A larger relation pertaining to John A. Roebling’s Suspension Bridge

The following is an extended account of John Augustus Roebling’s (born Johann Augustus Röbling) Ohio Bridge that was originally called the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge and is a more full relation including aspects that had to be left off of the contracted article for StreetVibes such as the mention of son Washington Augustus Roebling and his vital involvement.

As of any monumental effort there is much that occurs beyond the abilities of one man and in the case of Roebling’s projected bridge over the Ohio this is no less so, although the wider import is often minimized by the later Brooklyn Bridge. Of a determined collection of wills this passage was eventually built despite much resistance from the Ohio assembly at the inceptive time.

Kentucky government fully supported Roebling’s proposed span that was primarily backed by Covington businessman Amos Shinkle who applied a spirited persistence in pushing for the adjoining overpass to come to fruition. Shinkle actively involved himself with the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge Company serving on their board, and without his added diligence Roebling’s project would likely have not have made it off the drawing board. Further urging towards realizing Roebling’s prospective bridge was propelled from as far away as Lexington, as the city being somewhat landlocked, would benefit from a feasible crossway to more directly access Cincinnati’s ports of trade along the watercourse of the Ohio.

Though there was a collective pitch by respective spokesmen from Covington, Georgetown, and Lexington to Cincinnati officials as early as 1839, the proffered joint project was met with much disputation by the latter city and state representative’s reactive concerns; implicitly couched- if not formally recorded- from prejudices of increased influx of fugitive slaves into Ohio and more than subtle reservations expressed that spoke of miserly control of the regional river trade. One exceptive member in the Ohio legislature who supported Roebling’s calculate plan was Carl Reemelin, a senator from Hamilton County that through mutual meetings with the innovative engineer had developed a growing conviction to further promote the proposed span on the Ohio. Cincinnati in addition had a burgeoning German-American community known as Over-the Rhine, wherein a respected historian Heinrich A. Ratterman would form a growing admiration for Roebling’s project, becoming a leading neighborhood advocate towards backing the bridge’s construction.

Although state lawmakers in Kentucky eventually granted a charter in 1846 for the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge to move forward on Roebling’s prospective plan, Ohio Senate committee reports countered by outlining speculative estimations that the spanning structure would lower property values in Cincinnati and unduly obstruct navigation on the Ohio River. A concessive charter from Ohio was finally ceded for Roebling’s bridge in 1849- following of a separate concessive bridge at Wheeling, West Virginia- yet the daunting rider for the Covington-Cincinnati crossing stated two imposing restrictions; one was no bridge could be built that required piers in the river and second the span had to be at least 1,400 feet, a then unheard of length.

Amidst this discordant negotiation between Kentucky and Ohio, Roebling’s nascent implementation utilizing wire-rope suspension supporting a wooden aqueduct across the Alleghany River was completed in 1845 that carried the Pennsylvanian Mainline Canal from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Prior developments in which Roebling’s adaptive wire cabling was tested were applied to suspension structures for the Alleghany Portage Railroad that had been applied three years earlier. Successive bridges were then commissioned of Roebling near Pittsburgh, such as the Roebling-Smithfield Bridge, finished by 1846 (replaced later by Gustav Lindental’s present design) and a overpass in place from 1857-92 over the present site where the Roberto Clemente bridge crosses the Allegheny being the first of Roebling’s bridges to use I-beams instead of wood trusses for the major cross sections.


Although these proven suspension systems supplied sound proof of Roebling’s particular praxis to carry out a monumental viaduct along advanced methods at the junction of Covington and Cincinnati there were mounting smear campaigns spread about; proposed of unfair comparisons to more faulty cabled bridges- not of Roebling’s design- that had recently collapsed over the Licking River. While these unjustified rumors were swelling, additional provisions from Ohio legislature in 1850 towards the bridge company’s charter restricted any direct connection to Cincinnati lands operatively outlined as Vine, Race, Elm, and Plum Streets. This skewed limitation intentionally blocked Roebling’s formative intent for the proffered suspension bridge to more centrally align with Vine Street and explains the ongoing awkward approach from the North bank, as compared to the rather parallel egress from the South side. It remains as a regrettable fault for an otherwise equipoise composition of Roebling’s sublime vision; and ultimately speaks of the effective flaws of allowing shortsighted lawmakers to draw up a ruling prospective based on distorted grounds.

