Ohio History Journal

DONALD A. HUTSLAR

Ohio Waterpowered Sawmills

Introduction

The reduction of large timber into useful sizes for woodworking is an ancient

process beginning long before the written word. Metal tools were not necessary. Be-

fore the advent of metal axes in North America, the Indians were accustomed to

felling trees by alternately charring the trunk with fire and breaking away the

burned surface-presumably with large stone axes. Dugout canoes were also hol-

lowed out in this fashion.

Splitting is undoubtedly the oldest known means for reducing a tree trunk into

rough planks. This method does not require metal tools if the wood has cracks large

enough to start a wooden wedge. Traditionally wooden wedges and mauls have

been used in the United States to split fence rails. Some split timber is still being

used in the wooden ship building trade because splitting preserves the strongest

characteristics of wood: the split follows, whereas the saw often cuts through, the

natural grain structure. Split planks bend much better than sawed planks. With the

advent of iron tools, the timber was split roughly to size, then hewed to the desired

dimensions. This was a wasteful process, but has continued into the 20th century in

many parts of the world. For at least 2000 years moderate size tree trunks have been

hewed into posts and beams for braced-frame structures; the mortised and tenoned

barns, houses, and outbuildings of the United States owe their origin at least to the

Romans, if not to an older civilization.1

By beginning the discussion of saw milling with splitting and hewing, the implica-

tion is left that cutting wood with a saw is a latter-day invention. The fact is, the saw

was considered by the Greeks to be so ancient that its (supposed) inventor was

placed in their mythology. Beckmann found that classic literature ascribed the in-

vention to the minor gods Talus or Perdix.² Talus used the jawbone of a snake to cut

through a small piece of wood, thereby giving him the idea to form a similar device

of iron. Perdix used the backbone of a fish for the same purpose. The ingenuity of

1. For further reading on this subject, see Cecil Alec Hewett, The Development of Carpentry (Newton

Abbott, Devon, 1969); Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, The Ten Books on Architecture (Morris Hicky Morgan,

trans., 1914 ed. New York, 1960), Book X, Chap. V, par. 1.

2. John Beckmann, "Saw-mills," in A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins (London, 1846), I,

222-224.

Mr. Hutslar is associate curator of history at The Ohio Historical Society. Unless otherwise designated,

all photographs are by the author.

Ohio Sawmills                                                                7

In the United States, the Disston Company of Philadelphia, at least as late as 1909,

offered pit saws complete with tiller (upper handle), box (lower handle), and blade.³

Strangely enough, there is a modern impression that any form of saw was a rare

or unknown item during the settlement of the North American continent. This

writer has even heard similar statements made in connection with the settlement of

Ohio early in the 19th century. Though saws were more difficult to make and were

more expensive than axes, there were few settlers who did not have some access to a

handsaw. In Ohio, proof of this statement is no further away than the log houses or

braced-frame barns still in existence that exhibit hewed timbers with the ends neatly

sawed. Log structures were traditionally "hewed up" and "sawed down" at the cor-

ners.

The reason few early saws exist today is probably due to their having been liter-

ally worn away by use and sharpening. Hewing tools, such as felling and broad axes,

do remain in quantity because they are intrinsically durable objects and could be

"resteeled" with a new cutting edge by local blacksmiths. The importance of the

handsaw, as well as the boring auger and the froe, has been overshadowed by the

more poetic image of an ax in the hands of a "sturdy pioneer." (It is hard to vi-

sualize a pioneer's wife guarding the entrance of the little "cabin in the clearing"

against the "dusky denizens of the forest" with a handsaw! An ax, yes.)

Before outlining the history of sawmills in Ohio, some aspects of the lumber in-

dustry in the state during the 19th century should be clarified. A disappearance of

statewide forestation was manifested after 1815 but was due to many factors, saw-

milling being a major but not necessarily dominant cause. As much, or more, timber

was destroyed by burning or decay as was utilized for building purposes.

Before 1800 the entire state was forested, but to varying degrees; there were a

few, small, open prairies. The Ohio Biological Survey, Ohio State University, pub-

lished a map (1966) entitled "Natural Vegetation of Ohio" which defines, topo-

graphically, the various forest areas found by early survey crews. The best agricul-

tural lands were defined by fairly open hardwood stands-years of accumulated leaf

mold plus an ever-present shade had kept the forest floor relatively free of under-

growth. The small river valleys, on the other hand, were notorious for thick brush

and flood debris; consequently settlers-as had the Indians before them-picked

trails that crossed such valleys or paralleled them on ridge lines.

Initial clearing of woodland for agricultural purposes was accomplished in a

simple way. Rather than cutting the trees down, the settlers killed them by a process

known as "girdling," that is, cutting through the sap wood. The tree was allowed to

dry in an upright position, then burned. (Fig. 3.) If a stand of trees was girdled in

the fall, the land could be cultivated and planted in the spring. The trees and roots

were simply avoided during cultivation; and, without leaves, ample sunlight was

available for crops beneath the dead trees. When winter arrived, burning com-

menced. It was not until large horse-drawn agricultural equipment was manufac-

tured, beginning in the 1840's in Ohio, that the stumps presented any problems-

and then due to a desire to farm more land rather than to the difficulties of working

3. Henry Disston & Sons, Catalog (Philadelphia, January 1909), 66. The saw pit remained in use in

Canada well into the 20th century. See Fig. 7, "Whip sawing lumber 1920," p. 15, in the article "Building

in the North," by Angus Sherwood, APT Bulletin, VI (1974), 1-25 (Bulletin of the Association for Preser-

vation Technology).

Ohio Sawmills                                                              9

In the summer of 1789 Colonel Robert Oliver, Major Haffield White, and Cap-

tain John Dodge formed an association to erect a grist and saw mill on land granted

by the Ohio Company. The site chosen was about a mile from the mouth of Wolf

Creek; due to a bend in the creek the mill was located only a few hundred yards

from the Muskingum River. A dam was built across the creek and the sawmill was

constructed first. A 180 pound iron crank, made in New Haven, Connecticut, was

brought in by pack horse and boat especially for the new mechanism. The following

year a log gristmill was constructed on the downstream side of the sawmill, the wa-

ter for the wheel passing under the sawmill. The gristmill was in operation in March

1790. The Indian wars broke out in January 1791, but the mills went through five

years of warfare unharmed and were in existence until about 1840.

