Individuals today wishing to conduct research using Rockingham County court records may encounter a few stumbling blocks. Due to two major events in the locality’s history, Rockingham County is identified as one of Virginia’s Lost Record localities. The first loss of Rockingham records occurred in 1787 when a courthouse fire destroyed primarily wills and estate records. A second and even more devastating loss came during the Civil War.

In June 1864, with the threat of Union troops advancing into the valley, concerned citizens of the county wanted court records (mostly volumes) removed from the courthouse so that the records could not be destroyed. A judge granted permission for these records to be moved to a safer place east of the Blue Ridge.  A teamster and wagon were hired to remove the records, but the wagon was left on the Port Republic-Forge road after a rim was lost and a tire came off. During this delay, Union troops spied the wagon and partially destroyed the records by setting fire to it.  The mother of a Confederate soldier extinguished the fire by carrying water and smothering the fire with green hay just cut from a nearby field.  She retrieved what was left of the records and took them to her home for safekeeping.  The records remained at her home for quite some time, and because the records were not carefully guarded, individuals came and took records related to themselves or their families.  Eventually, what records remained were returned to the courthouse; however, many order books, deed books, will books and fiduciary books were lost or severely damaged by the fire. 

In 2005, a Library of Virginia researcher made a startling discovery—he came across a box of miscellaneous loose and bound documents.  It so happened that this box contained burnt fragments of Rockingham County’s original wills and administrations (including estate inventories and guardians’ accounts) saved from that wagon fire in 1864. The history behind how the Library of Virginia came to acquire these records is found in the locality accession records. The files for Rockingham County date from 1864 to 2010 and offer two possibilities. The first and best possibility is that the records came from Duke University which returned 18,000 items and 121 volumes to the LVA on 22 June 1951 (accession 23707).  The second possibility (accession 25144) is that the records were purchased as part of 1,500 items from the Chesapeake Book Company on 1 April 1960.

Because of the extensive damage to the perimeter of many of the pages and to prevent further loss of valuable information, the more fragile items were sent to the Library’s in-house conservation lab. Pages were encapsulated and returned for the difficult task of historical reconstruction. As a result of the fire damage, pagination and recorded dates were effectively removed. The time consuming task of reconstruction was handed over to one of Local Records Services’ most experienced archivists, Louise Jones. She devised an elaborate scheme for painstakingly researching and reconstructing the original volumes for microfilm purposes.  Her work encompassed various steps to organize the items into will books.  The first step involved taking notes from county order books to determine which documents were recorded on which dates. For pages burnt on all four edges, she determined which side of the page was the spine side.  Next, she looked at the page to see if she could find the name of the deceased and the date the document was recorded.  For pages without dates or names of the deceased, she denoted the type of document and then looked for names and dates within the documents. If the document was an estate sale, she noted the names of the purchasers and compared the names to the list of purchasers in other estate sales. Comparing unique items sold with items listed in inventories helped determine the name of the deceased. For her final step, she compared handwriting, the darkness or lightness of the ink, page size, and the color of the paper or water stains to determine where the page belonged in the will book.

Nine volumes were painstakingly reconstructed dating from 1803 to 1862. Once reconstructed, the original volumes were microfilmed in-house by the staff of OCLC Preservation Service Center (now Backstage Library Works). The nine microfilm reels generated were made available to the public in 2005.  The volumes were then retired to the State Records Center because of their fragile nature.

The Rockingham County Wills and Administrations, 1803-1862 (Microfilm Reels 667-675), are available for research at the Library of Virginia and the Rockingham County Circuit Clerk’s Office. Additional Rockingham County court records can be found in the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection. More information on the digital collection can be found in this previous blog post.