Even as Ohio legislature continued to draw up many daunting barriers to dissuade Roebling from following through on his connective passage, construction began in September 1856 preparing the foundations for the Ohio tower. However as both supporting towers were underway the financial instability from the ‘Panic of 1857’ caught up to the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge company the following year as insufficient funds halted production. The concurrent tensions arising towards divisive actions leading to the nations Civil War and ensuing battle lines crossed of North and South while threatening any possible cooperative advance being at once conducted; also stressed the tactical advantage of a solid passage over the central Ohio River.

As a median concern the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge recovered from its near financial ruin mainly due to the tactical call for a sturdy crossing point to defend against invasive Confederate forces who had begun to take control of the declared neutral border state of Kentucky. In 1863 Roebling was expediently recalled to Cincinnati from his involved design toward the Brooklyn Bridge and Ohio lawmakers revised their previous amended charters to reduce the undue minimum given for the former bridges span to practically advance the progress. Perhaps this sudden turn around of Ohio officials from suspicious dissenters of Roebling’s bridge to express supporters relayed a certain odd irony or rather pronounced reflection upon the pivotal passage being reviewed. As a practical and prudent engineer Roebling’s determinant regards were not overly inclined toward any poetic dispensation as such, yet this immediate about face brought by the foment of war is at once indicate of the apparent endless contention upon the offered allowance of the capricious hand of fate ineluctably tipping the scales; with the mean nature of willful human aims being conversely countered of more deliberate actions, adamantly undertaken. That the prohibitive restated naysay and restrictive measures were so reversed or effectively lifted so that the defense of Ohio could expressly conduct supplies and troops over the Ohio River while being stably fortified from that states side, could not have been all together lost on the dual intellectual-who studied metaphysical as well as mechanical operations- as to the contrariwise position that the border state from this campaign expectantly held towards his suspended overpass.

In direct affiliation Roebling’s co-involvement with the Covington-Cincinnati and Brooklyn Bridge - that literally stretched his own mental and physical capacity to the breaking point- quite poignantly extends beyond any obligatory national duty or aggrandized efforts solely mandated by country and mere material legacy towards everlasting honor. Although Roebling’s writings are mainly occupied with business correspondence, the Civil War-as for many father’s concerns- turned to his son Washington Augustus Roebling who had voluntarily entered a Union company in 1861 and of his engineering skills rose to a commissioned position in ‘62, and whose safety had to be ever on the elder Roebling’s mind.

Not unaffected by his father’s continued efforts and as expectedly concerned for the ongoing strain that the combined construction called for, Augustus-upon honorable release retiring as a Colonel from the federal forces in December 1864 and after marrying in January 1865, returned to join in the ongoing building of the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge. His anticipated arrival- with his recent bride Emily Warren was immediately put to use, in no small part fueled by apprehension of his father’s health under the laborious task. Even given favorable conditions erecting a bridge over a wide river is a formidable commission, whereas the increased turbulent effects of the Civil War decimating manpower and restricting movement caused the development to be conducted at a plodding pace. With tensions somewhat eased and routes beginning to clear the bridges progress moved forward, increasingly with the principal engineer aided by his son who would gradually take over the main supervision as the senior Roebling resumed planning toward the Brooklyn Bridge. Washington remained to complete the Covington-Cincinnati span and in 1866 the span was opened to foot traffic with vehicular conduct underway in 1867. The realized overpass was widely received as a resonate marvel, a resolute culmination out of a redoubtable decade through which the turbulent divide of the Ohio River though not at its inundate crest was possibly never more marked as an indeterminate boundary.

Reciprocally John A. Roebling returned the collective wonder that his multipartite junction was capaciously shared by the substantial gathering upon the Covington-Cincinnati’s public opening as a converging conveyance that through extensive toil and lingering emotional trial at last arrived as an active means of access. In the initial three days of the shared bridge being utilized approximately 120,000 people walked across passing in coordinate travel while likely pausing along the way to admire the panoramic view that Roebling’s monumental overpass offered of the surrounding area.