Perhaps contradicting himself, Hildreth describes a second sawmill, supposedly

completed in September 1789, which could have been the first in Ohio. It was lo-

cated on Duck Creek, the present eastern limits of the City of Marietta, Washington

County, on land granted to Captain Enoch Shepherd. Shepherd was joined in this

milling enterprise by Colonel Ebenezer Sproat and Thomas Stanley. Some lumber

had been sawed at the mill when a sudden flood removed part of the dam; soon af-

ter, the Indian wars broke out and the project was abandoned.⁶ Presumably the in-

habitants of Campus Martius went back to their saw pits, established in 1788, for

lumber until the wars were terminated by the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795.

Unfortunately no further comments on sawmills during this earliest period of

Ohio settlement have come to light. It is entirely possible, however, that at least one

more mill existed in the future state. Fort Washington, in the southwestern corer,

was constructed in 1789, the site now covered by the downtown area of Cincinnati.

In January 1790, Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the Northwest Territory, moved the

seat of government from Marietta to Losantiville, a small village developing around

the fort. According to tradition, St. Clair is the one who suggested changing the

name of the settlement to "Cincinnati." 7

During the year of 1790 two frame houses were erected. In 1792 there were "three

or four" frame houses. By 1795 Cincinnati contained "⁹⁴ cabins, 10 frame houses,

and about 500 inhabitants." The following year there were "about fifteen rough, un-

finished frame houses with stone chimneys." The first newspaper in Ohio, The Cen-

tinel of the North-Western Territory, was published in Cincinnati from the fall of

1793 to the summer of 1796. Several advertisements for frame houses appeared in

the early issues but there was no mention of a sawmill.⁸

These frame houses in Cincinnati may have been of hewed, braced-frame con-

struction with rived, rather than sawed clapboards. One such house is still in exist-

ence, the "Buckeye Station," built by Nathaniel Massie in 1797 on the site of a 1791

log cabin known by that name. (This house is located in Monroe Township of

Adams County and is on the National Register of Historic Places.) The mode of

construction would have been little different, however, even if a sawmill were at

work in Cincinnati: the posts and beams of the framing would have been sawed

rather than hewed, the clapboards sawed rather than split with a froe. Assemblage

6. Samuel Prescott Hildreth, Pioneer History (Cincinnati, 1848), 250.

7. The Cincinnati Directory, for the Year 1829 (Cincinnati, 1829), 150.

8. Ibid., 150-151; Lewis Alexander Leonard, ed., Greater Cincinnati and Its People (Cincinnati, 1927),

I, 87, quoting Cincinnati Directory, 1819, p. 29; Centinel of the North-Western Territory, January 4, 11,

February 8, 1794.

10                                                                OHIO HISTORY

of the components would have been the same-pegs for the framing, nails for the

siding.

It should also be noted that builders of log structures did not necessarily adhere

strictly to hewed timber even at this early date in Ohio. Internal structural com-

ponents, such as joists, rafters, sheathing, flooring, and boards for doors and parti-

tions, were commonly the products of a sawmill-if a sawmill was even remotely

available. The ten frame houses in Cincinnati by 1795, even the ninety-four cabins,

are at least circumstantial evidence in favor of a sawmill somewhere in the vicinity.

During this same period, 1789-1795, a larger settlement than Cincinnati was lo-

cated a few miles east at the mouth of the Little Miami River. This was the village

known as Columbia, which was the center of a rambling valley settlement roughly

half a mile in width and three miles in length. Such an area could have supported

more than one sawmill but, again, no direct evidence has been found.

The next reliable date for a sawmill, following the abortive attempt at Marietta in

1789, is not until 1798. A sawmill was constructed for Thomas Worthington on the

North Fork of Paint Creek, four miles west of Chillicothe, in the spring of that year.

Joseph Yates was the millwright, George Haines the blacksmith. This mill was

flooded in 1801, but was rebuilt and used to saw lumber for Worthington's home,

"Adena," at Chillicothe.⁹

From 1796 on, once the Indian wars were ended, many private installations such

as Worthington's must have been built. Even though direct comments are lacking,

the amount of sawed lumber in extant buildings is mute testimony to the fact. Ac-

cording to the 1800 census of the Ohio Territory, there were 45,365 residents in the

state.¹⁰ This was an ample population to support several mills. No sawmills were

enumerated in Ohio by Tench Coxe in an "industrial" census of 1810; in fact, no in-

dustry of any kind was enumerated.11 However, a census taken of Cincinnati in the

same year accounted for 232 frame houses, 55 log houses, 37 brick houses, and 14

stone houses.¹² For construction of this magnitude there is no question but that saw-

mills were in operation, even disregarding the number of framed structures that

must have existed in the rest of the state. Pitsawyers could not have handled the de-

mand unless a significant percentage of the entire population of Ohio worked in saw

pits.

To show that Ohio was not completely barren of industry in 1810, Tench Coxe

notwithstanding, an editorial comment from The Supporter of that year is worth

noting: A company at Marietta was constructing a steam-powered gristmill, dis-

tillery, and woollen "manufactory which will not be inferior, if not superior, to any

piece of mechanism of the kind in the United States." 13 The steam engine was an

Oliver Evans' design of twenty horsepower. (It is entirely possible one or more

steam engines were also at work in Cincinnati by 1810.) This is just one good ex-

ample, of many, to show the rapid internal development that occurred in Ohio early

in the 19th century-in the case of Marietta, from a "howling wilderness" to a

9. Henry Howe, Historical Collections of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1847), 434; Diary entry by Thomas Worth-

ington, April 8, 1801, Collections of the Ross County Historical Society.

10. Compendium of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants and Statistics of the United States ... from the

Returns of the Sixth Census (Washington, D.C., 1841).

11. Tench Coxe, A Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America, for the Year

1810 (Philadelphia, 1814), n.p.

