckingham also was
absent) prepared a twelve-
page report which was presented to the
legislature on January 3,
1823. It stated, in brief, that over
900 miles had been examined and
that all of the routes mentioned in the
canal bill of the preceding
year were practicable. More time,
however, would be required for
thorough study of their comparative
advantages.67 The legislature
62 Kelley to Brown, August 13, 1822.
Brown Manuscripts.
63 Hamilton Intelligencer and
Advertiser, September 23, 1822.
64 Williams to Brown, February 3, 1823.
Brown Manuscripts.
65 Williams to Brown, February 22, 1824.
Brown Manuscripts.
66 Kelley to Brown, December 13, 1822. Brown Manuscripts.
67 Report of the Canal Commissioners, Made to the
Twenty-first General Assembly
January 3, 1823 (Columbus, 1823). This and other canal documents, some
of them
cited hereafter, are gathered in a bound
volume entitled Pamphlets: Internal Improve-
ments: Ohio Canals in the Ohio Historical Society Library.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 39
after a bitter struggle responded
favorably, granting this and more.
In addition to appointing Williams to
the commission, the legislators
transferred from the governor to the
commissioners the power to
employ an engineer. They also
authorized the commissioners to
apply for donations of land or money
from landholders through
whose property the canal might pass; to
name two of their members
acting (that is, active) commissioners
with a fixed salary; and to
ascertain whether loans could be
obtained. An additional appropria-
tion of $4,000 was granted.68
Williams and Kelley were appointed
acting commissioners for
the southern and northern parts of the
state, respectively. They de-
voted their full time to the task,
spending most of the year in the
field. The work was rigorous and
members of the surveying parties
frequently fell ill, suffering from the
effects of the heat and the
unhealthful conditions in swampy areas.
As Williams put it, "It
is almost out of the question for a Whiteman
to live in the Plains at
this season of the year . . . and enjoy health."69
By the end of the year, when the
commission met again at Colum-
bus, the route for the canal had been
virtually selected. As the
members indicated in their
thirty-three-page report of January 21,
1824, the most favorable route lay
between northeastern Ohio and
the Scioto River. This best suited the
topography and was calculated
to attract the most public support. It
would be impossible to connect
with the Miami Valley, as was hoped,
but it was suggested that
another canal could serve the western
section. Appended to the report
were letters from Clinton, Colden, and
various financiers in New
York, offering encouragement with
regard to the prospects of
procuring loans in that city. Clinton
was very positive in his reply,
assuring Williams that he had "no
doubt but that funds to the
extent specified and on the terms
proposed, may be procured."70
As feared, sectional opposition to the
route of the canal developed
immediately. Williams wrote Brown, who
was at Washington, that
the people of Columbus and Delaware
were very dissatisfied, adding,
68 Bogart, Internal Improvements, 17-18.
69 Williams to Brown, August 2, 1823. Brown Manuscripts.
70 Report of the Board of Canal Commissioners to the
General Assembly of Ohio,
January 21, 1824 (Columbus, 1824), in Pamphlets.
40
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
"Kelly [sic] is charged
with partiality for Cleaveland--and I am
charged with--I cannot tell you
what--but the Sovereigns are not
satisfied--as was to be expected."71
The legislature, however, a
month later complied with the request
for additional time and money
by appropriating another $6,000, more
than the commissioners had
suggested.72
The surveys continued during 1824. One
line was laid from
Portsmouth, at the mouth of the Scioto,
to Coshocton and from
there to the lake by three different
routes: the Killbuck and Black
rivers; the Killbuck, Chippewa, and
Cuyahoga rivers; and the
Tuscarawas and Cuyahoga rivers. Another
line was located from
Cincinnati to the foot of the rapids of
the Maumee River, by way
of Middletown, Dayton, and the Great
Miami River.73 Late in the
summer Brown visited New York, where he
engaged David S. Bates,
a skilled and experienced engineer, to
review all of the surveys and
estimates which had been made.74 Bates
returned with the senator
and commenced his examination in
northern Ohio.75
As the December session of the
legislature approached, the com-
missioners girded themselves for the
supreme effort. Realizing that
the next few months would be critical
ones for the canal,76 they pre-
pared a fifty-one-page report packed
with statistics and vital in-
formation. In addition to a detailed
account of each proposed route,
they included estimates of the cost.
The total expense, they said,
of the Miami Canal would be $2,929,957.
The cost of the Ohio
Canal, depending upon which of the
three alternative routes was
chosen, would total between
$2,801,709.85 and $3,061,368.47.77
They predicted that by 1837 revenue
from the canals would pay
the interest on the loans, and from
that time on would increase
sufficiently to aid in their
redemption. Prompt action by the legis-
lature, they asserted, would enable the
work to be undertaken by
71 Williams to Brown, December 27, 1823. Brown Manuscripts.
72 Bogart, Internal Improvements, 18-19.
73 Report of the Canal Commissioners,
to the General Assembly of Ohio (Columbus,
1825), in Pamphlets. This report
is dated January 8, 1825.
74 National Republican and Ohio
Political Register (Cincinnati),
September 10, 1824.
75 Columbus
Gazette, September 16, 1824.
76 Williams to Brown, March 15, 1824. Brown Manuscripts.
77 Report of the Canal Commissioners (January
8, 1825).