-Callie Lou Freed, Local Records Archivist

There are many noteworthy and valuable documents among the over 1,000 petitions currently digitized.  Accomack County alone includes several appeals of freed slaves for permission to remain in the state following their emancipation as required by law.   Similarly, there are petitions of slave owners petitioning the Assembly for leave to bring their slaves into the county from neighboring Maryland.  Accomack County’s close proximity to the Chesapeake Bay produced petitions concerning changes to the oyster laws especially as they relate to dredging.  Several citizens also petitioned the Assembly to establish ferries or packets between Accomack and the ports of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Hampton.  One of the most interesting petitions within Accomack County consists of a printed address of E. P. Pitts to the “People of Accomac [sic] and Northampton Counties.”  Pitts, a judge and former state senator, voted against the secession candidate in the Convention and writes defending his decision to relocate his family to Howard County, Maryland, for health reasons during the war.

This is the first of an on-going series of Out of the Box posts highlighting the Legislative Petitions collection.  Future posts will announce when new localities become available.

-Craig S. Moore, State Records Appraisal Archivist

The plaintiff, R. E. Gatewood, filed a civil suit against the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company in James City County Circuit Court on 3 November 1884.  In his statement to the court, Gatewood blamed C&O Railway for a fire that caused extensive damage to his property on 14 October 1884.  Greenwood claimed that a C&O steam locomotive passing through his property did not have a spark arrestor or, if it did, the spark arrestor was not working properly. (A spark arrestor was a wire netting designed to prevent sparks or other tiny flaming debris from escaping the locomotive’s “balloon stack.”)  As a result of the “careless negligence” of the defendant, the plaintiff’s property was set on fire by sparks emitted from the steam locomotive.  Valuable timber including oak, chestnut, walnut, and pine worth $370 were destroyed by the fire as well as chestnut rail fences worth $30.  Gatewood demanded $400 in compensation for the severe injury done to him by the C&O Railway Company.

No rebuttal by C&O Railway Company to Gatewood’s statements was found in the suit.  However, the two oversize exhibits, the plat and the illustration of the engine boiler, were produced by C&O Railway Company perhaps to show a) the extent of damage by the fire was not as much as the plaintiff alleged and b) all C&O steam locomotives were equipped with spark arrestors.  The tiny arrows show how the mixture of cinders and ash flow through the locomotive, up the balloon stack, and into the spark arrestor.  What I found interesting is that the illustration shows some cinder and ash making it past the spark arrestor.  I believe the reason why is that C&O Railway Company wanted to make the point that, while the spark arrestor does a great job preventing most of the cinder and ash from escaping the balloon stack, it does not catch them all.  Consequently, the escaping cinder and ash could start a fire such as the one on Gatewood’s property, but the cause of the fire was accidental and not “careless negligence” on the part of C&O Railway Company.

In its verdict in June 1885, the jury sided with the plaintiff, Gatewood; however, he had to come away from the trial extremely disappointed.  The jury assessed the damages done to his property by C&O Railway Company at $32.55.  Apparently, the two exhibits produced by C&O Railway Company influenced the jury’s decision.  Was C&O Railway and Company responsible for the fire?  Yes.  But was the fire due to “careless negligence” on the part of the railroad company and the damage caused by the fire as extensive as Gatewood claimed?  No.  The only consolation for Gatewood was that he received just enough money to buy new chestnut rail fences.  

The James City County/Williamsburg Judgments, 1877-1891, are open for research and available at the Library of Virginia.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Services Coordinator

Editor’s Note: This blog post originally appeared in the Summer 2002 issue of

Among the vast array of resources available for genealogical research at the Library of Virginia, it may be easy to overlook one potential treasure trove of information – funeral home records.  One such collection, the L. T. Christian Funeral Home Records, 1912-1986 (Acc. 34483) holds a wealth of information on generations of Richmonders, making it potentially useful to genealogists, scholars of local history and Richmond personalities, and perhaps even students of race relations.  

Langdon Taylor Christian (1853–1935) began life as the son of a Charles City County farmer who emphasized field work and not education. Christian had acquired only an elementary education when he decided to leave his family at the age of 18 to seek work in Richmond. After laboring for a time in a tobacco factory, Christian entered employment with John A. Belvin in 1872 in the leading furniture and undertaking establishment in Richmond. Christian applied himself in this endeavor as a fine finisher, varnisher, and cabinet and casket maker. When Belvin died in 1880, Christian succeeded him, reorganizing the business under his own name.

