USA > Pennsylvania > Progressive Pennsylvania; a record of the remarkable industrial development of the Keystone state, with some account of its early and its later transportation systems, its early settlers, and its prominent men > Part 23
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32
In the Port Folio for June, 1810, printed in Philadelphia, there is a description of several chain bridges which had been built in this country at that time on Judge Finley's plans, one the Jacob's creek bridge, another at the Falls of Schuylkill above Philadelphia, another at Cumber- land, Maryland, another over the Potomac above George- town, Maryland, replacing the wooden bridge above re- ferred to, another over the Brandywine at Wilmington, Delaware, another at Brownsville, Fayette county, Penn- sylvania, and another near the same place. Still another chain bridge, over the Merrimac, at Newburyport, Massa- chusetts, was built in 1810, making eight in all. In 1811 several other chain bridges are mentioned, one of which was over the Neshaminy, in Bucks county, Pennsylvania, and another over the Lehigh at Easton. At a later date a chain bridge was built over the Lehigh at Lehigh Gap. This bridge is still standing.
The chain bridge across the Tees, which was built in 1741, remained in use over 80 years. Like the Jacob's creek bridge its span was 70 feet. It was a foot-bridge.
In April, 1811, there was printed at Uniontown, Penn- sylvania, by William Campbell, A Description of the Chain Bridge, invented by Judge Finley, of Fayette county, Penn- sylvania, with Data and Remarks, etc., in which Judge Finley claims that he built the bridge over Jacob's creek in 1801 " on a contract with Fayette and Westmoreland
250
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
counties for the consideration of $600," and that "the exclusive right was secured by patent in the year 1808." He says : " There are eight of these bridges erected now," which he describes substantially as mentioned above in the Port Folio.
The chain bridge above Georgetown was swept away by a freshet probably in 1839 and has since been replaced by various structures of other designs, but the name, "chain bridge," is still retained. It became famous dur- ing our civil war. The Jacob's creek chain bridge broke down under the weight of a six-horse team about 1825 but was repaired and again used. This bridge was torn down several years ago and an iron truss bridge was erected in its stead.
The chain bridge over the Merrimac at Newburyport is still standing and in use. It was built in 1810. A let- ter from A. K. Mosley, civil engineer, informs us that it is " substantially intact as originally constructed.'' In the New England Magazine for January, 1905, there appears an illustration of this bridge, drawn by Mr. Mosley. In 1900 or 1901 it was partly rebuilt by the Roeblings.
Chain suspension bridges have been built in recent years. At Budapest there are now two chain suspension bridges over the Danube, one of which, with a main span of 931 feet, has only recently been completed. There is a chain bridge over the River Dnieper, at Kieff, in Russia. In this country a notable chain bridge was built over the Monongahela at Pittsburgh as late as 1876, and is still in use as originally built. It is known as the Point Bridge. It has a span 800 feet long. The links of the chains which support this bridge are 2 inches thick, 8 inches wide, and from 20 to 25 feet long.
Wire suspension bridges are of more modern origin than chain bridges and are in general use, especially in the United States. A small wire suspension bridge was built over the Schuylkill at Philadelphia in 1816 by White & Hazard with wire made at their wire works at the Falls of Schuylkill. This bridge was used only for foot passengers. Charles Ellet, Jr., a distinguished American engineer, born at Penn's Manor, in Bucks county, Penn-
251
EARLY CHAIN AND WIRE BRIDGES.
sylvania, in 1810, is credited with the introduction in this country of wire bridges of general utility. In 1842 he built a wire cable suspension bridge over the Schuylkill at Fairmount, which was the first noteworthy wire sus- pension bridge in this country. General J. G. Barnard says that " he shares with Roebling the honor of being a pioneer of wire suspension bridges." The earliest Euro- pean wire suspension bridge of which we have found any mention is the bridge at Fribourg, in Switzerland, which was completed in 1834. This bridge has a span of 870 feet and is suspended at a height of 167 feet above the water. It is supported on cables of iron wire. Wire rope was in use in the Hartz mines, in Germany, in 1831. It can be justly claimed that the wire suspension bridge as we see it to-day is to all intents and purposes the work of American engineers.