That there are by existing records supportive transcriptions detailing Roebling’s substantial concern as to his suspension bridges being of sound construction against ongoing concerns that any such structure could not conceivably last are a valuable correspondence to supplement imparted columns as whole volumes lead to a fuller understanding of the wider implications involved in this vast undertaking over the Ohio River and concurrent prospect connecting the isle of Brooklyn to the inlet of Manhattan at such a turning point. Of these compiled articles though some narrative accounts stress Roebling’s dogged ambition, individual gumption, and particular innovative persistence toward achieving seeming inconceivable projects of overwhelming measure due of his singular perseverance, the more inclusively informed relations acknowledging the respective contributions and surrounding conditions about which the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge arose and were carried out of a wider narrative lead to a deeper appreciation and thorough understanding of the monumental import that both enduringly convey.

The Brooklyn Bridge frequently throws overarching shadows upon the reattributed John A. Roebling Bridge, mainly due to the elder engineer’s untimely death in the summer of 1869. While fixing a location for the Brooklyn tower next to the Fulton Ferry Terminal, a ferryboat entering the slip pushed the pilings on which he stood crushing his foot and resulting in tetanus that led to lockjaw, whereupon Roebling ultimately expired 16 days after at the age of 63. His son Washington would inherit the formidable task of completing the Brooklyn Bridge that would exert its profound toll onto his life as well. In December of 1870 a fire began in the Brooklyn caisson that threatened the possible progression of the entire operation. During exhaustive efforts to extinguish the fire, Washington suffered the first effects of caisson disease, more commonly called the bends from remaining overlong and rising too quickly in the required depths of the East River needed to ensure the bridges bedrock base. It was to be the first of many such effects of being submerged in the caissons that in 1872 led to the first workman’s death, followed by several more, with Washington suffering a second collapse in his own efforts whereupon he lay near death for several days afterward.

Washington Roebling would never fully recover his full vigor and suffered continual relapses that required a extended leave. Although he would return in 1876 from his factory in Trenton, N.J. to observe the bridges progress from a bedroom window in his home in Columbia Heights, he would eventually become bedridden from the lingering effects of the bends that rendered him physically unfit to attend the bridges opening in 1883. In addition to his chief assistant C.C. Martin, assistant engineer Francis Collingwood and William H. Paine carrying out his meticulous direction, his wife Emily Warren essentially became his eyes and ears along with personally conducting his detailed plans. Without her devoted and insightful support it is uncertain if the Brooklyn Bridge would have been as exactingly conducted. As it was the direct absence of Washington led to some corruptive smuggling of inferior cables that were later traced to the deceptive import of subcontractor J. Lloyd Haigh that was found out by Washington-through his engineer’s tests- in 1878 that some of the interwoven wire issued was substandard. Though the interlaced cables were made to be six times stronger, Washington demanded that Haigh under close supervision be made to produce extra good wire to provide 150 more wires to each supportive cable that would be rewoven by Roebling’s firm. There was of course much out of Washington’s control beyond structural issues, much as his father endured in his political harangues and opportunistic squabbling in Cincinnati, although of New York’s entangled corruption the former was but a shade as to the overreaching graft conducted by William Macy Tweed and William Kingsley. Despite all the enormous obstacles however, as with the model Covington-Cincinnati Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge remains as one of two lasting monuments that though sometimes accorded separate distinctions stand as a connective legacy to the Roebling family as a united gift encouraging shared opportunity.


References cited:

Toward a recommended full account of both ventures David McCullough’s The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972) is the most thorough. Although it mainly focuses on the Brooklyn Bridge, McCullough duly includes the model construct of the Covington-Cincinnati along with successive bridges that John A. Roebling and Washington Augustus adaptively developed.

The single volume exclusively dealing with the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge is Harry R. Stevens The Ohio Bridge (Cincinnati: Ruter Press, 1939). Primarily it relates details as to the bridges construction and the bridge company without providing information as to John A. Roebling or his son’s extensive involvement.

Don Hinrich Tolzmann’s John A. Roebling and his Suspension Bridge on the Ohio River (River (Milford, Ohio: Little Miami Publishing Company, 2007), though of a shorter relation recognizes the respective contributions of the German-American communities and individual backers such as Heinrich A. Ratterman, Carl Reemelin, and of especial note Amos Shinkle without whom the completion of the Covington-Cincinnati span would have quite probably never occurred, at least in the proposed time and way that it was conducted. Tolzmann in this compact tome also manages to convey much respective and reliable information as to John (Johann) Augustus Roebling’s upbringing, subsequent education in Berlin, Germany, and intended vision upon encountering the experienced realities when immigrating into America, that Roebling countered with his further practical knowledge in the publishing field as well as applying his exemplary engineering skills. The author further acknowledges Washington Roebling’s necessary involvement. It is through Tolzmann’s select, yet comprehensive study that much of this extended review was adaptively conveyed.