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 41
July 1, 1825, and it was expected that
the canals could be completed
within seven years.
Both houses took the report under
consideration with little delay.
The senate reached a vote first,
approving a bill on January twenty-
first, 34 to 2. The only negative votes
were cast by the senators from
Richland and Columbiana counties. The
canal commission was
continued and its membership fixed at
seven, and a canal fund com-
mission, consisting of Brown,
Buckingham, and Trimble, was
created. Some senators had favored
Worthington over Trimble for
the canal fund commission, and the
house was expected to veto both
Buckingham and Trimble.78 The
house did, indeed, object and
substituted the names of Duncan
McArthur and Simon Perkins.
Thus amended, the measure passed by a
vote of 58 to 13.79 The
upper house was adamant on its
appointments to the canal fund
commission, however, with the result
that the house acquiesced in
the original appointees.80 The
canal commission remained unchanged
except for Brown's and Buckingham's
transfer to the canal fund
commission and the addition of John
Johnston.
In addition to establishing the two
commissions, the act specifically
provided that two canals should be
constructed, one between Cin-
cinnati and Dayton, the other between
Cleveland and Portsmouth,
via the Cuyahoga, Muskingum, and Scioto
rivers. Though the act
did not say so in so many words, the
work of construction was to
be done by private contractors.
The action of the legislature touched
off spontaneous rejoicing
throughout the state. The citizens of
Granville, for example, pro-
posed to their Newark neighbors that
they meet halfway between
the towns and fire a salute with the
Granville cannon in honor of
the pro-canal legislators.81
Even the Washington National
Intelligencer was laudatory.
Referring to the bill's passage, the
editor commented:
Considering the youth of the state of
Ohio, this is a stupendous under-
78 Williams
to Brown, January 21, 1825; Buckingham to Brown, January 21, 1825.
Brown Manuscripts.
79 Kelley
to Brown, January 28, 1825. Brown Manuscripts.
80 Buckingham to Brown, January 30, 1825. Brown Manuscripts.
81 Advocate (Newark),
January 27, 1825.
42
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
taking. . . . And when we consider,
that, forty years ago, her soil was the
unmolested abode of the Aborigines, it
is hardly possible we could have
a more striking evidence of the hardy
enterprise of the Sons of the West,
who, after taming the Savages by their
valor, and subduing the forests
by their labor, conquer time and space
by their intelligence.82
With simple eloquence, DeWitt Clinton
registered his approval,
saying, "Ohio has behaved nobly at
last."83
Brown and his colleagues, however, could
not rest for long on
their laurels. The hard-won legislative
victory represented only
partial attainment of their goal, for
ahead lay the gigantic task
of financing and digging the canals. The
work of each of the com-
missions is a story in itself and, of
the two, only that of the canal
fund commission is germane to this
account. The operations of the
canal commission, in laying out and
supervising the actual construc-
tion of the waterways, had many
interesting facets and, if ever
described in detail, would provide
fascinating reading.84
Within each group emerged one man who
towered above his
associates and whose contributions
outshone theirs. In the financial
aspect of the work that individual was
Ethan Allen Brown; in the
building of the canals it was Alfred
Kelley, although ample credit
should go also to Micajah Williams.
Kelley, however, was the man
who labored so unceasingly in the
interest of the canals and whose
talents were so outstanding in that
connection that his name became
intimately tied to the canal system.
Indeed, he virtually dedicated his
life to Ohio. His climb up the political
ladder carried him through
various municipal and state offices
until he eventually became the
state's leading authority on banking and
taxation. Kelley and Brown
had become acquainted years before the
inception of Ohio's canal
system. One of Brown's first acts as a
supreme court judge was to
admit the twenty-one-year-old Kelley to
the bar in Cleveland in
82 February 15, 1825.
83 Clinton to Brown, February 17, 1825. Clinton Manuscripts, New York
State
Library, Albany.
84 The best accounts to date of early
canal construction and operation are Huntington
and McClelland, Ohio Canals, 20-46;
Bogart, Internal Improvements, 23-46, passim;
George White Dial, "The
Construction of the Ohio Canals," Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Quarterly, XIII (1904), 460-480, passim; and James L.
Bates, Alfred
Kelley, His Life and Work (Columbus, 1888), 75-93, passim.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 43
June 1810.85 The two
appeared on the same ticket in 1818, Brown
for governor and the younger man for
state representative,86 and
a little later Brown appointed Kelley
aide-de-camp to the com-
mander-in-chief of the state militia,
assuring him warmly, "I am
gratified in having this opportunity of
testifying the friendship, and
confidence, with which I am impressed,
in your favour."87
Both men have been honored with the
title, "Father of the Ohio
Canals." A strictly literal
application renders Brown's claim stronger,
inasmuch as Kelley's work was confined
largely to the Ohio Canal
itself. Moreover, Brown as governor
supplied the stimulus which
finally prodded the legislature into
favorable action, and he later
was more responsible than any other
individual for negotiating the
loans which paid for the canals. Had it
not been for his persistent
recommendations between 1818 and 1822,
Ohio might well have
never had any canals, for a few years'
delay would have seen any
system of artificial waterways
completely precluded by the advent
of the railroad. To single out either
Brown or Kelley to the exclu-
sion of the other, however, is unjust
and unwarranted; there is
sufficient credit and glory for both.