John Augustus Roebling will always be regarded as the greatest of all American bridge engineers. If he did not absolutely invent the wire suspension bridge he was certainly its most earnest and intelligent advocate and its most skillful builder. The Brooklyn Bridge, which he planned but which after his death was built by his illus- trious son, Washington A. Roebling, is not his only monu- ment. The Niagara and other wire suspension bridges which were built after his plans and under his direction need not be referred to in detail in these pages, but they may well contain a brief notice of the man himself.
Mr. Roebling was a native of Mühlhausen, Prussia, in which city he was born on June 12, 1806. After the or- dinary high school course he attended the mathematical institute of the celebrated Dr. Unger, at Erfurt, in Ger- many, for two years. Then he went to the Royal Uni- versity at Berlin and graduated with high honors after a three years' course, mostly in engineering branches, fol- lowed by a special course in architecture. After spending two years in Westphalia as an engineer in the govern- ment service he concluded to emigrate to this country, and in 1829 or 1830 he led a small colony of Germans to Western Pennsylvania and founded the town of Sax- onburg, in Butler county. He soon found employment as
252
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
an engineer in various canal and railroad enterprises. At Saxonburg he established the first wire-rope works in the United States, borrowing the money to pay for the wire, for which he was charged 21 cents a pound. His first wire rope was made on a rope-walk, not on a ma- chine. Mr. Roebling was induced to engage in the man- ufacture of wire rope as a substitute for hempen ropes on the inclined planes of the Portage Railroad, to which epi- sode in his life we will presently refer. The details which follow have been given to us by Washington A. Roebling.
The success of the Portage Railroad alterations led to similar im- provements by my father on the Morris Canal in New Jersey, where 22 in- clined planes were adapted to the use of wire rope, very large ones at that, being 2} inches in diameter. These were followed later on by the intro- duction of wire rope on the planes of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company and the Pennsylvania Coal Company. The general use of wire rope was a matter of very slow growth.
The manufacture of wire rope gave my father a thorough knowledge of the strength and qualities of iron wire and its various capabilities. When, therefore, in the year 1844 it became necessary to rebuild the wooden arch aqueduct of the Pennsylvania Canal across the Allegheny river at Pittsburgh he made the startling proposition of replacing it by a wire suspension aqueduct. This called forth a storm of violent opposition. He finally obtained a contract to build the aqueduct in the short space of six months in the winter season. This comprised removal of the old structure, rebuilding five piers in a rapid stream, building two new anchorages, spin- ning a pair of long cables, and suspending the wooden trunk. It was com- pleted in time. He cleared $3,500, which was afterwards lost by the fail- ure of a bank where it was deposited.
In 1846 my father built the Monongahela Suspension Bridge at Pitts- burgh without any assistant. Next followed four suspension aqueducts on the line of the Delaware and Hudson Canal, all winter work, lasting three seasons. In 1849 an injury to his left arm made his left hand practically useless. With this handicap he accomplished some of his greatest works. With all this external activity he still found time, or made time, to attend to his wire-rope business, which he removed from Saxonburg to Trenton in 1849 and much enlarged by adding a wire-drawing department and a rolling mill, all constructed on his own plans. The Niagara Railway Sus- pension Bridge, now replaced by a double-track steel arch, was opened to travel in 1854, over fifty years ago. All the designing, calculating, draft- ing, and superintending was done by Mr. Roebling personally.
At the Allegheny Bridge at Pittsburgh I was my father's only assist- ant, having just left college, but he did all the designing and vital parts of the work. On the Cincinnati Bridge I was again his principal assistant, the close of the civil war giving me liberty to take the position. Here again he did all the designing and superintending, the bridge being built by day's work. As regards the Brooklyn Bridge I can say that he made the original designs, with perhaps a little assistance from myself and Mr. Hildenbrand. In the construction of the bridge the design was, however,
253
EARLY CHAIN AND WIRE BRIDGES.
considerably modified, and might perhaps have been changed to even more advantage. This is inevitable where conditions are rapidly changing and demands are constantly increasing. My father died from an accident on July 22, 1869, before actual work was begun, and it remained for me to make it an accomplished fact by fourteen years of hard work.
The building of the wire aqueduct over the Allegheny river at Pittsburgh by Mr. Roebling, "the designer and contractor," as stated by the American Rail Road Journal in 1845, was contracted for by the city of Pittsburgh, under an agreement with the State authorities. The Journal makes this prophetic statement : " This system, for the first time successfully carried out on the Pitts- burgh aqueduct, may hereafter be applied with the hap- piest results to railroad bridges, which have to resist the powerful weight and great vibrations which result from the passage of heavy locomotives and trains of cars." The contract price for the aqueduct was $62,000.
