May 1762 Inland Potomac Company organized at Frederick Md., involving men from Md. & Va. Didn't accomplish anything & nothing is known about it. (Albert, 5; GW to T Johnson, GW Writings, II, 391; Rowland, Life of G Mason, I, 189; Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, ed., Letters to Washington and Accompany Papers, IV, 123)
Dec.1769 Inland Inhabitants of the Northern Neck petitioned the Assembly for the improvement of the navigation of the Potomac. Leave was given on Dec. 5 for GW & RH Lee to bring in a bill. It was read on Dec. 8 & 13, reported out of committee on Dec. 14. Nothing further done. (Albert, 6, cites Charles Henry Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia 1776-1861; Grace L. Nute "Documents: GW and the Potomac: Manuscripts in the Minn. Hist. Soc, [1754], 1769-96, I" AHR, 28 [1923], 503; no cite to JVHB]. The draft of the 1769 bill is in the Minn. Hist. Society.
Jan. 1770 Inland John Semple wrote GW about the proposed bill (Albert, 7, cites Nute, 504).
1770 Inland Next initiative for a Potomac improvement project instigated by the Johnson brothers of Fred., Md. They attempted a raise a subscription for clearing the Shenandoah Falls. (Albert, 7-8, cites Joseph S. Davis, Essays in the Earlier History of Am. Corporations [1917], II, 111; Nute 505-6).
Letters on this subject: Jonathan Boucher to GW, Apr. 2, 1770 (Letters to GW, IV, 10); Thomas Johnson to GW, June 18, 1770 (Nute, 505-7); GW to Johnson, July 20, 1770 (Writings, III, 18-19); Boucher to GW, Aug. 18, 1770 (Letters to GW, IV, 30)
March-April 1772 Inland March 18, 1772, a petition was brought before VHB from inhabitants of Frederick Co. re. improving the Potomac. Referred to Comm. of Propositions and Grievances where it was buried. (JVHB [1906], 1770-1772, 252-53, 258; Freeman, GW, III, 289). A second petition was presented Apr. 3. (JVHB, 192-93, 218-19, 222, 252-53, 292).
April 1772 Inland Va. Potomac Co. Bill
Leave given Apr. 3 to bring in a bill re. improvement of the river. It was presented and read on the 6th and passed on the 8th, and short time thereafter approved by the Council (JVHB, 292, 297, 304-5, 309-10). For the bill see Hening's, 8:570-79.
May 1772 Inland GW wrote Boucher re. passage of bill May 4 (Writings, III, 81). Thomas Johnson wrote GW May 10 that Md. Gov. fears that a concurrence by Md. Ass. with Va. for clearing the Potomac "may weaken the proprietary claim of jurisdiction over that river" (Letters to GW, IV, 122-23)
May 1772 Inland The governors of Md. & Va. and other "principal Gentlemen of the said Provinces" contracted with John Ballendine to undertake the work of building canals and locks to open the Potomac (Proposals for opening the navigation of the river Potomac-printed by Ballendine in London, 1773).
Feb. 1774 Inland Johnson unsuccessfully tried to gain financial support from the Md. legislature for the project (Johnson to GW, Feb. 21, 1774, Life of Thomas Johnson, 75).
Aug. 1774 Inland Ballendine returned from England with a number of engineers and skilled workmen for work on the Potomac at and above the lower falls. Work began as soon as he returned.
Oct. 1774- Inland Ballendine called a meeting of the principal subscribers and
Jan. 1775 others interested at Georgetown. It was agreed there to raise a minimum of £30,000 Pa for the work; £8,000 of this sum was immediately subscribed. GW himself contributed £500 Va. currency. (Albert, 14, cites Davis, II, 113-14; Bruce, 44; Bacon-Foster, 26-27). 16 Virginians and 21 Marylanders were appointed by Ballendine to be trustees of the Co. They were to meet at GT Nov. 12 to choose a number of trustees to act for the whole, but the meeting was not held. Subsequent meetings were held Dec. 1 and Jan. 19 (GW Diary, II, 170; Md Gaz., Oct. 25, 1774; Davis, II, 114).
Jan. 1775 Inland Mason and Ballendine went to Annapolis to help Johnson draw up a bill for the improvement of the Potomac (Johnson to GW, Jan. 24, 1775, Letters to GW, V, 85; Mason to GW, Feb. 17, 1775; Mason to GW Mar. 9, 1775). The bill was never presented to the Md. assembly, which had disbanded in April 1774 and did not reconvene in 1775.
Feb. 17, 1775 Inland Mason wrote GW about the project (Sam's notes)
Feb. 25, 1775 Inland Johnson to GW (Life of Thomas Johnson, 82).
