Bailey's Dam

by Steven D. Smith; George J. Castille

It is a strange twist of history, but we can say that today we know more about some details of Bailey’s dam construction than did the soldiers who built it. Those men were laboring day and night to build the dam as quickly as possible. In the confusion and fury of activity, there was little time for anyone but Bailey to fully comprehend the plan. Today, historians have studied the many reports and eyewitness accounts of the dam construction to piece together what happened. In addition, careful archaeological excavation of the actual dam remains provided undeniable evidence of the techniques used. In 1984 a combined historical and archaeological study was undertaken by a historian from the Corps of Engineers and archaeologists from Coastal Environments, Inc. The results of their studies provide a detailed view of the activities at Bailey’s Dam and testify to the magnitude of Bailey’s engineering feat.

Historical documents indicate that Bailey first built his dam just above the lower, downstream rapids. There, the river was around 758 feet wide, and a 10-mile-per-hour current rushed over the shoals. By constructing the dam at that particular location, he hoped the water would rise enough behind the dam to allow the gunboats to float over the upper rapids. Then, with the built-up water pressure, the dam could be broken through at the proper time and the gunboats could rush over the lower rapids, carried by the force of the released water.

Sketch of crib dam which accompanied Colonel Bailey’s report (U.S. War Department 1891-1895:Plate 53-3).

CRIB OF STONE.
Iron Bars 14 × 22 Ft. Iron Bars

Following Bailey’s practical nature, the dam was built with any locally available material readily at hand. To do so, he used different methods of construction for each riverbank. On the west (Alexandria) bank, he built the dam of large wooden boxes called cribs. Bailey constructed a number of cribs which were placed side by side from the bank out into the river.

Archaeologists investigated these structures during a low water period by carefully digging two small excavation units around partially exposed crib remains. These units were 4 feet wide and 8 feet long. As the archaeologists removed the surrounding mud and dirt and exposed the cribs, they painstakingly recorded the position of each timber and beam. Afterward they studied their photographs and notes, comparing their findings with the historical records.

Historical accounts indicate that lumber from Alexandria mills, homes, and barns was quickly stripped for use in building the cribs. Bricks, stone, and even machinery were used to fill and anchor the cribs. Additionally, historical illustrations show that iron bars were placed vertically in the four corners of each crib, to provide a supporting framework.

The evidence from modern archaeological excavations generally supports the historical accounts with some interesting variations. Both lines of evidence testify to the ingenuity of Lieutenant Colonel Bailey. The excavations revealed that the crib framework was constructed of hand hewn 4-by-10-inch timbers, which is strong evidence that the lumber was from nearby buildings. The ends of these timbers were notched so that they fit tightly together at the corners of the cribs. The corners were supported by smaller vertical wood posts. However, in the cribs excavated by the archaeologists, there was no evidence of the iron support bars. Furthermore, there was no evidence of machinery parts in the cribs. Instead, they found that the cribs were filled mostly with sand and mud and only capped with a layer of loose brick and stone. A metal fragment of a large sugar kettle was also found among this brick and stone. A sugar kettle was just the kind of loose but heavy object that could be quickly transported to the cribs for anchoring material.

On the east (Pineville) bank, there were no town buildings to strip for lumber but there was, quite conveniently, a forest. With abundant trees available, Bailey constructed a “self-loading” tree dam. According to historical diagrams, trees were stacked lengthwise with the flow of the stream. The upstream treetops were anchored to the river bottom with stones. The downstream trunks were raised higher than the upstream tops by alternating layers of other logs running perpendicular to, or across, the stream. This technique presented a dam face of logs angled upward with the stream flow. As the river was held back by the log face, the water pressure actually made the dam stronger or “self-loading.”