According to the act passed by the
legislature on February 4, 1825,
the terms of office of the canal fund
commissioners were six years,
except that, in order to stagger future
appointments, the terms of two
of the first three were set at two and
four years. Their duties included
negotiation of loans, administration of
the canal fund, paying out
money on the order of, but not to, the
canal commissioners, and
keeping account of other financial
matters pertaining to canal con-
struction. The stipulation that funds
should not be issued to the
commissioners was a vitally important
point, for it virtually
eliminated the possibility of graft.
Briefly summarized, these were the
mechanics of the canal fund.
Money obtained by loans, most of which
were procured by the sale
of bonds in New York, was deposited
with the Manhattan Bank of
New York City. As the need arose, these
funds were transferred
85 Kelley to John Barr, December, 1858.
Kelley Manuscripts, Western Reserve
Historical Society.
86 Cleaveland Register, October
20, 27, 1818.
87 Brown
to Kelley, February 23, 1820. Brown Manuscripts.
44
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
by order of the fund commissioners to
one of several local banks
in Ohio. A canal commissioner drew upon
these accounts by sub-
mitting certificates signed by both
himself and the payee to the fund
commission, members of which then made
out checks to the con-
tractor for work done, or to the
landowner from whom land was
being purchased, or to an individual
whose property had suffered
damage, or the like. The acting
commissioners had funds actually
at their disposal only for incidental
expenses. Even then, duplicate
receipts, one of which was filed with
the commissioner's account,
prevented the dishonest disbursement of
the money. Some dis-
advantages resulted from this system,
primarily due to the fact that
the canal fund was subject to no other
state agency, and consequently
the state treasurer and auditor were in
ignorance as to the operation
of the fund, although at the same time
they were collecting taxes
for the canals. For the purposes of the
canal system alone, however,
it was a very judicious arrangement.88
The fund commissioners were authorized
by the act of 1825 to
borrow, at not more than six percent
interest, a maximum of
$400,000 in 1825. The latter amount
could be increased to $600,000
in each succeeding year. In return for
the loans, they were to issue
transferable certificates of stock
redeemable at the pleasure of the
state between 1850 and 1875. The net
profits from tolls and rents
from the canals were pledged for the
payment of the interest and
the final redemption of the principal.
Until the canals actually began
operating, the interest was to be paid
from money raised by
taxation.89
Meanwhile, Brown was finishing out his
abbreviated term in the
United States Senate (his desire for
reelection had been thwarted by
William Henry Harrison). When the news
of his appointment to
the canal fund commission reached
Washington, he began to lay
88 Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Financial
History of Ohio (University of Illinois Studies
in the Social Sciences, I, Urbana-Champaign, 1912), 148-150.
89 Huntington
and McClelland, Ohio Canals, 17-18. Although basically sound, this
plan did not result in complete success because of
several variable factors. The canals
ultimately cost ten million dollars more
than estimated; the net revenues did not meet
expectations as soon as anticipated; a
financial panic occurred in 1837; and the railroads'
appearance administered the coup de
grace.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 45
plans for an early visit to New York.
Speedy action was imperative,
for the canal commissioners had set
July 1 as the deadline for be-
ginning the construction (it was later
moved back to July 4 because
of the special significance of the
day). Moreover, Williams was
anxious either to spend or let
contracts for the entire $400,000
before it was time to report to the
legislature.90 One of the first
considerations was the selection of a
financial agent at New York,
who could advise Brown and his
colleagues in their negotiations and
attend to their affairs when they were
in Ohio. Clinton, Haines, and
Williams all recommended William Bayard
of LeRoy Bayard and
Company. Praised as an upright, honest,
and respected merchant
whose word was his bond, Bayard was the
head of the oldest and
most respectable mercantile
establishment in New York City and was
also president of the chamber of
commerce.91 Brown was easily
persuaded in Bayard's favor.92
Buckingham and Trimble joined Brown at
Washington when
congress adjourned, and the three of
them traveled to New York
together, arriving on March 13.93
On the following day they called
upon several bankers, who expressed
confidence in Ohio's stability
and good faith.94
Suddenly, unexpected trouble arose in
the form of opposition
meetings held in Ohio. Resentment over
the route of the Ohio Canal
reached the boiling point in the
Sandusky Valley and in the north-
east. The diehards who were intent upon
sabotaging the canals were
unable to muster adequate support,
however, and the commissioners
were able to proceed with their work
after the crisis passed.95 A week
after they arrived at New York, they
inserted in the newspapers there
and also in Boston, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore advertisements to
the effect that they would receive
proposals for the $400,000 loan on
90 Williams to Brown, February 21, 1825. Brown Manuscripts.
91 Clinton to Brown, February 17, 1825, in Clinton Manuscripts, New York
State
Library; Haines to Brown, February 11,
1825, Williams to Brown, February 21, 1825,
in Brown Manuscripts.
92 Williams to Brown, March 6, 1825.
Brown Manuscripts.
93 Buckingham to Brown, February 7 and
February 17, 1825, in Brown Manuscripts;
Supporter and Scioto Gazette (Chillicothe), March 3, 1825; Advocate, April 7,
1825.
94 Supporter and Scioto Gazette, March
24, 1825; Advocate, April 7, 1825.
95 Kelley to Brown, March 11 and March
23, 1825. Brown Manuscripts.