12. Liberty Hall (Cincinnati), November 13, 1810.

13. The Supporter (Chillicothe), October 6, 1810.

12                                                                OHIO HISTORY

steam-powered mill in twenty years. This is also an example of why it is so difficult

to recreate the frontier and settlement period in Ohio: the primitive building meth-

ods and wilderness conditions of the frontier existed simultaneously with the in-

troduction of power equipment that was being developed by the fledgling industrial

revolution.

Once the War of 1812 was settled, industry boomed in Ohio; proprietors finally

felt their investments safe. By 1819 the first recorded circular saw made its appear-

ance. According to Martin's History of Franklin County, this sawmill was con-

structed on the Scioto River in Columbus, just above Rich Street. The men respon-

sible were Moses Jewett, John E. Baker, and Caleb Houston. The latter man was a

house and barn builder and was doing carpentry work on the new state prison. The

sawmill was still operating in 1821; however, in Martin's words, "It was an experi-

ment, and cost them a good deal, without ever answering any valuable purpose."14

Probably, Martin knew one or more of the above men, for Jewett was still active in

Columbus in 1845, about a decade before Martin wrote his history.

From about 1820 on, fairly concise information is available on the number of

sawmills in Ohio. The Digest of Accounts of Manufacturing Establishments under-

taken in 1822 is in the vein of Tench Coxe's work of 1810. A careful count of saw-

mills listed in all entries in the Ohio section by the author gave a total of 170.

Defebaugh found only 136 sawmills for the same 1820 period.15 Apparently he

counted only the entries under "Lumber" in the Digest or else used an entirely dif-

ferent source. Many industries (such as furniture companies and distilleries) listed

their own sawmills. Even a total of 170 is probably low, judging by later censuses.

As a sidelight to the wood-building trade, there were ten mechanized nail factories

in Ohio in 1822, a few owners adding the comments "little" or "no demand" to their

entries. The fiction that only hand-forged nails were available is an old one.

It is very unfortunate that an industrial census was not taken in 1830. The two

decades from 1820 to 1840 are critical in the general rise of sawmilling in Ohio, not

to mention other industries. During this interval, probably in the late 1820's, the

planing mill was introduced on a commercial basis. Once mill-planed "finish" lum-

ber was available to carpenters, the wood-building industry could flourish at a rate

unknown in the past; the nail factories were already producing the vast quantities of

nails needed for frame buildings.

The earliest date substantiated for a combined saw and planing mill in Ohio is an

advertisement from a Cincinnati directory for 1834:

STEAM SAW MILL, on Elm, between Second and Third streets, owned by Brooks & Long-

worth, has 1 saw for boards and timber, one circular saw, and a machine for planing floor

boards, all driven by steam power.16

This mill was listed again in 1836 as "M. Brooks & Co." It is entirely possible that

this was not the first such mill, for Ohio city directories are scarce for this period. At

least one more establishment was at work in Cincinnati by 1839:

HUDSON E. HUGHES, HOUSE CARPENTER & JOINER, North Side Longworth Street,

14. William T. Martin, History of Franklin County (Columbus, 1858), 207.

15. Digest of Accounts of Manufacturing Establishments in the United States . . . (Washington, D.C.,

1823), alphabetized; James Elliott Defebaugh, History of the Lumber Industry of America (Chicago,

1906-07), I, 489.

16. The Cincinnati Directory Advertiser, for 1834 (Cincinnati, 1834), 230.

Ohio Sawmills                                                                  13

Between Plum and Western Row, WHERE he has fitted up a large and convenient shop, and

machinery, which enables him to carry on the above business extensively. Also, Sawing All

Kinds of Venetian Blind Slats, and Planing Floor Boards By Steam Power.¹⁷

By the latter 1830's such a shop must have been common in any large Ohio city

for, according to the 1840 census, there were 2883 sawmills at work in the state.¹⁸

This is a staggering figure when compared to the total of 170 mills compiled in 1822.

This fact definitely calls in question the earlier compilation. Yet, who in Marietta in

1790, faced with an Indian uprising, would have believed a steampowered mill

would be built just twenty years later? Perhaps this is just another good example of

the rapid rate at which the Ohio Country, following the War of 1812, was converted

from frontier conditions to a stable rural-oriented society. After 1842, when the last

Indian reservations in Ohio were ceded to the Federal Government, the entire state

ceased to be "frontier" in any use of the word current at that time. Yet, whatever

impetus the milling industry had between 1822 and 1840, it must have abated some-

what by 1850, for according to the census of that year there was a total of only 1639

saw and planing mills. The planing mills probably did not constitute a large per-

centage of the total figure, for ten years later there were 1862 sawmills and 48 plan-

ing mills.l⁹ Architectural historian Charles Peterson went to some trouble to count

the number of sawmills listed in Hawes' Ohio gazetteer and directory for

1860-1861.20 He found only 437 mills, 174 of which were powered by steam. (The

discrepancy between the sawmill count of 1862 and 437 is probably due to the fact

that it cost money to be listed in the gazetteer.)

The first Hawes' gazetteer was published in 1859. It contained an extensive list of

sawmills as well as nine saw and saw blade manufacturers. The advertisement of the

Cleveland Saw Manufactory was typical for the period:

Every description of Saws, Circular, Mill, Pitt [sic] and Cross-cut, on hand or made to order.

All kinds of Saws Re-Toothed, Straightened, Set and Sharpened. Handles put to Cross-cut

and Hand Saws, and new Saws fitted for use ... Particular attention paid to the manufacture

of CIRCULAR AND WEB SAWS, for Cutting Iron, Brass, Shell, Bone, Ivory, &c ...

The Woodrough and M'Parlin Company of Cincinnati advertised they were manu-

facturers of "Patent Ground Circular Saws" as well as "Mill, Mulay, Cross-cut,

Veneer, and Web saws." 21

The acceleration of industrialism during the Civil War, caused by the interaction

between the increased need for goods and the development of the technology neces-

sary for their production, is reflected in the 1870 census: 2230 mill establishments,

running 3177 saws, powered by 1628 steam engines and 580 waterwheels and tur-

bines.²² This increased productivity continued through the ensuing decade, 2352 es-

17. Shaffer's Advertising Directory for 1839-40 (Cincinnati, n.d.), 36.

18. Sixth Census (1841), 284.

19. Defebaugh, Lumber Industry, 490; Manufactures of the United States in 1860; Compiled from ... the

Eighth Census (Washington, D.C., 1865), 486.