June 1775 Inland Va. assembly passed an act for raising £40,000 sterling, by subscription, and establishing a company for improving the Potomac (JVHB, 249, 274).
Oct. 1775 Inland Ballendine announced his abandonment of the project in the Oct. 28 issue of the Virginia Gazette (Albert, 17, cites Bruce, 44; Bacon-Foster, 29-30; Davis, II, 116).
1776, June 29 Tidewater Virginia Constitution 1776. Cedes to Maryland the territory contained in its charter (ie. the Potomac).
1778, Jan. ? Tidewater Va. resolution appointed Mason, Richard Henry lee, and James Henry to serve on a commission to meet with a Maryland delegation to adjust the use, navigation & jurisdiction of the Potomac. [Need to find original resolution JVHD].
Did Maryland appoint commissioners at this time?
1783, Apr. 10 Capital Va. delegates [JM, Theok. Bland, Joseph Jones & John Francis Mercer] to Gov. of Va. NY has offered land to Congress for a capital. The delegates of Md. & Va. believe it their duty to inform their states of this, and suggest that if Md. & Va. together offered a tract in the neighborhood of Georgetown on Potomac it might meet with the acceptance of congress in preference to that offered by NY. [Rutland says that this is the earliest suggestion of Georgetown as cite for the national capital (6:448)].
May 31, 1783 Inland Md. legislature appointed Normand Bruce and Charles Beatty to examine the upper Potomac and to make a report estimating the expense and time that would be necessary to improve the river (Albert, 21; cites Davis, II, 120; Delaplaine, 385; Bacon-Foster, 33-34. Albert says this was the first post war project reviving interest in improving the Potomac).
1783, Nov. Inland Bruce & Beatty report laid before Md. legislature. No action taken but considerable discussion. (Albert, 21, cites Davis, II, 120; Delaplaine, 385; Bacon-Foster, 33-34. Albert says this reflects a complete reversal of Md's attitude prior to the Revolution re. Potomac).
1783, winter Inland Jefferson, who had long been interested in the improvement of Va's rivers, became increasingly concerned with the idea of improving the navigation of the Potomac (see his Notes on Virginia). In 1765 he had initiated a project for clearing the North Branch of the James and was very active during the next 5-6 years in the prosecution of that work. In 1779 he wrote Benj. Harrison urging that an attempt be made to open the falls of the James.
1784, Feb. 20 Inland Jefferson became concerned re. Penns. Legislature's authorization of surveys on the Susquehanna with a view to building a canal. Saw this as competition for the Potomac route to the west, and thus urged Madison that the opening of the Potomac "is an object on which no time is to be lost" (to Madison, Feb. 20, 1784). [Madison was not concerned about Pa. getting ahead, see his reply to Jefferson of Mar. 16]. In the same letter Jefferson informs Madison that Georgetown is no longer in the running for the capital.
1784, March 15 Inland Jefferson realized that if anything were to be accomplished GW's support must be enlisted, and he wrote to GW on this subject March 15.
1784, March 29 Inland GW replies to TJ of Mar. 15. He's a bit pessimistic and won't take active role in getting effort underway, but if it is put on a hopeful footing he'll get involved.
1784, March 16 Inland Madison replied to TJ's letter of Feb. 20. Madison is not concerned about the inland navigation of the Potomac. He
Tidewater is concerned, however, that the 1776 constitution has given away Va's right to the Potomac and he thinks this matter needs to be rectified. He is also concerned about flagrant evasions of Va. naval regulations by foreign vessels. [His attention is on foreign trade, not inland navigation.]
1784, April 25 Tidewater Madison writes to TJ again before he received reply to his of March 16. He mentions that in that letter he wrote TJ about the problems on the river "below the head of navigation," then notes that agreement of Maryland will be
Inland necessary for any improvements to the upper branch [ie. he is trying to win Jefferson's support for his own cause, settling the navigation below tidewater, by noting that this will also aid Jefferson's cause, above tidewater].
1784, April 25 Tidewater Jefferson to Madison; reply to his of March 16; he agrees with Madison's proposed method of resolving jurisdiction of the Potomac.
1784, May 25 Inland Jefferson wrote Madison that GW "would accept the superintendance of the clearing the Patowm' and Ohio, if put on a hopeful footing." The responsibility for procuring legislative establishment of such a company now lay with Madison (Albert, p. 29; presumably because TJ is in Philadelphia in Congress)
1784, June 28 Tidewater Va. assembly appointed commissioners to meet with commissioners from Maryland to frame regulations concerning the Potomac. Resolution was adopted on a motion by Madison (for text see Madison 8:89).
1784, June ? Tidewater Did Md. appoint commissioners same time?