46
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
April 5.96 The most attractive offer came from John Rathbone,
Jr.,
and Eleazar Lord of New York. They
agreed to lend the entire
$400,000, but at a 2 1/2 percent
discount because Ohio would pay no
more than 5 percent interest. The
transaction was consummated on
April 12 to the satisfaction of all the
participants.97
Their next task was to select the state
banks to which money could
be transferred from the Manhattan Bank.
Brown and his colleagues
wrote to various financial institutions
in the state and received favor-
able replies from several of the most
prominent. The commissioners
finally selected three: the Western
Reserve Bank at Warren, the
Franklin Bank of Columbus, and the Bank
of Lancaster.
The canal commissioners in the meantime
decided to commence
the construction work at Licking Summit
near Newark, the point
of highest elevation on the route from
Cleveland to Portsmouth.
Such an occasion, of course, called for
special ceremonies, and the
Fourth of July was the logical day for
them. While the commissioners
proceeded with their preparations,
civic groups were planning an
elaborate celebration. A number of
citizens from several counties
met at the courthouse in Columbus on
the evening of June 8 and
laid the groundwork. Governors Morrow
and Clinton would be the
honored guests, it was decided, and
other nationally known figures,
including Henry Clay, would be invited.
It was to be hoped that the
commissioners and engineers of the
canal could attend, in addition
to governmental officials and the
public.98
Having accepted the invitation,
Governor Clinton came to Cleve-
land aboard the steamboat Superior, arriving
June 30. He and his
retinue, which included Rathbone, Lord,
and General Solomon Van
Rensselaer, a veteran of Anthony
Wayne's Ohio campaign, were
greeted by Governor Morrow. After
spending the night in Cleveland,
the party boarded stages bound for
Newark.99 Apprehension began
to mount when the dignitaries failed to
put in an appearance on
Sunday, July 3, as expected, but the
tension ended early the next
96 Advocate, April 7, 1825; Supporter and Scioto Gazette, April
7, 1825.
97 Cincinnati Advertiser, April 20, 1825; Columbus Gazette, April 21,
1825.
98 Columbus Gazette, June 16, 1825.
99 Samuel P. Orth, A History of
Cleveland, Ohio (Chicago and Cleveland, 1910),
I, 693.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 47
morning when the word of their approach
was received.100 The
governor's aides, the various
commissioners, and other gentlemen of
some standing, accompanied by a
detachment of cavalry, rode out
to meet the stages. The whole group
entered Newark about nine
o'clock and, after breakfast, set out
for Licking Summit, an hour's
ride distant. The large crowd was
impressed by Thomas Ewing's
address and moved by Clinton's remarks.
When the oratorical cere-
monies had ended, the throng moved to
the appointed spot, at which
spades were handed to the governors of
the two states. There is
some disagreement as to which one first
broke ground. A contempor-
ary writer related that their actions
were simultaneous, while the
Newark Advocate accorded the
honor to Morrow.101 On the other
hand, most later writers give Clinton
that distinction. Brown and
his associates each removed some earth
before returning to the scene
of the earlier festivities, where a
dinner had been prepared.102 The
day's events were a tremendous success,
although Henry Clay, who
had been expected, failed to appear.103
Next on Clinton's schedule was a
triumphal tour through central
and southwestern Ohio. Brown was one of
his companions on the
journey, which took them to Columbus,
Springfield, Dayton,
Hamilton, and Cincinnati. The people of
Ohio turned out in numbers
along the way to pay homage to the
dignitaries, who were feted in
every town.104 They finally
reached Cincinnati on July 13. Clinton
and Brown, accompanied by Tappan,
Williams, and Morrow, had
spent the night at a tavern five miles
from the city and were escorted
the remaining distance the next morning
with great fanfare. Two
days later the entourage left for
Louisville aboard the steamboat
General Pike.105 Their schedule called for their return by the same
transportation, prior to their
journeying to Middletown for the
100 "Commencement of the Ohio Canal
at the Licking Summit," Ohio State Archae-
ological and Historical Quarterly, XXXIV (1925), 66.
101 Ibid., 69; Advocate, July 7,
1825.
102 "Commencement of the Ohio
Canal"; E. M. P. Brister, Centennial History of
the City of Newark and Licking County, Ohio (Chicago and Columbus, 1909), I, 178.
103 Advocate, June 23, July 7, 1825.
104 Columbus Gazette, July 14, 1825.
105 National Republican (Cincinnati), July 15, 1825, quoted in "Press
Notices of
Governor Clinton's Visit to Ohio," Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly,
XXXIV (1925), 100-101.
48
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ground-breaking ceremonies on the Miami Canal, Thursday,
July 21.106
The affair was almost a carbon copy of
the Newark festivities.
The same distinguished people were
present, speeches were made,
and the two governors wielded the
spades. A number of military
units participated in the procession,
one of which marched through
forty miles of heat and dust from
Cincinnati.107
Clinton, with Brown still at his side,
terminated the grueling
month by visiting Thomas Worthington's
"hospitable mansion,"
Adena, at Chillicothe, before traveling
on to Circleville, Lancaster,
and Zanesville.108 New
York's governor then bade farewell to the
state which had so warmly adopted him,
and returned to Albany by
way of Pennsylvania.