20. Charles E. Peterson, "Sawdust Trail, Annals of Sawmilling and the Lumber Trade ... to the Year

1860," APT Bulletin, V (1973), 88; George W. Hawes, Ohio State Gazetteer and Business Directory for

1860-61 (Indianapolis, 1860), 893-897.

21. George W. Hawes, Ohio State Gazetteer and Business Directory, for 1859 and 1860, No. 1. (Cincin-

nati, 1859), 147, 186, 703-706.

22. Francis A. Walker, comp., The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States... from the

Original Returns of the Ninth Census (Washington, D.C., 1872), III, 612. The total figures given for saw

and planing mills in this compilation do not agree, or at least are not explained fully enough to under-

stand; pp. 453-454 give totals at variance with p. 612.

Ohio Sawmills                                                           19

sawmill received its water supply from a sluice off the main mill race supplying the

gristmill. The latter was powered by two overshot waterwheels, consequently the

race was quite a large channel which, oddly enough, ran directly through the farm

between the house and barn and thus required a bridge. However, the mills and the

distillery were the main functions of the "farm," for it is recorded that Elias "never

engaged in farming the place." 29

The Cleveland Mill (Fig. 8) was located near the small village of Calais in Seneca

Township, Monroe County.³⁰ (It was purchased and disassembled by The Ohio His-

torical Society in 1972, hopefully to be reassembled as part of an "Historic Village"

complex.) The combined grist and saw mill began its service in 1850 when the saw-

mill section was constructed by one Robert Harper of Barnesville in Belmont

County. The two story mill, approximately 45 by 16 feet in dimension, was built in a

small valley adjacent to a hillside. A mill race was run down the valley on the side of

the hill. A bridge, or platform, extended from the hillside to the second floor of the

mill where the sawing mechanism was located. Lumber and waste material could be

removed from openings at either end of the structure.

The mill was powered by a 15 foot 8 inch overshot waterwheel which, instead of

buckets or vanes, had a corrugated surface formed in the manner of clapboard sid-

ing. All power transmission in the sawmill was through belts and pulleys. It is im-

possible to say if this was the original mechanism of 1850-it certainly could have

been-or one of two later alterations to the structure and mill equipment. In March

of 1863 Harper sold the sawmill to Thaddeus Cleveland, a local farmer and mer-

chant. In 1865 Cleveland added a pair of millstones to the original structure; then,

in 1870, the entire mill was doubled in size by extending the width to 32 feet and

adding three upper floors. Two pair of millstones were installed in the new section

along with the necessary grain-handling equipment. The gristmill was powered by a

jackshaft operated by a section gear on the flange of the waterwheel.³¹

The mill was taken over by William N. Cleveland shortly before his father died in

1901. The business had declined for some time and apparently the mill was allowed

to fall into disrepair. In the July 1, 1909 issue of The American Miller, Cleveland an-

nounced his temporary retirement from milling, but the following year he planned

to "install a new waterwheel, put in a new forebay and rebuild the dam and waste

gates at the plant before commencing milling again." 32 The mill, however, was

never restored to service, but before it was dismantled it had been preserved in rea-

sonably good condition since the lower floor was used as a barn and two of the up-

per floors as workshops.

The saw and carriage are quite similar to the Staley Mill, the chief difference

being that the ratchet mechanism moving the carriage had to be placed at a right

angle to the carriage because of the low ceiling height. It is possible that in the origi-

nal 1850 structure the configuration was the same as the Staley Mill and as shown

by Oliver Evans, plate XXIII. (Fig. 7.) It is also possible that the original power

transmission was by belts and pulleys and not directly by the waterwheel axle as

shown by Evans, and apparently used in the Staley Mill. The use of belts and pul-

29. Ibid.

30. Garber, Waterwheels and Millstones, 99-101.

31. Ibid., 99.

32. Ibid, 101.

26                                                                OHIO HISTORY

is hoped that it will be maintained as well in the future as the Kister family has

maintained it in the past. It is indeed fortunate that such a variety of 19th century

waterpowered sawmills are extant in Ohio. The Staley Mill represents the standard

vertical mill as delineated by Evans; the Cleveland Mill illustrates the alternate

belted power train recommended by Hughes; the Gladstone Mill presents the hous-

ing for a muley saw; and the Kister Mill is a working example of a circular sawmill.

One could wish, of course, to add to this list-and a worthy addition would be the

Hoge Lumber Company of New Knoxville, Auglaize County. The company was

founded by Herman H. Hoge in 1904 and remains in the family. Initially the mill

was powered by steam engines and lineshafting. The steam boilers were heated by

burning all mill debris, such as "off-falls" and sawdust; the practice continues today.

In 1935 electrical generators were installed, powered by two steam engines. About

ten years ago a steam turbine was substituted for one engine; then, two years ago, a

second turbine replaced the remaining engine.

For all practical purposes, such a plant could have been operating in the last

quarter of the 19th century. Bale, writing in 1883, speaks of having "seen a large cir-

cular saw bench driven by electricity." He further states, "We trust we may not be

accused for being before the times when we prognosticate a future for electricity in

connection with woodsawing and conversion." He was speaking of England, but the

United States paralleled England in the application of electrical energy to

woodworking mill machinery.³⁸

The Construction and Operation of a Vertical Sawmill

Basically, the mechanical operation of every vertical waterpowered sawmill was

the same; there was little variance in equipment design, and the function of the mill

and its equipment predetermined the design of the mill foundation and super-

structure. Any stonemason could have handled the foundation work for a mill, any

barn or house builder the braced-frame superstructure. The construction and align-

ment of the saw mechanism, on the other hand, probably did require the services of

an experienced millwright. In the advertisement "Prices of Mill Wright's Work"

