Search

Search Constraints

Start Over You searched for: Subjects Canals--Virginia Remove constraint Subjects: Canals--Virginia

Search Results

Dismal Swamp Collection

0.01 Linear Foot
Abstract Or Scope

Transcripts collected circa 1922 by Earl Gregg Swem in connection with his editing of William Byrd's Description of the Dismal Swamp and a Proposal to Drain the Swamp. Includes land entries made in the Dismal Swamp; petitions, 1763-1785, to the Governor and Council; and papers, 1764-1785, of George Washington concerning the proposed canal in the Dismal Swamp.

1 result

Dismal Swamp Collection 0.01 Linear Foot

Farm Pen Plot and Note Concerning Canal Construction

0.01 Linear Feet
Abstract Or Scope

A hand drawn plot outlining the placement of a proposed canal boarding the south section of a farm, near their pen. Additionally, notes regarding the James River- Kanawha Canal's progress in different sections of constructing the canal. Points mentioned are Rutherford's Mill and Lesley's Bridge, both locations just West of Richmond, Va.

1 result

Farm Pen Plot and Note Concerning Canal Construction 0.01 Linear Feet

Thomas Mead Letter, 14 January 1836

.01 Linear Feet
Abstract Or Scope

Thomas Mead, of Lynchburg, Virginia, writes to his brother-in-law Frederick Carper, of Fairfax City, Virginia. The letter mentions their political differences and discusses laborers from Pennsylvania coming to work on the James River Canal (which was never completed). Mead describes these white laborers as a "motley crew" and mentions "Lynches law" as a method to deal with them. Enslaved "hands" were hired from $100 to $150 per year to work on the project. Mead mentions prices for enslaved persons, a decrease in land cost, western migration, market prices for wheat, and shares personal news.

1 result

Thomas Mead Letter, 14 January 1836 .01 Linear Feet

Content Warning

ARVAS is an aggregator of archival resources. ARVAS does not have control of the descriptive language used in our members’ finding aids.

Finding aids may contain historical terms and phrases, reflecting the shared attitudes and values of the community from which they were collected, but are offensive to modern readers. These include demeaning and dehumanizing references to race, ethnicity, and nationality; enslaved or free status; physical or mental ability; religion; sex; and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many institutions and organizations are in the process of reviewing and revising their descriptive language, with the intent to describe materials in more humanizing, inclusive, and harm-reductive ways. As members revise their descriptive language, their changes will eventually be reflected in their ARVAS finding aids.