After the excitement of July, a month
Brown would long
remember for the sincere tributes
proffered by the people of Ohio
and for DeWitt Clinton's animated
companionship, the remainder
of 1825 was an anticlimax. The fund
commissioners met at Columbus
in December, at which time Brown
presented a four-page report to
the legislature summarizing the
accomplishments of the canal fund
commission since its organization. He
was worried for a time because
Buckingham, in whose possession were
many of the accounts and
pertinent documents, had fallen and
injured a leg. The invalid was
ultimately able to attend, spurred on,
no doubt, by Brown's urgent
declaration, "We must try to have
you at Columbus, if you have to
be brought on a litter."109 The
legislature, in partial compliance
with the commissioners' recommendation,
authorized them to nego-
tiate for a loan of $1,000,000 in 1826
and $1,200,000 for each of
the succeeding two years, thereby
approximately doubling the
amount stipulated in the canal bill.
By February Brown and his colleagues
had been advised to seek
the loan at home, as money had become
more valuable at New
106 Williams to Thomas Worthington, July
14, 1825. Worthington Papers, Ohio
Historical Society.
107 Cincinnati Advertiser, July 27, 1825.
108 Ibid., August 6, 1825; Supporter
and Scioto Gazette, July 28, 1825.
109 Buckingham to Brown, November 4,
1825; Brown to Buckingham, November 9,
1825. Brown Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 49
York, where the interest rate had risen
from six to seven percent.110
Having already ascertained that that
possibility was negligible,
Brown began to plan another trip to New
York. At the same time,
Eleazar Lord, one of their bankers,
requested Brown to send him
the important statistics concerning
Ohio, in the hope that their
publication would attract a lender.111
Brown was the only commissioner on the
scene during most of
the negotiations for the 1826 loan.
Buckingham was apparently
unable to go to New York at all, and
Simon Perkins of Warren,
who had replaced Trimble, did not
arrive until the last minute.
Brown lamented Buckingham's absence,112
but it is doubtful whether
he regretted Perkins', for the latter
had displayed temperamental
tendencies which were not conducive to
harmonious relations. In
May he complained because Brown and
Buckingham wrote to him so
seldom, and protested that he did not
even know what was expected
of him.113 In deference to
Alfred Kelley's plea for peace,114 Brown
conciliated the sensitive Perkins by
apologizing for their apparent
neglect. Reminding Perkins that the
three commissioners were equals,
he pointed out that Perkins was free to
offer suggestions at any time
and, if he was not properly informed,
he should demand informa-
tion.115 To Buckingham,
Brown confided, "When a man requires
punctilio, he should be punctilious
himself, but let that pass. I hope
and trust you will let no scrupulous
ceremony prevent you from co-
operating with me to preserve
confidence and candid friendly inter-
course even at the expense of
formality."116
110 Brown and Buckingham to Trimble,
February 3, 1826. Allen Trimble Manu-
scripts, Western Reserve Historical
Society, Cleveland.
111 Lord to Brown, March 22, 1826. Brown
Manuscripts.
112 A letter from Clinton gives rise to the suspicion, however, that Brown
was not
without other company in New York, for
the governor sent his respects to the "fair
widows," and in a postscript
inquired, "Are the widows in a succumbing mood?"
Clinton to Brown, April 19, 1826, in
Brown Manuscripts. Clinton, who had earlier
displayed a sparkling sense of humor in
letters chiding Brown about his bachelorhood,
was trying to arrange a match between
the Ohioan and one of New York's "charming
widows," but Brown successfully eluded the
clutches of matrimony. Clinton to Brown,
December 29, 1825, in Brown Manuscripts; Clinton to
Brown, February 6, 1826, in
Clinton Manuscripts, Columbia University
Library.
113
Perkins to Brown, May 13, 1826. Brown Manuscripts.
114 Kelley to
Brown, May 15, 1826. Brown Manuscripts.
115 Brown to Perkins, May 30, 1826. Brown Manuscripts.
116 Brown to Buckingham, May 28, 1826. Brown Manuscripts.
50
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
A few inquiries at New York, after his
arrival in March, convinced
Brown that it would be far from
impossible to obtain a loan,
although they might be forced to pay six
percent interest.117 His
optimism was substantiated by a visit to
Philadelphia, where he
received an offer to advance the entire
million dollars at six
percent.118 Gratified by the
favorable outlook, Brown held himself
in readiness, expecting an even better
proposition.119 In New York
again a few weeks later, Brown
cautiously approached the famous
financier, John Jacob Astor. Having been
warned not to try to apply
pressure to Astor, Brown merely
mentioned his mission and
expounded upon Ohio's resources and
production. As a result, Astor
approved the idea of advertising for the
loan immediately and he
asked to be notified when the
negotiations were about to open.120
Rathbone and Lord offered a temporary
loan of $150,000, but
Brown considered the prospects of
obtaining the full amount too
promising to warrant accepting only a
small part of it.121 His
decision to advertise for bids shortly
after July 1 had to be altered
because Perkins did not plan to reach
the city before the twelfth or
fourteenth. Brown then designated July
17 as the day on which bids
would be accepted.122 Upon
examining them, Brown and Perkins
decided to accept Astor's terms, which
were as favorable as any
of the others: $1,000,000 at six
percent.123
In December Brown made his annual
appearance before the
legislature, reporting on the condition
of the canal fund. He in-
formed the lawmakers also that in the
presence of the governor and
the speaker of the house, the three
commissioners had drawn lots to
determine the lengths of their terms. As
a result, Perkins' was to
expire in February 1827, and Brown's and
Buckingham's two and
four years later, respectively.124
117 Supporter and Scioto Gazette, March 23, 1826; Ohio State
Journal and Columbus
Gazette, March 30, 1826.