(Fig. 14), hewing and framing timber is mentioned under the sawmill heading but

not in the longer section dealing with a gristmill. The superstructure of a sawmill

was not a complex building problem; and as part of the mechanism was tied directly

to the framing, the carriage ways and the fender posts in particular, perhaps the en-

tire building was considered the province of the millwright. No doubt the millwright

had strict control of the foundation work, even if he did not build it, because of the

nature of the equipment to be installed in that area.³⁹

There was no reason a sawmill had to conform to a plan such as shown by Evans,

but apparently most did. There were not many configurations a sawmill could as-

sume; a building could be taller or longer, certainly wider than shown in Evans'

38. Ibid., 46.

39. Chapter 23 on sawmilling by Thomas Ellicott in Oliver Evans' book (fn 27 above) is well worth

reading. It was used as a standard reference for this article. There are also descriptions of construction

and operation of a vertical sawmill in Henry C. Mercer, Ancient Carpenters' Tools (Doylestown, Pa.,

1960) and in Bale's Saw-Mills (fn 57 below). A recent commentary on the rebuilding and operation of a

vertical mill may be found in John M. Dickey, "Restoration of the Bertolet Sawmill," APT Bulletin, V

(1973), 155-161. Vertical mills are presently being demonstrated at Old Sturbridge Village, Mass., and

Upper Canada Village, Morrisburg, Ontario.

36                                                                   OHIO HISTORY

they hollered out, 'You musn't touch that-it's the carcilar saw that saws all the clapboards.'

But they spoke half a second too late-the eend of my finger was gone, and I never seed it

since." 46

No doubt this little sample of 19th century humor is older than 1845, but the cir-

cular saw must still have been enough of a novelty at the time to make it worth

printing.

Until at least mid-nineteenth century the word "sawmill" meant a vertical, recip-

rocating saw. However, as the circular saw became more and more common, "saw-

mill" denoted that type of saw blade. The result was there are now many different

names for the vertical mills: vertical saw, sash saw, frame saw, up-and-down saw,

mill-web saw, swing-frame saw, sash-frame saw, reciprocating saw, and so forth-

anything but plain "sawmill." These terms are synonyms referring to a single saw

blade, tensioned in a frame, cutting in a vertical plane. A circular saw, however, was

apparently always called just that.

Bale and Byrn refer to the first English patent for a circular saw, which was issued

to one Samuel Miller of Southampton in 1777, patent number 1152. Miller claimed

that it was "an entirely new machine for more expeditiously sawing all kinds of

wood, stone, and ivory; and the saws used are of a circular figure." Several authors,

including Bale, credit the Dutch with inventing the circular saw in the 16th or 17th

century, but the source for these statements is not given. Gilbert credits the inven-

tion to a Walter Taylor of Southampton, in the third quarter of the 18th century. He

had a contract for making pulley blocks for the Royal Navy.⁴⁷

Near the end of the 18th century a remarkable Englishman, Sir Samuel Bentham,

was awarded patents (1791 and 1793) covering most of the important woodworking

machinery to be used in the 19th century: a planing machine with rotary cutters; a

veneer cutting machine; a horizontal stone saw; a moulding and recessing machine;

a bevel sawing machine; a saw-sharpening machine; a tenon-cutting machine using

circular saws; plus a variety of rotary and boring tools. Bentham erected the mills at

the Portsmouth Royal Navy Dockyard in 1803-1808 to house block-making ma-

chinery invented by Marc Isambard Brunel.⁴⁸ This was one of the first true mass

production lines in the world, making pulleys and tackle for sailing ships; many of

the machines are still in use.

In 1805 Brunel took out a patent for an improved machine for sawing timber, a

combination of circular and reciprocating saws for block making. This machine was

constructed by Henry Maudslay, London, and first put into operation at Portsmouth

in 1807, powered by two 30 horsepower steam engines.⁴⁹ (Fig. 23.) The operation of

46. Cist, Cincinnati Miscellany, II, 112.

47. Bale, Woodworking Machinery, 6; Edward W. Byrn, The Progress of Invention in the Nineteenth

Century (New York, 1900), 361; K. R. Gilbert, Machine Tools (A History of Technology, Charles J.

Singer, ed., IV, Oxford, 1957-58), 437.

48. Bale, Woodworking Machinery, 2-3; Brian Bracegirdle, et al., The Archaeology of the Industrial

Revolution (Cranbury, N.J., 1973), 194. In Scientific American (April 1, 1871) there appeared a letter from

one J. E. Emerson of Pittsburgh, Pa. He stated that a Mr. John Coop brought a circular saw blade to him

to be cleaned. Coop claimed he had made the blade about 1791 while employed at a dockyard in Eng-

land. He ran it in a lathe apparently prepared for sawing wood; it was then termed a "fly saw." Coop's

dating and location were certainly in agreement with the known history of the circular saw. This letter is

quoted in the APT Bulletin, VI (1974), 149, contributed by Philip Shackelton.

49. Bale, Woodworking Machinery, 6; Abraham Rees, The Cyclopaedia: or, Universal Dictionary of

Arts, Sciences, and Literature (Reprint of London, 1819-20 ed., Philadelphia, ca. 1824), II, plate 1.

Ohio Sawmills                                                              39

saw blades offered for sale in the United States less than twenty years after the first

successful commercial use of the circular saw in England.

No comment on the circular saw in the United States would be complete without

reference to Sister Sarah (Tabitha) Babbitt of the Harvard Community of Shakers.

The story of her "invention" of the circular saw has appeared in print many times,

notably in Shakerism: Its Meaning and Message, by White and Taylor, and repeated

in Williams' Consecrated Ingenuity. Williams actually ascribes the invention of the

saw to Sister Sarah:

It is hard to imagine a shop today without a circular saw, yet none existed until Sister Sarah

Babbitt of Harvard surprisingly came up with the idea, probably around 1812. The story is

told, that while watching some of the brethren saw, she remarked on the amount of lost mo-

tion and the idea of the circular saw came to her. Being a sensible woman she did not take it

up with the brethren, but quietly retired, and made herself a notched disk out of tin. This she

slipped onto her spinning wheel, and finding it adequate to saw shingles, reported her find-

ings. A Mount Lebanon brother produced the first one piece steel (iron) saw, which can now

be seen in the New York State collections.⁵⁴

White and Taylor say that Sister Sarah ("Tabitha") made the saw blade from tin

sections, affixed these to a wooden disk, then placed the device on the spindle of her

spinning wheel.⁵⁵

The story of Sister Sarah is probably true, though in their devotion to Shakerism,

the various authors have overlooked the simple fact that the concept of the circular

saw was already an old one by 1812, and that several were already in commercial

use by that date. Therefore, Sister Sarah's "idea" could have been something less

than inspirational; but in an era when the circular saw was generally unknown, it

was accepted as such.

