Perhaps the most fortunate accident in the life of DeWitt Clinton was the assignation by
his political opponents of the derogatorily intended title “Clinton’s Ditch” to the Erie
Canal prior to its completion. The success of the canal, also known as “Clinton’s Folly,”
would deliver him to power and several times resurrect a thoroughly dead political career.
The Erie Canal would for the next half century be inextricably twined with the politics
and government of the state of New York.
After realizing the futility of opposing the most popular and ambitiously triumphant
public works project in the brief national history, countless individuals stepped forward
to claim credit for its existence. But there are a few men, Governor Clinton among them,
who can justifiably claim paternity to the conception and construction of the Erie Canal.
While the improvement inland waterways and the construction of canals in the United
States predates the country itself, the notion of water connection between the Great Lakes
and the Hudson River was discussed as early as 1724. While canals were on the minds of
Revolutionary War heroes including Generals Washington and Schuyler, and statesmen
like Governeur Morris of New York, it was not until the 1890s that a compelling canal
movement began. Another New Yorker interested in canal development, Elkanah
Watson, met with President Washington, who saw the value of short canals connecting
rivers and wanted one to link the Potomac and Ohio. While the burgeoning canal
movement was extending branches, its heart remained in New York.
The legislature passed an act in 1792 that incorporated two companies to explore the
development of a statewide canal system. The idea was not simply to facilitate statewide
travel, but to provide access to the fertile and unsettled west.
[QB: “As yet…we only crawl along the outer shell of our country. The interior excels the
part we inhabit in soil, in climate, in everything.” Governeur Morris, Shaw 22)
The study showed that while transportation of goods by inland waterway had promise
(reducing both cost and shipping time) the shortage of labor and lack of engineering
experience led the companies to fail. Although nothing became of these early attempts,
important first steps had been taken and a foundation lain.
The Prisoner and the Politicians
It was not until 1807, however, that the first tangible canal plan would be proposed.
Western New York flour trader Jesse Hawley, confined for almost two years in debtors’
prison, wrote a series of fourteen essays outlining a plan for “a canal from the foot of
Lake Erie into the Mohawk” and suggesting other improvements for the continent. The
essays, carried in the (CHECK) Genesee Messenger among other newspapers and signed
Hercules, were reminiscent of Publius’s Federalist Papers, written by Madison,
Hamilton and Jay and pushing for ratification of the Constitution. Possessing limited
formal education, and using only books and simple maps, Hawley’s charted a route that
would that was almost identical to the one eventually chosen after several surveys and
much debate, and his estimated cost of six million dollars was within one million of the
actual seven million dollar cost. Hawley saw the canal as a means to boost trade,
facilitate communication and open the west to expansion through easier emigration. It
would still be ten years before ground was broken, and that decade saw extensive debate
over funding, route and other significant details, Hawley had provided the impetus for
discussion and legislative action and his idea would later be embraced by several
powerful politicians. DeWitt Clinton would perhaps do more to advance the completion
on the canal more than any one man, anchoring his career to its completion and success.
The cause was then taken up (conservatively) by the New York State Assembly, which in
1808 passed a resolution by Assemblyman Joshua Forman appropriating $600 to
commission a survey to determine the feasibility of <a href=””>different routes and
explore funding possibilities. The first decade of the nineteenth century was devoted to
territorial acquisition, expansion and land use. Thomas Jefferson, even while playing the
shrewd land speculator and purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France, had doubts
about the federal government’s authority to buy land or fund internal improvements.
Even so, in his 1807 message to Congress, Jefferson maintained that since the United
States had paid its national debt, the surplus should be used to improve the national
interior, using a system of canals and turnpikes to facilitate communication,
transportation of goods and expansion. He had opened up new land in the west and now
saw the opportunity to fill it. But when the canal advocate Forman approached Jefferson
with the proposed waterway connecting the Hudson with the Great Lakes, he was
rebuffed. Jefferson perhaps saw the merit and possibilities of the idea, but maintained that
it was ahead of its time and thought its execution impossible. (Quote abt. Connecting
C&O) Congress refused to provide funds and as thoughts returned to war with Britain,
the prospect of federal assistance for the canal vanished.