The Hon. James Potts, of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, was for many years, beginning with 1839, the collector of tolls on the Pennsylvania Canal and Portage Railroad, his office being located at Johnstown, where the western division of the canal ended and the railroad commenced, the latter terminating at Hollidaysburg. It had ten in- clined planes, operated by stationary engines. On the 9th of September, 1886, the "old boatmen " on the west- ern division of the canal held a reunion at Nineveh, near Johnstown, at which Judge Potts delivered an address, of which the following incident in the life of John A. Roebling formed a part. Judge Potts was a native of Butler county and had long known Mr. Roebling.
The late John A. Roebling, one of the most distinguished civil engi- neers and scientists of his day, conceived the idea of spanning the largest rivers with bridges supported by wire cables. To that end he directed the labor of his life. He established a wire rope works on a small scale at Sax- onburg, in Butler county, and by special grace he got permission from the Canal Board in 1842 or 1843 to put a wire cable on Plane No. 3. It was put on in the fall of the year. The manufacturer of the hempen ropes in Pittsburgh, backed by a powerful political and interested influence, endeavored to prevent the introduction of the wire cable. The superintend- ent and employés on the road partook of that opposition. If the wire cable was a success it would supersede the profitable hempen-rope indus- try. The cable, however, was put on the plane, and in a few days one of the attachés cut the cable in two. Mr. Roebling found his cable stretched on the plane-condemned. He came to the collector's office and asked
254
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
an interview with me in the parlor. He stated with the tears of grief, if not of agony, that he was a ruined man. The labor of his life, the hope of his fame and fortune, were lost forever. His cable was condemned by the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was condemned, not because it was worthless, but because it would supersede the hempen rope. "Can not you do something for me ?" he asked. "Why, Mr. Roebling, I would do anything in the world for you, but what can I do ?" " You have influ- ence with the Canal Board, and, perhaps, you can get me another oppor- tunity to test my cable."
Just at that moment there was a rap at the door, and, in answer to the call, who stepped in but John B. Butler, the President of the Board of Canal Commissioners, and, after the usual salutation, I said to Mr. Roeb- ling, " Just state your case to Mr. Butler." Mr. Roebling stated his case in very few words, for he was a man of few words. Mr. Butler listened attentively until he got through, when he said : " Roebling, have you con- fidence in your cable ?" The answer was, "I have, sir." "Then," said Mr. Butler, "I now appoint you superintendent of Plane No. 3, with the credit of the Commonwealth for all the material you may need ; superintendent of the depots at Johnstown and Hollidaysburg for all the machinery you may want; the appointment of all such mechanics and laborers as you may require in the reconstruction of the plane-all this at the expense of the Commonwealth. You will commence immediately after the close of navigation and have everything necessary for the spring business. You will superintend the plane yourself for the first month, and if your cable is a success we will put it on all the planes on the road, and this is all I can do for you." Mr. Roebling did not burst forth in the usual laudation of thanks, of God bless you and prosper you, etc .; but this time, with tears of joy rolling down his cheeks, his only reply was, "God is good !" I shall never forget the reply. He gave thanks to that Source from whom all blessings flow. He left with a joyful heart and greatly encouraged. The plane was reconstructed, ready for the spring business. The cable worked like a charm.
During that summer wire cables were put on all the planes. By these planes Mr. Roebling had an opportunity of testing the flexibility and strength of his cables. The heavy weight of cars and section boats on those cables gave them a fair test of strength and durability. I mention this fact to show that the planes on the Portage Railroad were the means of the wonderful enterprise of wire-cable bridges, for Mr. Roebling fre- quently told me since that, had it not been for the interview in my par- lor and the authority he got there to reconstruct a plane to establish and test the virtue of his wire cable, he never would have attempted it again, being condemned by the Commonwealth. So the old Portage is entitled to the credit of all these great wire bridges, notably the Brooklyn Bridge.
It was in Western Pennsylvania that the first chain suspension bridge in this country was built, and Judge Finley, who built it, introduced it in other parts of the country. It was also in Western Pennsylvania that the first wire-rope factory in the country was established by John A. Roebling, who also, more than any other man, promoted the building of wire suspension bridges.
