Talk:Chesapeake and Ohio Canal/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618224116/http://www.canaltrust.org/quarters/pdf/Pennyfield_Lock_CLI.pdf to http://www.canaltrust.org/quarters/pdf/Pennyfield_Lock_CLI.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
ummm, the original spelling is "Potowmac". shouldn't it be changed back? --20.4.32.144 16:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are thinking of the Patowmack Canal which is a different canal altogether. Henryhartley 16:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, according to Mike High's excellent book about the canal and the towpath, the proper name is "Potowmac Compony"

These articles could be merged --Mrath 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping thes entry and Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park separate for the following reasons. Parks may come and go, but the history of the canal is independent of the park. The range of the canal geographically exceeds the scope of the park. Canals fit into the transportation sector, while parks and National Parks, Seashores etc are part of the recreation industry. There will be interest in collating canal entries separate from park entries, and the topic of parks deserves its own focus. Sorry, too busy right now to fined my username. The Illinios-Michigan canal, for example, has a history closely tied to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (I'm a midwesterner) but they hvae no overlapping geography. (On the otherhand, I am an outsider.) I would suggest moving the section about the National Park and the 1938 ff era to the Park entry. The Canal entry that remains might benefit from some expansion on Washington's influence on the transportation inustry and what modes replaced the canal. (He, Hamilton and Patterson had the vision to propose industrial canals for what is now Patterson, NJ, and thereby created the locus of the American Industrial Revolution.) Cheers! poocherino@ameritech.net if anyone has questions. Sorry, too busy to find my username:pasword.
 * Good points. I was leaning towards not merging them anyways, just wanted to get a few opinions. I'm going to remove the merge templates, there will just have to be some repeated information between the two articles. --Nebular110 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Brunswick, et.al.
Brunswick is in MD, not VA. Poolesville, Sharpsburg, and Little Orleans are also in MD.
 * I'm not sure why you didn't just fix them. Anyway, you are correct and I've made the changes.
 * Henryhartley 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors and problems
President James Monroe died in 1831, and I believe that he was a lawyer rather than a surveyor. Something has to be wrong with the sentence "The canal was charted on March 5, 1835 by President Monroe."

"Chartered" rather than charted? 1825 rather than 1835? --- The first section of the canal opened in 1831, not 1836.

The branch canal to the city of Washington canal went to a basin open to the river where both canals met. The Tyber Creek's mouth had been back at about 6th street. As the mall was radically changed and extended, the Tyber was also redirected. In fact, the terminus at the mall end of the Washington City Canal was itself moved westward during those years.

The B&O did not have ownership of the canal in 1889. They owned the majority of bonds that mortgaged the canal and therefore the railroad's people ended up controlling the court-appointed receivership under which the canal was operated until 1924. The issue of ownership was complex and ultimately assigned to the B&O when it wished to reduce its indebtedness to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The receivers created the Chesapeake and Ohio Transportation Company to actually operate the canal beginning in 1896 and the coal companies created the Canal Towage Company which ended up owning and operating most of the boats on the canal from 1902 until its closure.

The court required the receivers to operate the canal in the black. It would have preferred to auction the canal, but the railroad, after some waffling on the canal's future, convinced it that it would be better to let it operate the canal. The court was concerned to prevent the B&O from having a monopoly in the Potomac Valley, which it would have had at that time if the canal had remained closed and no other transportation company had bought and used it as a competitor to the B&O.

There were several potential competitors of the B&O interested in the C&o right of way and the Western Maryland was one such only if the canal could have been sold in pieces and it could have acquired the stretch from Big Pool to Cumberland. However, the charter did not allow the canal to be broken up, making the Western Maryland's interest moot.

It is a myth that the canal was obsolete because the RR got there 8 years prior. A study of newspapers and other original materials of the time indicate how primitive railroad technology was until the last quarter of the 19th century. The canal was badly needed by the coal companies as the railroad could not carry the amount of coal that was in demand until the latter half of the 19th century. Increases in the size of coal cars was essential, which required heavier and more powerful engines, which required rails and other infrastructure that could survive the weight of such advances. Additionally reliable brakes were essential as these changes took place and the air brake was not perfected until after the Civil War. The final crucial technology was a redesign of the couplers which also happened in the latter part of the 19th century.

Additionally, the C&O went directly to the Georgetown/Potomac waterfront whereas the B&O went to Baltimore and necessitated a transfer to the Washington branch to get to the eastern (inland) side of the city of Washington. Even after the Metropolitan Branch opened in 1873, it also went to the eastern side of the city. The C&O's route to the waterfront proved valuable during WWI and not until afterwards could it be argued that the canal was fully "obsolete."

Much of this history is complex and a brief summary is difficult to create with accuracy. I would be happy to discuss this with others who have a good background in the canal's history. I'm the C&O Canal NHP's volunteer librarian at headquarters, in on most Tuesdays and Thursdays (301-714-2220) and a member of the Park's Volunteer Master Ranger corps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmgrayphd (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC) --- Under the Construction heading, the article says "stockholders formally organized the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in June 1828" but the next paragraph says "In 1824, the holdings of the "Patowmack Company" were ceded to the Chesapeake and Ohio Company." How can a company with real assets exist in 1824 and not be "formally organized" until 1828? Donlibes (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520220106/http://events.jhu.edu/event/the_grand_old_ditch_the_co_in_american_transportation_history to http://events.jhu.edu/event/the_grand_old_ditch_the_co_in_american_transportation_history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160918172518/http://www.whilbr.org/itemdetail.aspx?idEntry=5772&dtPointer=8 to http://www.whilbr.org/itemdetail.aspx?idEntry=5772&dtPointer=8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605051643/http://www.whilbr.org/assets/uploads/CanalBoatChildren.pdf to http://www.whilbr.org/assets/uploads/CanalBoatChildren.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609005315/http://www.whilbr.org/CandOCanal/index.aspx to http://www.whilbr.org/CandOCanal/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Planned route of Canal after Cumberland
In the Great Falls Tavern, the NPS put a sign showing the proposed route of the C&O Canal, going from Cumberland to Connellsville, Pennsylvania along the Youghiogheny River and then onto Pittsburgh. I didn't upload a photo of this (might fall under Government work so it might be postable), and not sure how to cite a sign like that in the article!!! Any hints?

List of Levels
Where would one put a list of levels? Canal boatmen often refer to levels by their length (e.g. fourteen mile level). It's a little long to put in the main article, but perhaps with the points of interest, or combined with the points of interest?