Sailing Ahead
Grasping the political nature of such a proposal, Gubernatorial candidate __ Platt and __
Eddy approached (party, Gov?) Republican Senator DeWitt Clinton to serve as canal
commissioner in order to achieve political balance on an issue that until then had been
championed solely by the Federalists. The next decade would prove dicey for Clinton,
facing intense intra-party opposition and suffering setbacks due it. (Clinton served as
canal commissioner until he was removed by the workings of Tammany and a
Republican political faction called the Agency.) In 1811 the Board of Commissioners
returned with its canal recommendations, having chosen the interior route over the Lake
Ontario option and advocating public funding, rather than the proposed public/private
partnership. The latter decision was a clear reflection of the common opinion that the
federal government, upon seeing the national benefit of such a project, would be the
major source of financial support. But what was obvious to New Yorkers, that the
national interest would be served by the canal, sectional and political opposition made
many fail to grasp what was at stake.
The link between the emerging west and the established east was tenuous at best. With
one main path, the Cumberland, as the primary (albeit insufficient) road to the Northwest
Territory there was a disconnect between the people of each region. A concerned George
Washington said “ “. The St. Lawrence provided access from the Great Lakes to New
France (Canada), which could easily become the favored outlet for the coveted raw
materials and agricultural goods of the fertile west. Additionally, the Mississippi River
offered a ready port in New Orleans, which, while now under U.S. control, could sever
the west from the east coast. Without commerce, the western territories would feel
increasingly separate from the geographically and culturally different eastern states.
Future events, while unforeseen at this time, would prove these concerns well founded.
Sectional differences would increase as the century progressed and there is little doubt
that the agricultural-based western territories with commercial ties to New Orleans and
the south would have made the mid-century split more complicated than simply
hemispheric.
But without guarantee of federal backing, the legislature passed its first canal law in April
1811, seeking financial support from the federal government and individual states (who,
New York argued, would also benefit from the canal), and sought loans, land grants and
engineers as the necessary foundation for the project. While some contended that the
canal should be built for the sole benefit of New York, the War of 1812 pocketed any
chance of federal assistance and national attention turned again, away from domestic
issues and towards a second war with Britain.
and Breaking Ground
The War of 1812 made the canal project seem even more important. The Great Lakes
demonstrated their significance and Governor? Presidential candidate Clinton asserted
that when joined with them, the proposed canal would “perhaps convey more riches on
its waters than any other canal in the world.” (Shaw, 57) Politics continued to control the
fate of the project as an assembly bill instituting a tax, seeking a two million dollar loan
and authorizing the beginning of the canal was blocked by the anti-Clintonian State
Senator Martin Van Buren. The legislature eventually approved a Canal law in 1816,
which amounted to simply a third land survey and further exploration of funding options.
At the same time, Clinton embarked on a public relations campaign, continuing a series
of letters that he had published in the New York Evening Post in 1811 under the pen-name
Atticus and wrote and recruited memorials of support from throughout the state. At the
same time, the movement for federal assistance received hope. Representative John C.
Clahoun’s “Bonus Bill,” seeking money for expansion and internal improvements,
seemed designed for the canal, and passed both the House and the Senate. President
Madison, however, had constitutional questions about the federal government’s authority
in such matters and vetoed the bill.
But behind the determination of Governor Clinton and the canal’s Board of
Commissioners, plans for the Erie Canal moved forward. A bill was introduced on March
18, 1817 that would use an appropriation of one and a half million dollars to begin
construction on a short section of the Erie Canal (that would connect the Seneca and
Mohawk Rivers) and the smaller Champlain Canal.
Passing the Assembly (64-36), the onus now fell to the Senate. The primary objections to
the bill were based on financing and sectionalism. A fear of increased taxes accompanied
opposition from a faction of legislators from the New York City and Hudson areas.
Surprise support came from former opponent and Clinton foe Martin Van Buren, who
recognizing the shift in the political tide and the growing popularity of the canal,
proposed a shift in funding??? that proved vital to passage of the bill. On April 15, 1917
the Canal Bill passed the Senate 18-9, which left only one hurdle to overcome.
Anecdote
The fight for the canal was over and construction would begin in July 1817. The victory
proved twofold for Clinton: his championing of the canal as commissioner won him the
party’s nomination for governor in 1817, and, running unopposed, he took the
governorship that he would hold until 1823 and again from 1825 until his death in 1828.
His political career had been and would continue to be linked to the canal, and he had
over come criticism and opposition, countless times snatching success from defeat at the
hands of his political foes (note on removal) The canal had brought to New Yorkers the
prospect of penetrating the frontier (which at that time was western New York) opening
the west, the benefit of increased commerce and the subsequent emergence of New York
as the dominant Atlantic seaport. To Governor DeWitt Clinton, it also brought
redemption.