The files kept by the L. T. Christian Funeral Home contain a mass of biographical data relative to nearly every client of the company. As funeral director, Christian and later his son and successor, L. T. Christian, Jr. (1893–1975), were charged with the responsibilities of initiating and filing the required death certificate with state authorities and posting obituaries in newspapers. These tasks required amassing significant genealogical knowledge of each individual including his or her full name, date and place of birth, date and place of death, cause of death, marital status, spouse’s name, parents’ names and places of birth, address, occupation, military service, education, religious affiliation, burial location, and surviving family members. As standard procedure, the funeral home completed a sales agreement for each client that contained this information. Sales agreements are found in each decedent’s file along with copies of every obituary posted and paid for by the funeral home. These documents offer a humanizing exhibit of the family network and personal history of a myriad of Richmond-area citizens.

The files of each decedent also contain correspondence, notes, receipts, and memorabilia that provide deeper insight into the often-difficult logistics involved in this long-lived perpetual care business. Numerous files exist for World War II soldiers, killed and temporarily buried overseas, who were transported and re-interred in Richmond cemeteries after the war with the aid of L. T. Christian’s services. These soldiers’ files contain many of the more interesting pieces of memorabilia in the collection, including what appear to be “dog tags” and “pine box” identification plates. Other memorabilia are found in the file of Hugh C. Tucker, who prior to his 1956 death commissioned a full-scale sketch of his headstone with a local tombstone artist. Correspondence and receipts found in the file of Horace A. Gray, who died along with his wife and three of his four children in a fire at their Windsor Farms home in 1958, detail the intricate role the funeral home played during times of family tragedy.

Processing of the records of this premier Richmond, Virginia, funeral parlor included the creation of an accompanying online database that allows patrons and staff to quickly pinpoint the location of any decedent’s file in the collection.  It is surname searchable and includes the decedent’s death or disinterment date along with the box and folder numbers for the file.

Notable decedents included in the collection are former Virginia governor James Hubert Price, department store founder Webster S. Rhoads, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Douglas Southall Freeman, renowned author James Branch Cabell, and pioneer aluminum magnate Richard S. Reynolds. Researchers will also find decedents whose vital statistics may breach the “missing” or “gap” years of 1896–1912 for state-kept vital records, as well as clients who were born prior to 1853. Notably absent through much of the collection are African-American decedents, who were segregated into black-owned funeral parlors and cemeteries until laws and customs separating the races began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Students of race relations may find this evidence intriguing in the study of segregation in pre-Civil Rights Richmond.

The L. T. Christian Funeral Home has since been absorbed by Bennett Funeral Home, which is still in operation and donated these records to the Library in 1993.  The varied information available, perhaps surprisingly, in a collection of funeral home records provides further proof of the richness and usefulness of archives.

-Alex Lorch, former Personal Papers Archivist.  Lorch is now Program Officer for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that the first digital images from the Rockingham County Chancery Causes are now available on the Chancery Records Index. This initial addition covers the time period from 1781 to 1893.

Following are a few suits of interest found in this first group of digital images. Rockingham County Chancery Cause 1850-002 offers a reflection on the sectional division over slavery within the national Methodist Episcopal Church on the local church level. The suit includes numerous depositions given by pastors and members that present a vivid description of the bitter division within the congregation. Rockingham County Chancery Causes 1874-051 and 1884-126 are estate disputes that have their origins in the Civil War. In the first suit, former slaves sued for their share of their former master’s estate left to them in his will. The latter suit includes exhibits detailing the destruction done to the estate of Edward H. Smith by Federal troops. A divorce suit, 1885-206, contains letters from the husband’s paramour along with a photograph of her wearing a ring belonging to his estranged wife.

Check back as more Rockingham County chancery images will be added in the future.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

Interested in commercial fishing techniques used in Virginia’s Northern Neck around the turn of the 20th century? Take a look through the Northumberland County circuit court records.