255
THE EARLY HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH.
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH.
THE prominence which Pittsburgh has attained as the centre of the iron and steel, bituminous coal, and glass industries of our country, and as the centre of the world's iron and steel industries, naturally leads to a condensed account in this volume of its early history and of the no- table part which Washington bore in shaping that history. The dates and other details that we shall give have been verified from trustworthy sources.
The selection of the forks of the Ohio, formed by the junction of the Monongahela and the Allegheny rivers, as a suitable place for the erection of a fort was made in 1753 by George Washington for the mutual benefit of the Ohio Company and the colony of Virginia, which latter Washington directly and officially represented. This se- lection was made at a time when Virginia claimed juris- diction over Western Pennsylvania, and when this claim received entirely too little consideration from the pro- vincial authorities of Pennsylvania. The Ohio Company was composed chiefly of Virginians, and of this company both Lawrence and Augustine Washington, half brothers of George Washington, were members. The company was organized to engage in trade with the Indians west of the Alleghenies and to secure valuable grants of land. It received the encouragement and support of the English and Virginia authorities because the territory it expected to occupy was claimed as a part of Virginia. In Novem- ber of the year above mentioned Washington visited the forks of the Ohio while serving as a commissioner from Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, to the French comman- dant in Northwestern Pennsylvania, the French at that time claiming jurisdiction over the Ohio and Mississippi valleys and having established military posts at Presqu' Isle (Erie) and at Le Bœuf, (Waterford.) The object of Washington's visit to the French commandant was to
256
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
protest against French encroachments upon Virginia ter- ritory. Washington met the commanding officer at Fort Le Bœuf but his visit was fruitless. On his way to this officer Washington, as he says in his journal, "spent some time in viewing the rivers [Monongahela and Allegheny] and the land in the fork, which I think extremely well situated for a fort." The Ohio Company had previously selected a site for a fort on the left bank of the Ohio, two miles below the junction of the Allegheny and the Monongahela rivers, at a place now known as McKees Rocks, but Washington condemned this selection for rea- sons which are mentioned in his journal. The Ohio Com- pany and the Virginia authorities approved his choice.
Judge Veech describes the Ohio Company as follows : " The Ohio Company was an association formed in Vir- ginia, about the year 1748, under a royal grant. Hitherto the French and Pennsylvanians had enjoyed the trade with the Indians north of the Ohio and around its head waters. The purpose of this company was to divert this trade southward, by the Potomac route, and to settle the country around the head of the Ohio with English colo- nists from Virginia and Maryland. To this end the king granted to the company 500,000 acres of land west of the mountains, 'to be taken chiefly on the south side of the Ohio, between the Monongahela and Kenhawa, but with privilege to take part of the quantity north of the Ohio, · upon condition that the company should, within seven years, seat one hundred families on the lands, build a fort, and maintain a garrison, to protect the settlement.'"
In February, 1754, by direction of the Governor of Virginia, a company of Virginia militia, commanded by Captain William Trent, undertook the erection of a fort in the forks, in aid of the plans of the Ohio Company and · to establish the jurisdiction of Virginia, but from this work the militia were driven away in April by a large body of French and Indians. The French immediately began and completed the erection of a fort at the same place, which they called Fort Du Quesne, in honor of the Governor-Gen- eral of New France, the Marquis Du Quesne de Menneville. The fort was situated on the Monongahela, in the forks.
257
THE EARLY HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH.
In the month of April, 1754, Washington was sent by Governor Dinwiddie with a small force of Virginians, which was subsequently increased, to the support of the Virginia militia under Captain Trent, but before reaching Western Pennsylvania he learned that the half-completed fort at the forks of the Ohio had fallen into the hands of the French. Washington pushed on toward the mouth of Redstone creek on the Monongahela river, where he could establish a base of operations against the French and there await reinforcements. A strong force of French and Indians was promptly dispatched from Fort Du Quesne against Washington's small command, intercepting him before he reached his destination. The battle of Great Meadows, in Fayette county, Pennsylvania, about seven- ty-five miles southeast of Fort Du Quesne, was fought on July 3, 1754, and was followed by Washington's surren- der of Fort Necessity about midnight of the same day, his first and only surrender, and by the abandonment of the expedition. At daybreak of July 4 Washington, with his demoralized command, marched out of Fort Ne- cessity toward Will's creek, Maryland, his original base of operations. In 1767 Washington bought a tract of 234 acres in Fayette county which included Great Meadows, and he owned this tract at his death in 1799.