1784, c.June Tidewater Va. passed Port bill May 1784 session restricting the foreign trade with Va. to ports at Norfolk and Portsmouth as one port, Bermuda Hundred, Tappanhannock, York Town, or Alexandria. Madison's bill. (Text of bill is in Hening's 11: 402-4; for date of passage need to check JVHD). Purpose was to concentrate trade in an effort to reduce Va. dependence on Baltimore and Philadelphia for imports (Albert, 31).
1784, July 3 Tidewater Madison to Jefferson. Informs him that Mason, Randolph, Henderson and himself have been appointed to meet with commissioners from Maryland-if appointed-to establish regulations for the Potomac. Sorry, but he hasn't found
Inland an opportunity of broaching a scheme for opening the Navigation of the Potowmac under the auspices of GW [obviously not something of vital interest to him. Clearly Madison saw a distinction between the appt. of commissioners to establish regulations on the Potomac-below tidewater-and the scheme for opening the river above tidewater, which he's sorry he didn't get to].
1784, summer Inland During the summer of 1784 interest in clearing the Potomac developed at Alexandria. GW was not initiator of it. Letter from "A Farmer" in the Aug. 19 issue of the Va Journal and Alexandria Advertiser indicates motives and objectives of those involved (Albert, 31-32).
1784, Aug. 20 Inland Stephen Sayre to GW re. the proposed project and asking GW to support a subscription to finance it (GW Papers LC, Presidential Papers, Section 4, reel 94). GW acknowledged the letter Sept. 1, but gave no indication if he would either support or participate in the subscription (Writings, 27, 465-66).
1784, Sept. Inland Notices published in Va. Gaz. or the American Advertiser Sept. 11 and 18 that the fall session of the assembly would be petitioned for an act enabling a company to remove obstructions impeding the navigation of the Potomac.
1784, Sept.-Oct. Inland GW visited the Ohio Valley (for business purposes); returned an enthusiastic advocate of improving the Potomac and connecting it by roads with rivers flowing into the Ohio (Albert, 34). [Evidence of GW's enthusiasm can be found in his diary and his letter to Harrison; need more evidence for his lack of enthusiasm prior to this time].
1784, Oct. 10 Inland GW letter to Benjamin Harrison urging legislation to create a company to clear Potomac. Note that he warns of competition from similar projects NY and Pa. (which TJ had written to him about back in March).
1784, Oct. 20 Inland George Plater to GW. He visited GW, who discussed with him the opening of the Potomac. Plater has become more in favor of it and will press the matter in Md. Assembly.
1784, Nov. 1 or 2 Inland Harrison presents GW's letter to the VHD. (JVHD, 6, 8)
1784, Nov. 4 Inland Advertisement for a meeting a about opening the Potomac in Alexandria newspaper. [from Sam's notes; what paper; is there a cite to this?]
1784, Nov. 13 Inland Harrison reported to GW that the assembly appeared "so impress'd with the utility of the measure that I dare say they will order the survey your propose immediately and will at their next sitting proceed to carry the plan into execution" (GW microfilm, 4, 94).
1784, Nov. 14 Inland GW travelled to Richmond to meet Lafayette. Later correspondence indicates that while there GW talked with Madison, Joseph Jones, and others in an attempt to induce their support for the project. (Alber, 43)
1784, Nov. 15 Inland While GW was in Richmond a meeting was held in Alexandria re. the Potomac project and petitions to the Md. & Va. assemblies were drawn up requesting incorporation of a company (Albert, 44, cites Virginia Journal and Alexandria Advertiser, 25 Nov. 1784).
1784, Nov. 28 Inland GW to Joseph Jones & James Madison (from Mt. Vernon). He has had several conversations with them on the subject of inland navigation [no doubt while in Richmond] and encloses something, presumably a bill for opening the Potomac. He is getting ready to accompany Lafayette to Annapolis.
1784, Dec. 3 Inland GW to Joseph Jones & Madison (from Mt. Vernon). He has just returned from Annapolis where he opportunity to converse with member of Md. legislature re. inland navigation. GW suggests that both assemblies should appoint deputies to meet and agree on a bill. He also suggests that these delegates should agree on a representation to Pennsylvania requesting their concurrence "to make the communication through their state" and that Md. & Va. should agree on a sum to be advanced by Md. & Va. for opening a road between the eastern & western waters.
1784, Dec. 4 Inland Petition from citizens of Va. and Md. was presented to HD re. Potomac. This was either the petition drawn up at Alexandria meeting Nov. 15 or one mentioned in Va. Gaz. Sept. 11 (Albert, 44).
1784, Dec. 7-10 Inland According to a resolution of Dec. 7, a bill was drawn up for improving the Potomac, presented on the 9th, and referred to the committee of the whole House on the 10th (Albert, 44, cites JVHD, 61, 63, 64).