118 Advocate and Genius of Ohio (Newark), April 27, 1826.
119 Supporter and Scioto Gazette, May 13, 1826.
120 Brown to Buckingham, May 22, 1826. Brown Manuscripts.
121 Brown to Buckingham, May 28, 1826,
Brown to Perkins, May 27, 1826, in
Brown Manuscripts; James T. Worthington
to Thomas Worthington, June 27, 1826,
in Worthington Papers.
122 Ohio State Journal and Columbus Gazette, July
13, 1826.
123 Supporter
and Scioto Gazette, August 2, 1826.
124 "Report of the Commissioners of the Canal Fund [December 11,
1826]," in
Pamphlets.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 51
It was Brown's turn to be a homebody in
the spring of 1827. He
spent several weeks at Rising Sun,
visiting his relatives and
adjusting some business affairs,125
and stayed at Cincinnati the
rest of the first six months.
Buckingham, on the other hand, went
east to survey the reportedly
unfavorable situation. After five
disappointing days at Philadelphia, he
had little hope of arranging
a loan there.126 Two days
later he held the same opinion of New
York.127 It was while he was
subsequently visiting Governor Clinton
at Albany that the idea was conceived
which was to provide Ohio's
biggest event of the year. Buckingham
first mentioned it to Brown
late in March, when he wrote that he
agreed with Clinton and
some others in New York who felt that
Ohio's chances of obtaining
a loan would be greater if the
navigability of the Ohio Canal could
be demonstrated, for example, by
bringing a canal boat all the way
from the Muskingum River to New York.
Should a boat be built,
he asked Brown, with a flag painted on
it depicting the union of
commercial New York and agricultural
Ohio?128 Clinton, enthus-
iastic over the idea, promised to
"order out the Big Guns to help . . .
with a noise."129
The scheme also appealed to Brown, who
advocated building as
splendid a boat as they could afford
and one which should "do
credit to our naval architecture; and
the emblematical flag be a good
specimen of the skill and taste of our artists."130
His offer to have
the boat built at Cincinnati was
quickly accepted by Buckingham,
who reported that New Yorkers would
send the paintings, ribbons,
and garters that decorated the first
Erie Canal boat, to meet them at
Buffalo.131
By the middle of May, Buckingham had
some misgivings. He had
learned from Alfred Kelley that by the
tentative date of departure--
sometime in July--the canal would be
navigable no farther than
Akron. This knowledge gave them the
option of building the craft
at Akron or postponing the voyage until
more of the waterway was
125 Brown
to M. Garaghty, March 10, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
126 Buckingham
to Brown, March 5, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
127 Buckingham to Brown, March 7, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
128 Buckingham
to Brown, March 27, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
129 Buckingham
to Brown, April 3, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
130 Brown to Buckingham, April 18, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
131 Buckingham to Brown, April 30, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
52
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
in use.132 To Brown, the
first alternative was preferable by far.133
At this juncture, the recalcitrant
Simon Perkins disparaged the
project, objecting to the expense and
ostentation that would be
connected with it.134 Brown
commented that if Perkins "had
observed the fondness of the New
Yorkers for a flourish of trumpets;
he must have thought with us that 'the
expense and noise' of our
proposed trip by water wd. turn to good
account."135
Perkins' protests fell on deaf ears,
for the plan had aroused
widespread interest in Ohio. But from a
proposed junket for the
the fund commissioners, it rapidly
evolved into a full-blown civic
celebration of the opening of the
canal, and the idea of taking the
boat on to New York seems to have been
dropped entirely. Alfred
Kelley, who became the unofficial
chairman, transmitted the details
to Governor Trimble, Brown, Buckingham,
and the other honored
guests.136 The boat, he
said, would leave Portage Summit, near
Akron, early enough on July 3 to reach
Cleveland by dinnertime on
Independence Day.
Brown was alternately expectant and
disappointed during the last
weeks of June. With him at Cincinnati
was one of his brothers, who
was receiving medical treatment. His
condition was satisfactory
enough on June 20 that Brown felt free
to plan to meet Buckingham
at Putnam eight days later. He expected
to travel that far by stage
in order to save time, but he asked
Buckingham to provide him with
a horse for the last leg of the
journey.137 It was impossible for him
to conceal his regret, however, when he
decided that his brother's
health would force him to forego the
pleasure of participating in the
maiden voyage on the canal.138 Finally,
the pendulum swung back
again and Brown departed in haste on
the twenty-eighth, with Akron
as his destination.139
132 Buckingham to Brown, May 15, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
133 Brown to Buckingham, May 18, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
134 Buckingham to Brown, May 18, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
135 Brown to Buckingham, May 30, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
136 Kelley to Trimble, June 11, 1827, in Trimble
Manuscripts; Buckingham to
Brown, June 13, 1827, Brown to
Buckingham, June 20, 1827, in Brown Manuscripts.