These events mark the beginning of the final struggle between the French and the English for the control of the country west of the Alleghenies.
An ineffectual attempt was made in 1755 by a force of British regulars and provincial troops to drive the French from Fort Du Quesne, which resulted in the defeat of General Braddock near the site of the present Edgar Thomson steel works. Three years afterwards, on No- vember 25, 1758, Fort Du Quesne fell into the hands of the British and their provincial allies under General Forbes, the French blowing up the fort and disappearing, some of them pushing off in their boats down the Ohio and up the Allegheny, while others marched overland to Erie, then known as Presqu' Isle.
Washington was present at Braddock's defeat, as is well known, but he was also present when Fort Du Quesne
17
258
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
fell into the hands of General Forbes in 1758, which is not so well known. In December, 1758, a new fort was built at the forks, and in 1759 and 1760 the construction of a more formidable fortification was commenced and practically completed by General Stanwix, the new fort being named Fort Pitt. This fort was entirely completed by Colonel Bouquet in 1761, who added in 1764 a block- house, or redoubt, which is still standing. The fort was named in honor of William Pitt, the great Earl of Chat- ham, then the British Secretary of State. It was situated on the Monongahela, above the site of Fort Du Quesne.
It has been a mooted question when Pittsburgh was first so called and when Fort Pitt received its name. In his Old Pittsburgh Days Chapman says : " Pittsburgh was so called from the first; for on November 26, 1758, the very day next following the occupation by the English, we find General Forbes dating a letter at Pittsburgh. (See Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, vol. viii ; p. 232.) Colonel Mercer, in July and September, 1759, dates from Pittsburgh, but makes no mention of Fort Pitt. General Stanwix, on December 8, 1759, dates from 'Camp at Pitts- burgh,' and speaks of 'the works here,' but does not men- tion Fort Pitt. Finally, in a letter bearing date Decem- ber 24, 1759, Stanwix mentions 'Fort Pitt' in the body of his letter, (Pennsylvania Archives, vol. iii ; p. 696,) and this is the first mention of the fort by that name. So that not until more than twelve months after the taking of Fort Du Quesne do we hear any mention of Fort Pitt, and then the work afterwards to be known by that name had been carried well on toward completion. Hence it seems clear that the temporary fortification built in the winter of 1758 was known simply as the fort at Pitts- burgh, or, as Stanwix termed it, the 'camp at Pittsburgh.'"
To which we may add that in December, 1758, Chris- tian Frederick Post mentions Pittsburgh several times in his second journal but does not once mention Fort Pitt, The settlement at the forks was, however, generally known as Fort Pitt until after the Revolution.
The letter which was written by General Forbes on November 26, 1758, and above referred to by Mr. Chap-
259
THE EARLY HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH.
man, was addressed to Governor William Denny, at Phila- delphia, and acquainted the Governor with the fact that Fort Du Quesne had fallen into his hands. The letter is dated at "Pittsburg." It does not, however, give any inti- mation that General Forbes had himself given Pittsburgh its name. In a letter from General Forbes to William Pitt on November 27, 1758, the general dates his letter at " Pittsbourgh." After telling of his victory over the French and of his own illness he says : "I have used the freedom of giving your name to Fort Du Quesne, as I hope it was in some measure the being actuated by your spirits that now makes us masters of the place. Nor could I help using the same freedom in the naming of two other forts that I built, (plans of which I send you,) the one Fort Ligonier and the other Bedford. I hope the name fathers will take them under their protection, in which case these dreary deserts will soon be the richest and most fertile of lands possessed by the British in No. America." This letter may be found in the Correspondence of William Pitt, edited by Gertrude Selwyn Kimball, under the auspices of the National Society of Colonial Dames of America, and published by the Macmillan Company in 1906. It is of in- terest to add that Colonel Bouquet signed the minutes of a conference with the Delaware Indians "at Pitts-Bourgh, December 4, 1758." Also that in February, 1759, an Indian council was held at Philadelphia at which the Indians invariably referred to Pittsburgh and not to Fort Pitt. Bancroft says that Pittsburgh was so named by General Forbes on the day that Fort Du Quesne fell into the hands of the English, on November 25, 1758.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.