In Shea's work, The American Shakers and Their Furniture, there is a photograph

of the hand-forged circular saw blade referred to by Williams, but nothing in the de-

sign of the blade reveals its age.⁵⁶ It is slotted, but slots were used throughout the

19th century to reduce the expansion of a blade when heated by the friction of saw-

ing. The design of the slots, in fact, suggest a later date for the saw blade than that

given by Williams. Bale implies that the idea of using slots was American but new in

1883, though he was not as familiar with American as he was with English sawmill-

ing.57 Of course the slots could have been put into the blade for an entirely different

purpose, perhaps to clear sawdust from a deep cut.

The versatility of the circular saw, which could be used for crosscutting as well as

ripping, was quickly recognized in the United States. Portable, steampowered circu-

lar sawmills were of great advantage because they could be transported into un-

developed forest areas and be in operation before a vertical mill could be con-

structed; also, because they were not dependent on a constant water supply for a

source of power, the choice of a millsite was less restricted. Portable, steampowered

vertical saws became available fairly early in the 19th century, but the sash frame

was certainly less convenient to use than the circular blade. The vertical mill re-

mained important in the large scale production of boards and planking because sev-

54. John S. Williams, Consecrated Ingenuity (Chatham, N.Y., 1957), n.p.

55. Anna White and Leila S. Taylor, Shakerism: Its Meaning and Message (Columbus, 0., 1904), 312.

56. John G. Shea, The American Shakers and Their Furniture (New York, 1971), 22.

57. M. Powis Bale, Saw-Mills (London, 1883), 135.

Ohio Sawmills                                                              41

a crank at the power source. The gates and saw frame were counterbalanced by

means of an overhead drum and weights which allowed the whole structure to de-

scend slowly as the blades cut into the stone.

The saw blades were toothless; cutting was effected by means of various grades of

silica (sand), with water for lubrication. This "mud" was applied periodically or con-

tinuously, depending on the hardness of the stone, as the cutting progressed. The

stone usually rested on a low wooden carriage that could be rolled or levered under

the saw frame. For decorative stone such as marble, fine silica was normally used for

cutting so the marble would not require a great deal of polishing; of course, this

meant that the cutting time was extended considerably. Ausonius, writing in the

fourth century A.D., commented on the "strident" or "shrieking" saws on the Ruwer

River in Central Europe. This was the usual comment about the sound of stone

saws-a sound akin to squeaking chalk on a slate blackboard.

There were many stone quarries in Ohio in the 19th century; the state has pro-

duced some good grades of building stone. How many stone sawmills were in oper-

ation is unknown, however. A contemporary reference to Ohio stone sawmills may

be found in Albert C. Koch's journal, written when he came down through the state

on the Ohio Canal. Between Circleville and Portsmouth he noted:

Friday, September the 6th [1844]. During the day we passed several sawmills in which no

wood was cut, but a beautiful, fine sandstone, which is also quarried here, is cut into slabs 21/2

to 3 inches thick. The saws are fixed so that eight slabs can be finished at one time.60

Grist and Saw Mills in Literature and Art

The ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as people living in the Middle East who

were faced with the problems of farming semi-arid land, were deeply interested in

the utilization of water. A few specific and implied references to waterpowered mills

and irrigation devices used in these areas are contained in extant classic works. It

should be noted that most of these references have been known for several hundred

years and are not the product of modern research. There are differences in the trans-

lations by various scholars; unfortunately, the interpretation of a single word can

cause a significant alteration in the meaning of a sentence. For this reason, modern

translations are probably the best because of the wide availability of all known clas-

sic literature that can be used as guidelines for interpretation.

Apparently the oldest known references to waterwheels occur in a treatise by

Philo of Byzantium writing in the third century B.C. (the date has been ques-

tioned).61 The devices he described were little more than toys-two for producing

whistling noises and one for turning a wheel on a fountain. All were overshot wheels

but were not used for producing power. The earliest known representation of a wa-

terwheel, which occurs in a mosaic at the Grand Palace, Byzantium (formerly Con-

stantinople, now Istanbul), is dated in the early fifth century A.D. The wheel was,

apparently, a large undershot attached to a substantial mill structure.62

Perhaps the next literary reference in terms of a strict date chronology following

Philo is by Strabo, who reported that a "hydraulic machine" was found in the Pal-

60. Albert C. Koch, Journey Through a Part of the United States of North America in the Years 1844 to

1846, Ernst A. Stadler, trans. and ed. (Carbondale, I11., 1972), 38.

61. Abbott Payson Usher, A History of Mechanical Inventions (Cambridge, 1954), 162.

62. John Reynolds, Windmills & Watermills (New York, 1970); illus. on p. 12.

42                                                                    OHIO HISTORY

ace of Mithridates, King of Pontus, when he was defeated by Pompey in 65 B.C.⁶³

Presumably the machine had been constructed some years earlier but not with the

original construction of the Palace, about 100 years before. What work the machine

actually performed is unknown, but perhaps it was a gristmill.

Writing at about the same time as Strabo was a minor Greek poet, Antipater of

Thessalonica. He has been placed as early as 85 B.C. and as late as the last quarter

of the century. In any case, in one of his epigrams he leaves no doubt that the water-

powered gristmill was known and in use:

Cease from grinding, ye women who toil at the mill; sleep late, even if the crowing cocks an-

nounce the dawn. For Demeter has ordered the Nymphs to perform the work of your hands,

and they, leaping down on the top of the wheel, turn its axle, which with its revolving spokes,

turns the heavy Nysarian millstones. We taste again the joys of the primitive life, learning to

feast on the products of Demeter without labor.64

Beckmann printed a briefer, but more poetic, rendering of the epigram:

Cease your work, ye maids, ye who laboured in the mill; sleep now, and let the birds sing to

the ruddy morning; for Ceres has commanded the water-nymphs to perform your task:

these, obedient to her call, throw themselves on the wheel, force round the axle-tree, and by

these means the heavy mill.⁶⁵

Ewbank repeated this version in 1847, probably borrowed from Beckmann rather

than a common source.⁶⁶ The first translation quoted specifically refers to an over-

shot waterwheel and, possibly, the use of "spokes" (gears?) to convert from horizon-

tal to vertical movement. The translation quoted by Beckmann could refer either to

an overshot or undershot wheel.