Around 1895, Earnest Krentz and Lanius B. Williams entered into a partnership to harvest fish from the Potomac River near Hack Creek using fish traps or weirs. Krentz supplied the equipment and Williams constructed and managed the traps. Following Krentz’s death in 1900, his widow, Dolly, contracted with another person to use the equipment, and conflict arose between her and Williams over who controlled the sites that had been used while Earnest lived. She claimed that the two sites were owned by the partnership and should be divided between them. Williams countered that he alone was entitled to both locations. In the spring of 1901, Dolly sued Williams (Northumberland County Chancery Cause 1902-010, Dolly Krentz, widow, etc. vs. Lanius B. Williams) on the chancery side of the Northumberland County circuit court to prevent him from interfering with her use of the most profitable spot. After hearing from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the judge ultimately sided with Williams and dismissed Dolly’s suit.

Out of the testimony and exhibits in this suit, a detailed depiction emerges of the equipment, terms, construction designs, and customs surrounding the use of fish traps in this area. For instance, when an individual chose a site for his weir, he installed a pole at the spot and attached a green bush to the top of it to indicate that he intended to occupy that particular location. After “bushing a stand,” custom demanded that other fishermen place their traps no closer than roughly 1,200 yards. Additionally, diagrams submitted as evidence in this case show the locations of other traps in that portion of the river and list their owners’ names.

The Northumberland County Chancery Causes, 1759-1912 (bulk 1786-1912), join the growing list of localities whose chancery causes have been digitized and made available on the Chancery Records Index through the Library’s innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program (CCRP).

-Sam Walters, Local Records Archivist

On 17 April 1875, Anna Williams of 313 Canal Street in Richmond heard a noise and went outside to investigate only to discover a plank pulled off of her hen house and a man “breaking chicken necks.”   Emmet W. Ruffin, a neighbor enlisted to assist her, later testified as to what happened next., “I jumped back and drew my knife and waited for him to come out…. Just then the man jumped out of the chicken house and threw a handful of sand or dirt in my eyes…. As soon as I got the sand out of my eyes, I went after him… and struck him with the knife as he was going over the fence.”  The thief dropped some of the chickens inside the yard, but Ruffin continued to follow him.  Shortly, a chase ensued, with people joining in and crying “murder” and “thief.”   Some members of the group began throwing stones.  One struck the thief on the side of his head knocking him to the ground.  The chicken thief, later identified as Robert Bland, never got back up.

The Richmond coroner’s statement reveals that the chicken thief came to his death from a stab wound, inflicted by Emmet W. Ruffin, received while engaged in stealing chickens. The jury was of the opinion that Ruffin “[deserved] the thanks of the community for his action under the circumstances.”

The testimony and investigation into the death of Robert Bland, dated 18 April 1875, can be found in the Richmond Coroners’ Inquisitions. The collection is available at the Library of Virginia but is currently closed for processing.

In April 2013, almost 138 years later, chickens are again making headlines in the city of Richmond.  City Council will be considering an ordinance that would allow residents to have chickens, and will vote on it on 8 April. A pro-hen group, Chickunz, along with other local chicken advocates, is helping spearhead this effort. 

As far as stealing hens goes, as Robert Bland discovered chickens do come home to roost. 

-Mary Dean Carter, Local Records Archival Assistant

“War of 1861 John Boyer Company B 10 Virginia

Was Born in the State of New York and inlisted in the State of Virginia in the County of Stafford the town of Brensville to sirve for the term of three years & is here by discharged from the sirves of the Confederates this 4^th day of April one thousand eight hundred and sixty three on account of wounds reseved in battle. Said John Boyer has Read eyes white hair is nine feet 11 inches hie and by confetion when enroled a dog rober. He is never to enter the Military Sirves again under eney consideration and eney Mustering or recruting oficer that is knowen to inlist said John Boyer will sufer death or such punishment as ma be disided on by a General Coart Martial By order of Major General Robert E. Lee.