As a pictorial reference Mary J. Shapiro’s A Picture History of the Brooklyn Bridge (New York: Dover Publications, 1983) includes many prior illustrations and photographs of the Roebling’s past constructions, beginning with John A. Roebling’s early contracts with the Pennsylvania Portage Railroad, leading to the developments of the wire rope business established in Trenton, N.J. in 1848, that furthered the contract with The Monongahela Bridge (1845) and the Allegheny Suspension Bridge (1858-60). Also the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge is featured of one rare photograph under construction in 1865 and single engraving from Harper’s Weekly depicting the completed bridge in 1867. The additional textual information is of equally consideration and was consulted in this combined article and following blog.

Internet Sources:

Article that reviews some of the political resistance formulated by Ohio representatives in opposition to the proposed shared bridge. “Ohioians resisted Suspension Bridge” Cincinnati.com-Cincinnati, Our History. January 12, 2011 http://cincinnati.com/blogs/ourhistory/2011/01/12/ohioans-resisted-suspension-bridge/ (accessed 08/06/11).

“A Quick History of the Roebling Suspension Bridge” Covington-Cincinnati Bridge Committee, June, 2004 http://roeblingbridge.org/content/quick-history-roebling-suspension-bridge (accessed 08/07/11).

Link to earlier suspension bridges designed by John A. Roebling
Donald L. Gibbon, “How Roebling Did It: Building the World’s First Wire-Rope Suspension Aquaduct in 1840s Pittsburgh”
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0605/gibbon-0605.html (accessed 08/07/11).
Originally published JOM, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 20-25.


The online forum “Civil War Talk” with ongoing discussions relating to the Civil War of which the specific thread was initially consulted on Washington Augustus Roebling’s term of service in the Union Army. http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showthread.php?121634-Washington-Augustus-Roebling (accessed 08/07/11).

A broader relation of the involvement of Kentucky in the Civil War, with their official neutrality proclaimed, yet ongoing conflicted position as a border state between. “Overview of the Civil War in Kentucky” Kentucky Educational Television, 2011 http://www.ket.org/civilwar/kyrole.html (accessed 08/06/11).

A reflection on the ongoing passages on the part of the reviewer

In coming to review the substantial landmarks in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area the formative offer was extended from a correspondence pertaining mainly to certain descriptions involving Josiah Warren’s Cincinnati “Time Store” that opened in 1827 and for a short time operated as a legitimate alternative to currency exchange where equitable goods were available for trade from certificates of labor at little more than market share from what they were purchased.1 Other accounts in which various surrounding historical places and markers were respectively interrelated and posted on the Internet were presumably considered for ongoing contribution to StreetVibes toward the form of a serial article of a similar pursuit in relating further information about the regions extensive historical sights that could be uncovered and alternately shared.2 This proffer was rather open ended, although there was a mention toward revealing ‘little known’ facts behind these wider landmarks with the particular manner that had been described in the other posts. In responsive consideration there was a loose counter-proposal that the articles be connectively corresponding, whereas those covered could be prominent with some less conspicuous features reconsidered. There was then a progression at this early configuration toward featuring a larger or well-known landmark with the ensuing article focused around a relatively smaller marker or memorial though of less renowned features still conveying equal significance.

This formative outline evolved into the reflection of the most prominent landmark of the area and tri state region that is undoubtedly the Ohio River. In formulating on how to expressly connect the central river John A. Roebling’s lasting bridge presented an expansive junction from which to deliberately start. As the celebrated span is at many levels an aspired collective feat overcoming an immense divide, the sublime conveyance nevertheless continues to retain some visible faults due mostly from the Ohio assemblies contractual provisions and admitted reservations echoed from the past to the present citizens of the area as to its ongoing stability despite its proven endurance. These continuing contradictory conditions of which Roebling grappled with still have sound relevance and called for the construction to be a leading conduit.