Following Antipater closely in time was the Roman architect Marcus Vitruvius

Pollio and his invaluable Ten Books on Architecture written about 27 B.C., or at

least during the reign of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, 27 B.C. to 14

A.D. Vitruvius mentions not only the noria and the "chain-of-pots," but also the

gristmill as being turned by waterwheels.67 (Fig. 26.) He had this to say about

gristmills:

Water mills are turned on the same principle [as waterwheels]. Everything is the same in

them, except that a drum with teeth is fixed into one end of the axle. It is set vertically on its

edge, and turns in the same plane with the wheel. Next to this larger drum there is a smaller

one, also with teeth, but set horizontally, and this is attached (to the millstone). Thus the

teeth of the drum which is fixed to the axle make the teeth of the horizontal drum move, and

cause the mill to turn. A hopper, hanging over this contrivance, supplies the mill with corn,

and meal is produced by the same revolution.⁶8

63. Usher, History of Mechanical Inventions, 164; Beckmann, "Saw-mills," 151.

64. W. R. Paton, trans., The Greek Anthology (New York, 1916-18), III, 418.

65. Beckmann, "Saw-mills," 152.

66. Thomas Ewbank, A Descriptive and Historical Account of Hydraulic and Other Machines for Raising

Water (New York, 1847), 282.

67. Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, Book X, Chap. V., par. 2. The "noria" was a large irrigation

wheel used in the Near and Far East. It is generally regarded as the forerunner of the mill waterwheel.

The related "chain-of-pots" was important to the development of simple gear mechanisms. See Fig. 26

(from Ewbank, Hydraulic Machines, 112, 124).

68. Ibid., 294-295 (preceding this paragraph Vitruvius described an undershot waterwheel powering

various irrigation devices). Usher, History of Mechanical Inventions, Fig. 47, p. 169, used an incorrect

drawing based on Vitruvius' description but stated that the text was "faithfully reproduced," on p. 168.

Yet, according to fn 12, p. 421, he was aware that drawings had been made contrary to the original text.

The drawing which he used shows a small gear on the axle and a large gear driving the millstone.

44                                                             OHIO HISTORY

slightly different translation, though the source is not stated: "turning millstones in

furious revolution and driving the shrieking saws through smooth blocks of marble,

hearing from either bank a ceaseless din." 71 It is doubtful that the millstones would

have been allowed to revolve furiously; but the "shrieking saws through smooth

blocks of marble" may be a better description than "the strident saw thro' polished

marble."

These sources indicate that the reciprocating saw frame with some form of crank

was in use between 300-400 A.D., if the Ausonius manuscript is indeed that early.

Beckmann premised that the stone sawmill must have been invented later than the

wood sawmill, or that both forms of mills were coeval.⁷² Setting aside the problem of

reciprocating motion, the stone saw was a simpler device to operate when compared

to the wood saw, so one is tempted to consider it the earlier mechanism: there were

no teeth on the stone saw blade; the saw frame worked in a horizontal rather than a

vertical position; and the saw frame moved downward by its own weight as the

stone was cut rather than the stone being moved into the saw as was necessary with

timber.

Timber "feed" in a wood sawmill, however, required additional equipment and

careful synchronization between the log carriage and the saw frame. In fact, in the

next chronological reference to any sawmill following Ausonius, after a lull of

nearly 1000 years, the log carriage figured prominently. This reference is a drawing

(Fig. 27) by the French architect Villard de Honnecourt, whose sketchbook has been

dated in the third quarter of the 13th century through architectural details of certain

French churches.⁷³ Even though Usher and other writers have wondered whether

this sawmill was real or imaginary (Usher claimed it could not have been functional

since "There is no mechanism for moving the log or holding it against the saw" 74), it

appears to some authorities that the drawing was based on an actual working mill.

Admittedly the pawl arms, levers, and spring pole are a primitive solution to the

problem of reciprocating motion; but the log carriage, or fixed guides, and the cog

or rag wheel, rendered as simplistically as they are, certainly bear resemblance to

mechanisms in common use for the next 600 years. If the naive quality of the draw-

ing can be overlooked, the most feasible aspect pictured is the method of moving

the log, not the saw mechanism, Usher's opinion to the contrary.

It is unfortunate that no more of the early history of sawmilling can be shown ex-

cept that which is embodied in one Latin poem of the fourth century and one

French drawing of the 13th century, neither of much technical value. There must

have been hundreds of stone and wood sawmills at work during the interim, yet

knowledge of their existence has either been lost or escaped researchers interested in

the history of technology.

Literary evidence of the existence of sawmills becomes more definite during the

14th century. Beckmann refers to a statement by Paul von Stetten, made in a book

published in 1779, that there were sawmills in the vicinity of Augsburg in 1337.

Beckmann wrote for more information and found that von Stetten had pushed the

date back to 1322. Von Stetten's proof was not absolute, but based on the inter-

71. John S. Kebabian, "Sawmills-Early and Not So Early," Chronicle of the Early American Industries

Association, XXVI (September 1973), 41.