1784, Dec. 11 Inland Madison to Richard Henry Lee "The scheme for opening the navigation of the Potomac, which has been settled between the Maryland and [the Virginia] gentlemen, is before the HD, and will be favoured, as far as the objectionable amount of the tolls will admit." This bill was later replaced when the Md. bill arrived (sent by GW Dec. 28).
1784, Dec. 13-14 Inland Va. HD appointed GW, Horatio Gates, and Thomas Blackburn to meet with Md. appointees in order to implement GW's suggestions (JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 68; Albert, 45, cites JHDV, 67-68, 70). They were further directed "to concert with the persons who may be appointed on the part of Maryland, a plan, for opening a proper road between the waters of the Potomac and the most convenient western waters" (Albert, 45, same cite).
1784, Dec. 18 Inland Madison introduced bill for financing a James River canal; this was later scrapped when the model bill for Potomac arrived from Md. and became model for James as well.
1784, Dec. 22 Inland The Md. & Va. commissioners met at Annapolis re. Potomac bill; Md. representatives included Thomas Stone, Samuel Hughes, Charles Carroll, John Cadwallader, S Chase, John Debutts, George Digges, Philip Key, Gustavus Scott, and Joseph Dashiell. The conference considered improvement of the Potomac and the location of a road to be built between the Potomac and the nearest waters flowing into the Ohio. There were two possible routes: from the Potomac at Stony River to the Cheat, and from Ft. Cumberland to the forks of theYoughiogeny, the Turkey Foot. The first went entirely through Md. & Va., the second would have to pass through Pa. for which reason they recommended the first. They adopted a resolution suggesting that the Md. & Va. assemblies appoint commissioners to view and survey a road from the Potomac to the Cheat river. It was also recommended that permission be requested of Pa. to lay out and improve a road between Ft. Cumerland and the Turkey Foot. The influence of GW, who acted as chairman of the conference, is easily discernible in these resolution (Albert, 46-48; he cites report of the conference in Bacon-Foster, 45-48).
1784, Dec. 28 Inland GW to Madison re. his mission in Annapolis.
1784, Dec. 28 Inland Va. resolution authorizing the commissioners appointed last June to meet with commissioners from Md. to unite in a representation to Pa. re. a road from the head of navigation opened by the contemplated Potomac canal to the Ohio. The Va. gov. is directed to send a copy of this resolution to Md. gov. [This resolution passed before Va. received GW's report of his meeting in Annapolis, which he sent Madison on Dec. 28. In a letter to GW Jan 1 Madison notes that before the receipt of GW's report the HD passed this resolution, which ought to have rather been committed to the meeting in Annapolis. Now Madison says it will probably be best to refer it to the Executive as Maryland has done--which the Va. assembly does in fact on Jan. 1. So the Dec. 28 resolution had really been superseded but the commissioners (who had not been given this instruction) went ahead and sent it anyway, probably at the urging of GW, who just happened to have a copy of this resolution, and who was very interested in the road.]
1784, c. Dec. 28 Inland Md. passes act for opening the Potomac
1784, Dec.? Inland Md. resolution appointing commissioners to act with Va. commissioners in making representation to Pa. re a road??
1784, Dec. 31 Inland GW's report of his meeting Annapolis was laid before the VA HD (JVHD, 99).
1785, Jan. 1 Inland Va. resolution appointing a western road commissioner to act with Md. appointee to open and keep in repair a road from the Potomac to the River Cheat or River Monongahela. Also directs the Governor to write to the State of Pennsylvania requesting permission to lay out and improve a Road through such part of the said State, as may be necessary to go from fort Cumberland to the navigable part of the River Yohogania.
Did the Gov. send such a letter? [I don't think so; Henry was gov. & I checked both the Official Letters and his Correspondence for the period Dec. 1784-April 1785 and found nothing.]
1785, Jan. 4 Inland Va. passes act for opening the Potomac (JVHD, 101, 104, 105).
1785, Jan. 9 Inland Madison to Jefferson (from Richmond). This letter makes clear that the bill passed for opening the Potomac originated with GW; this was not Madison's idea. He notes that GW had written a letter to Harrison that the latter communicated to the assembly, and that GW also visited Richmond during the course of the session and "still further impressed the magnitude of the object on sundry members." After he left a joint memorial from a number of citizens from Md. & Va. was presented to the assembly praying for an act of incorporation. A bill had been prepared at the same meeting which produced the memorial & was transmitted to Richmond at the same time. The assembly lent a ready ear, but the tolls were too high and they feared changing them and destroying the essential unity with Md., so they sent GW &c to Annapolis to negociate a satisfactory bill with Md. By his exertions a bill passed in Md. & was sent to Richmond where it also passed.