137 Brown to Buckingham, June 20, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
138 Brown to Buckingham, June 24, 1827. Brown Manuscripts.
139 Brown to Buckingham, June 27, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 53
The canal boat, bearing the majestic
title, State of Ohio, was in
readiness early on the morning of July
3. Governor Trimble, who
had arrived at Akron the day before,
boarded the vessel in the
company of Brown, Buckingham, and
Perkins of the canal fund,
Kelley, Williams, Minor, Tappan, and
Beasley, all commissioners,
Jeremiah McLene, the secretary of
state, and a number of other
distinguished individuals.140 The
thirty-eight-mile voyage from
Portage Summit began at ten o'clock.
The only untoward incident
occurred when the recently constructed
bank of the canal gave way
in one place, causing a delay of
several hours. At the village of
Boston they were joined by another
boat, this one named for the
governor.
Meanwhile, the people of Cleveland, not
to be outdone, had
borrowed from New York the Pioneer, an
Erie Canal boat. Gaily
bedecked and carrying a band, she
proceeded up the canal to a point
six miles from Cleveland, where the two
vessels met. A salute was
fired and from that moment all stops
were out. Ohioans from miles
around lined the banks of the canal,
shouting their approval as the
colorful boats triumphantly passed.
Cannon on the land and on the
boats exchanged volleys frequently, the
band played on, and, all in
all, the scene "produced an
impression on the mind not soon to be
obliterated."141 A large throng
welcomed the three vessels to Cleve-
land where, after appropriate
ceremonies, a memorable dinner was
served the guests. A few hours later
the first freight canal boat
arrived at Cleveland with a cargo of
flour and whiskey from Portage
County.142 Ironically, on
this same momentous day, the steamboat
Superior, which had brought DeWitt Clinton to Ohio two years
before, passed Cleveland
bearing the remains of Thomas
Worthington, who had died at New York.143
Brown and Buckingham left Cleveland
together and rode to
Columbus, where they separated, each
going on to his home.144
140 Cleaveland Herald, July 6, 1827, quoted in Ohio Repository
and Stark County
Gazette (Canton), July 12, 1827.
141 Ibid.
142 Ibid.
143 Ibid.
144 Buckingham to Brown, July 12,
1827. Brown Manuscripts.
54
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
After a few days at Cincinnati, Brown
repaired to Parterre, as the
family estate was called, near Rising
Sun, for another visit.145
Autumn found him again in New York
attempting to contract for
a loan. The money market had improved
during the summer
months, according to information
furnished by their eastern friends,
and their chances for success were
thought to be good. John Jacob
Astor, some months before, had coupled
encouraging advice with
a peculiar request, which seemed to
catch Brown off balance. It was
relayed by Buckingham, who wrote,
"Astor wants some of the
largest size wild turkeys to send to
Europe. Can you catch him a
dozen each hens & goblers."146
The astonished Brown could only
reply, "I should travel some
distance before I could catch or even
find wild turkies. Do not some few
remain on the hills between
Muskingum & Hockhocking? I should
suppose his fur traders could
procure and forward them much easier
than we."147
The quest for a loan was more
successful than that for the turkeys
would probably have been, had Brown
undertaken it. He was joined
in November by Buckingham, after
advertising for bids in the
eastern cities.148 From the
offers extended, they selected one from
William W. Woolsey, which provided
exceptionally profitable terms.
They received $900,000 at the rate of
$107.26 for $100 of six per-
cent stock, netting the canal fund a
premium of about $65,000.149
En route from New York to Ohio, Brown
contracted a cold which,
after he reached Cincinnati, became
very oppressive. Nevertheless,
he responded to a request from his
brothers and went to Rising Sun,
where he enjoyed a ten-day visit. Then
he was off to Putnam to spend
a week or two with Buckingham
organizing the report which he
was to present to the legislature on
December 27. He lingered at
Columbus watching the progress of canal
legislation until late in
January, after which he returned to
Rising Sun.150
145 Brown to Buckingham, July 21, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
146 Buckingham to Brown, May 18, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
147 Brown to Buckingham, May 30, 1827.
Brown Manuscripts.
148 Buckingham to Brown, November 3,
1827; Brown to Buckingham, November 5,
1827. Brown Manuscripts.
149 Ohio State Journal and Columbus
Gazette, November 8, 1827.
150 Brown to Buckingham, November 23 and
December 3, 1827, January 25 and
February 28, 1828. Brown Manuscripts.
BROWN AND OHIO'S CANALS 55
The early months of 1828 brought both
joy and sadness to Brown.
He was deeply touched by the death of
"that great man," DeWitt
Clinton, in February, but his heart was
gladdened a month later
when the first flotilla of canal boats
arrived at Cincinnati on the
Miami Canal.151 Six in number, they
were greeted by thousands of
Cincinnatians.
Urged on by Buckingham, who was in poor
health, Brown went
to New York by way of Cleveland and the
Erie Canal early in
June.152 There he discovered
that it would be best to postpone
for a few weeks advertising for bids.
This advice was confirmed by
a visit to Philadelphia.153 Buckingham
joined him in August, but
Perkins did not follow them until
October. Their mission was, as
before, successful, for they arranged
for a loan of $1,200,000 at six
percent interest.
When Brown's term as a canal fund
commissioner expired in
February 1829, he was
reappointed--ample evidence of the high
regard in which he was held. Coming on
the heels of four busy,
strenuous years, 1829 was quite dull.
Since no new loans were
authorized for the canal fund that
year, the commissioners' duties
consisted largely of disbursing funds
to the acting commissioners.