72. Beckmann, "Saw-mills," 226.

73. Album de Villard de Honnecourt Architecte du XIIIe Siecle (Facsimile reprint, Paris, 1968).

74. Usher, History of Mechanical Inventions, 186.

46                                                                OHIO HISTORY

wheel. The timber to be sawn is laid on a wheeled trolley and moved forward by a ratchet

mechanism at each stroke of the saw.⁷⁷

References to sawmills are common in the 16th century. In the year 1555 the

Bishop of Ely, then serving as ambassador from Mary, Queen of England, to the

Court of Rome, described a sawmill he saw near Lyons, France. The account was

printed in Miscellaneous State Papers, edited by Phillip Yorke, 2nd Earl of Hard-

wicke, 1778, Vol. I, p. 71, and quoted by Beckmann:

The saw-mill is driven with an upright wheel; and the water that maketh it go, is gathered

whole into a narrow trough, which delivereth the same water to the wheels. This wheel hath

a piece of timber put to the axle-tree end, like the handle of a broch, and fastened to the end

of the saw, which being turned with the force of the water, heisteth up and down the saw,

that it continually eateth in, and the handle of the same is kept in a rigall of wood from

swerving. Also the timber lieth as it were upon a ladder, which is brought by little and little

to the saw with another vice.⁷8

By "handle of a broch" the good Bishop meant broche, or common turnspit for

cooking meat as translated from the French. "Rigall" is probably a form of rig,

meaning equipment, tackle, or machinery. The use of "vice" is obscure; however, a

plausible explanation is possible by reference to the illustration of a sawmill appear-

ing in Agostino Ramelli's work of 1588, Le Diverse et Artificiose Machine.⁷⁹ The log

or timber carriage shown did, in fact, act as a large vice, clamping the timber from

the sides by a screw at each end of the carriage. In other respects, however, the

mechanism of the mill is not dissimilar from mills 300 years later. (Fig. 28.)

Ramelli's sawmill is a highly refined piece of equipment when compared to the

sawmill pictured in Edward Williams' little book of 1650, Virginia's Discovery of

Silke- Wormes . .. Together with the Making of the Saw-Mill.. .80  Williams was writ-

ing for the benefit of English emigrants to the American Colonies, but whether his

sawmill helped or hindered them is an open question. (Fig. 29.) In any case, by 1650

waterpowered sawmills had already been established in North America. There are

differing opinions as to when and where the first mills were located, but the evi-

dence seems to point to the decade between 1610 and 1620 for "when," and either

to Newfoundland or Virginia for "where."

In 1610 an English settlement was made at Cupids, Conception Bay, New-

foundland, under John Guy. The instructions he was given for founding the settle-

ment mention a "saw," but whether they meant "sawmill" or "saw pit" is not clear

from the damaged manuscript. However, a sawmill was destroyed at this location by

Devonshire fishermen in 1620. In the fall of 1611 construction of a new town to be

called "Henrico" (site of present-day Richmond, Virginia) was begun by the Vir-

ginia Company. The company had procured "Dutch" (German?) millwrights as

early as 1608, but it is unknown if they constructed sawmills.81  Because there were

77. Reynolds, Windmills & Watermills, 175-176. Reynolds said the first wind-driven sawmill was built

in Holland in 1592 (p. 176).

78. Beckmann, "Saw-mills," fn, p. 228.

79. Agostino Ramelli, Le Diverse et Artificiose Machine del Capitano Agostino Ramelli (n.p., 1588),

illus. opposite p. 212.

80. Edward Williams, Virginia's Discovery of Silke- Wormes . .. Together with the Making of the Saw-

Mill, Very Useful in Virginia... (London, 1650), n.p.

81. A. J. H. Richardson, "The Earliest Wood-Processing Industry in North America, 1607-23," APT

Bulletin, V (1973), 81-83.

54                                                            OHIO HISTORY

hundreds. Of course the circular saw did increase mill output, particularly of small

stock requiring critical dimensions.

It is interesting to note that these three major technological advances in the wood-

building industry came into use at almost the same time, or from 1795 (nail ma-

chine) to 1803 (planing machine) and 1807 (circular saw). There is little doubt that

the cut nail was in Marietta before 1800 (Rufus Putnam house, after 1796); that the

circular saw was definitely in Columbus in 1819; and that the planer was in Cincin-

nati some ten years later. The impact of the circular saw was important, but cer-

tainly the nail machine and planer were significant far beyond the publicity given

the former device. The increasing use of the steam engine tied directly to the ad-

vancements in these mechanical appliances; a reliable power source meant year-

around operation; and a mill could be located anywhere the proprietor desired.

The settlement of Ohio corresponded almost exactly with the rise of industrial-

ization in the wood-building trade, as well as many other trades. This fact goes far

in explaining the brief "frontier" period in the state. Hand and machine made prod-

ucts vied with each other almost from the beginning, with an individual's geo-

graphic location or economic position, rather than technological progress, dictating

a choice. This writer has seen several houses built with both finished lumber from

planing and saw mills and with log joists and hewed rafters. Invariably, the part of

the house that was constructed from hand-hewed wood is called "original," whereas

it may only reflect the economic situation, or the parsimony, of the owners.

Initially the sawmills in Ohio provided rough lumber for general construction and

cabinet work. The supply of timber was, seemingly, limitless, as was the market. By

about 1830 sawmilling was moving towards specialization as newer mill equipment,

such as the planing machine, came into commercial use and the timber was declin-

ing. By mid-century a sawmill might still produce rough lumber, but also was ca-

pable of prefabricating a variety of finished lumber for many trades. The Civil War,

with the increased need for all kinds of wood products, accelerated the development

of mills capable of handling wood from standing timber to finished product. There

were also sawmills that roughed out lumber from the timber, sawmills that reduced

this rough lumber into prescribed dimensions, and sawmills that further reduced

this lumber into precise shapes and dimensions for fabrication. This situation ex-

plains the large number of specialized sawmills present in Ohio after the Civil War

and on to the end of the century. They were built not because of the amount of

standing timber available-which was probably less than today-but because of the

growing sophistication of the wood trades.

In 1789 there was one sawmill in Ohio. Today, 1975, there is still one water-

powered sawmill in operation out of a total of 307 compiled by the Ohio Forestry

Association. If the current "energy crisis" continues, this number may well increase.

Notes on Bibliography

Much of this writer's information on the history of sawmilling came from an 18th

century essay by Johann Beckmann.⁸8 (Fig. 36.) Unfortunately, Beckmann

(1739-1811) is largely unknown to the general reader interested in the history of

technology. For all practical purposes he was the one who initiated the field of

88. Beckmann, "Saw-mills," 222-230.