The larger aim began to further coalesce of successively conducting the profound formation of the Ohio Valley that is from the conjunctive mean merging of the offshoot river to the indigenous people intermingled around its banks and extensive tributaries borne of indelible generations whose lasting impressions form a vital basis to understanding the latter profuse immigration that so impacted this “middle ground” with its central fluvial vein of what is now termed the Ohio River.3 Thus the river is given as a seemingly unending source interfluent as a linked undercurrent of which to extensively relate the subsequent landmarks that arose around the region. Yet as that flowing starting point is of many ways indefinite -even as it purportedly seminally imparted divides at the retroactive midpoint of Cincinnati and Newport- and at all times circulate rather than strictly linear, it was decided to begin at a later crossing point and reflect upon Roebling’s industrial measure that attempted to overarch the river’s tangible divide.

The admitted reach of this series is more than likely beyond what was initially editorially expected and indeed has already been haltingly re-coursed by the third composition that was deemed too disordered for the intended publication. These creative blockages are aptly encountered as they reflect upon an individual approach that favors intuitive methods as much as informed measures that persisting of a challenging intermixture intends to challenge set organizations otherwise easily read. Certainly there is a balance struck between such cooperative outlooks and this disparate resistance resonantly sounds upon the ongoing humanistic interactions with landmarks that as far as they have existential meaning require personal attenuation to actively respond to their continued significance into our shared present. This accorded difference also reflects upon the inherent landmarks of the native people in what is now ascribed as the Ohio Valley who of the past contact from Indo-European immigrants were met with mutual interests, however were conversely irrespectively mistreated and irreconcilably excluded if not willfully eliminated. It is when over restrictions or impingements inflexibly impose these common boundaries that there is an inherent danger of separate disconnect or admission of static compliance that renders these shared articles concretely obsolete. The personal experience encountered around the landmarks is another primary inclusion throughout and toward encouraging vital impressions of those reconsidered, especially of the first leg, are those conveyances existing as functioning dispensers of the essential Ohio River. From the median epicenter of the river there is an outward path to be pursued that while roughly mapped also allows for fluid egression as to its progressive range.

On this ambulant passage reviewing these regional landmarks the textual delivery though informed to the best of the combined ability applied- that has been accumulated from personal experience and endeavored of supportive material from multiple sources- is not without much incomplete faults and overlooked material due from certain flawed records with the admitted translations being relied in English on my part having certain ongoing restrictions.

Though these personal limitations of translated records inhibit a full understanding of these shared landmarks there is a wider intent to delve into deeper sources that attempt to relate respective perspectives outside of narrow beliefs or contractual inscriptions in requisite transcriptions. As this presents a formidable scope, it is hoped that these expanded postings will continue to lead to further insights around the existing landmarks and extend the shared allowances that contributed to their lasting communal appreciation. This involves acknowledging that these attributed landmarks have frequently been revised to reflect a more aligned or romantic history of our region than what is harshly factual. In some cases this revisionist impartment around the surrounding landmarks is deliberately overwritten as it may be conversely corrupted by negligent attention over time that wishes to forget any disparaging parts involved in its acquisition or construction. In this series of reviews there is a direct effort not to shy away from the conflicting accounts surrounding these markers, particularly the invasive effect of Indo-European influence onto indigenous landmarks that have decidedly altered their original meaning or use. Though this series will no doubt contain its share of misinformed interpretations and ignorant mistakes there is an aspiration to more thoroughly delve into the combined occurrences that arose around these given landmarks even as what is uncovered may be difficult to relate.


Notes:

1. Perhaps not entirely randomly with the ‘timely’ proposal StreetVibes recently featured an article on Josiah Warren in the 8/05/11 issue of the “make cincinnati weird” column entitled “Anarchy in the Queen City”,
http://streetvibes.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/online-edition-streetvibes-issue-8-5-11.pdf (accessed 09/25/11).
This website has expansive information on Warren’s life and work, http://www.crispinsartwell.com/josiahwarren.htm (accessed 09/24/11).

2. Some of these articles were pulled off the Internet after a dispute over some photographs used a lesson toward utilizing my own pictures. One existent blog listed as “Another architectural age” that features the Dixie Terminal Building was of this presumed reference http://stoneadmire.blogspot.com/.

3. The term “middle ground” in reference to the Ohio Valley has been acknowledged by past records and is referenced in Allan W. Eckert’s historical accounts such as The Frontiersman (New York: Bantam, 1967) and That Dark and Bloody River (New York: Bantam, 1995). Of further wider relevance is Richard White’s excellent study The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1615-1815 (United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press, 1991)