Brown's expenses for the year were only
$48.75, as compared with
$257.03 for Buckingham and $130.57 for
Perkins, indicating that
he was less active than in previous
years.154 There was, perhaps, less
incentive now for a consuming interest
in the canals. They were well
on their way to completion,155 and
their destiny was in good hands.
Moreover, Brown had been evincing
renewed interest in politics.
By 1828 he had become a confirmed
Jacksonian Democrat, and in
that year he served as a presidential
elector.156 In 1829 he was elected
to the Ohio Senate, but his term was
shortened by his appointment
151 Brown to J. Rathbone, March 16,
1828. Brown Manuscripts.
152 Brown to Buckingham and Perkins,
June 22, 1828. Brown Manuscripts.
153 Brown to Buckingham and Perkins,
June 27, 1828. Brown Manuscripts.
154 "Report of the Canal Fund
Commissioners [December 5, 1829]," in Pamphlets.
155 Brown had witnessed the beginning of
navigation at Cleveland and Cincinnati,
but he was present at Columbus in name
only when the Columbus feeder was opened
to traffic in 1831. He was out of the
United States, but the first boat arriving at
Columbus was the Governor Brown. It
had come from Circleville. Liberty Hall and
Cincinnati Gazette, October 6, 1831.
156 Ohio State Journal and Columbus
Gazette, January 12, 1828.
56
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
as charge d'affaires to Brazil in the
following year.157 This signaled
his departure from the Ohio scene, but
he continued in public life
after his return to the United States,
first as commissioner of the
general land office and later as a
member of the Indiana House of
Representatives.158 At the
time of his death in 1852 he was serving
as the vice president of the Democratic
state convention at
Indianapolis.159
Termed "one of the Gallatins of
the [canal] policy,"160 Brown
exhibited a financial acumen which
looms even larger when one
considers that for five years he
dominated a board of which the
other two members were bank
presidents--Buckingham of the Bank
of Muskingum and Perkins of the Western
Reserve Bank. Ac-
customed as he must have been to praise
and flattery, nevertheless
Brown was no doubt gratified when he
read these words from Vice
President John C. Calhoun: "It
seems almost a miracle that a state
in its infancy should undertake, and
successfully execute so great a
work, and it may be cited as one of the
strongest proofs of the
admirable effects of our political
institutions in giving a high degree
of intelligence and enterprize. If we
can only succeed in preserving
them in their purity, an example will
be given to the world of all
that is excellent beyond all former
examples."161
Ethan Allen Brown's many-sided career
led him into various fields
and frequent controversies, but there
is ample evidence that he for
the most part heeded DeWitt Clinton's
heartfelt plea: "Whatever
may occur, my friend, in these political
. . . battles, let us stick closely
to the great cause of internal
improvements and build our fame not
in the miserable squabbles of personal
ambition but in aiding the
prosperity of our Country."162
157 Ibid., October 22, 1829; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, October 22, 1829;
Brown to Martin Van Buren, June 5, 1830,
in Despatches, Brazil, VIII, National
Archives, Washington, D.C.
158 National Intelligencer (Washington), September 5, 1835; Indiana
House Journal,
XXVI (1841-42), 3, and XXVII (1842-43),
224.
159 Daily Indiana State Sentinel (Indianapolis), February 26, 1852.
160 Williams to Brown, February 6, 1825. Brown Manuscripts.
161 Calhoun to Brown, January 28, 1828. Brown Letters.
162 Clinton to Brown, February 6, 1826. Clinton Manuscripts, Columbia
University
Library.
Ethan Allen Brown
And Ohio's Canal System
By JOHN S. STILL*
The most important stimulus to Ohio's
economy in the first half
of the nineteenth century was the
construction of a canal system,
and the individual most responsible for
this accomplishment was
Ethan Allen Brown. Yeoman service, it
is true, was rendered by
Alfred Kelley, Micajah Williams, and
others, but from the years
when his was a voice in the wilderness
until the canals were actually
in use, Brown stood at the forefront.
There was nothing in Brown's early
background to presage such
a consuming interest in internal
improvements. Born in Connecticut
in 1776, he studied law with Alexander
Hamilton--a combination
not calculated to inspire concern for
the problems of frontier Ohio.
Like many of his contemporaries,
however, Brown turned his eyes
westward. Having become somewhat
familiar with the terrain
during a flatboat voyage down the Ohio
and Mississippi rivers in
1802, he returned a year later and
purchased several thousand
acres in his father's name at a
promising spot on the west bank
of the Ohio some thirty-five miles
below Cincinnati. There, with the
arrival of other settlers in the
ensuing decade, the village of Rising
Sun, Indiana, came into being. Brown
remained only long enough
to clear a few acres and to see one of
his brothers well established
on the new farm. Then, in 1804, he
moved to Cincinnati to launch
his legal and, ultimately, his
political career. In that "dirty little
village" of a thousand
inhabitants,1 he had the good fortune to
* John S. Still is curator of historical
collections of the Ohio Historical Society.
His doctoral dissertation, upon which
this article is based, was "The Life of Ethan
Allen Brown, Governor of Ohio"
(Ohio State University, 1951).
1 Edward D. Mansfield, Personal
Memories, Social, Political, and Literary, with
Sketches of Many Noted People (Cincinnati, 1879), 19.