Signed Jefferson Davis President of the Confederate States of America

Given at Richmond Virginia this first day of April one thousand eight hundred and sixty three.

Thats a fact. So it is if you dont believe it you ma find out beter.”

(Editor’s Note: This April Fools’ prank is part of the Caroline County Military and Pension Records, 1864. This document has been transcribed as it was originally written. For a more legible transcript with edited spelling, click here  April Fool 1863 edited transcript.)

While watching the February 2012 episode of NBC’s Who Do You Think You Are? featuring actor and Petersburg native Blair Underwood investigating his family history, Library of Virginia staff could not help but notice that one of the original volumes displayed on the show was not in great shape.  The Amherst County Register of Free Negroes, 1822-1864, was used on the show to prove that one of Underwood’s ancestors had been a free person prior to the Civil War.  The front and back covers of the volume had become detached from the spine, pages were loose, and overall it did not look like the book could withstand much handling without sustaining further damage to its fragile pages.  This led to a reevaluation of the existing conservation priority for the 30 free Negro registers in the Library’s holdings.  Previously it was thought that since all of the free Negro registers were microfilmed, the original volumes would not be handled by the public any longer, thus conservation money would be better spent on other items.  However, the resurgence of interest in African American genealogy, the sesquicentennial of the Civil War and related issues, and interest in the registers for display in exhibits clearly indicated that a change was necessary.  A conservation inventory was done for all of the volumes and the ones that require treatment will receive it over time and as funds allow.

So what is a free Negro register and why do they exist?  In 1803 the Virginia General Assembly passed an act that required every free Negro or mulatto to be registered and numbered in a book to be kept by the county clerk. The register listed the age, name, color, stature, marks or scars, and in what court the person was emancipated or whether the person was born free. A free person was required to carry a copy of this register on them in order to prove their free status.  It was a criminal offense to not be registered, and a free person could be sold into slavery if they were unable to produce sufficient proof of their status.  Enforcement of these laws was done locally and could be inconsistent.  Times of great societal fear about a locality’s black population would often result in an increase in both registrations and prosecutions for being unregistered—for example, following Nat Turner’s uprising.  The free Negro registers were thus both instruments of control over the free black population of the state but also a safeguard of an individual’s free status should it ever be challenged.  The registers provide wonderful physical descriptions of free people that give the researcher a real idea of what someone looked like, information often hard to come by for other groups of the pre-Civil War era.  They are extremely important records for genealogists and have been used by historians for a variety of avenues of inquiry.

The first four volumes chosen for conservation were completed and returned to the Library of Virginia from Etherington Conservation Services in March 2013.  Included among them is the Amherst County register from Who Do You Think You Are?  The pages have been cleaned, mended, and deacidified.  The original boards of the cover have been retained because they were still in good shape although they got a restorative touch-up with watercolor and pencil.  The old leather bindings have been replaced with new leather.  The other volumes are three registers from Amelia County that date from 1804-1835, 1835-1855, and 1855-1865.  These registers all had broken bindings, loose or completely separated covers, and loose pages.  As the pictures show, the conservators completely replaced all of the covers and bindings on the Amelia registers.  The new bindings and board cover patterns were matched as closely as possible to the originals.  All of the pages of the volumes have been cleaned, mended, deacidified, and resewn into their new bindings.  The Amherst and Amelia free Negro registers are now ready for their Hollywood close-ups!  These registers still will not be available to the general researcher since copies exist on microfilm, but their conservation will ensure that these important volumes are preserved for future generations, and, when they are needed for a special display purpose, that they are in a physical state to withstand such handling and exhibition.

Conservation of archival records, maps, and books is expensive and takes time to do properly.  Treatment done right extends the life of the record by slowing down or reversing damage to paper, bindings, and leather while at the same time being reversible and not a permanent alteration to an item.  Stay tuned for future conservation updates about free Negro registers and other interesting records within the Library of Virginia’s holdings.

The Library of Virginia welcomes donations to our general conservation fund in any amount.  Interested in sponsoring a particular book or item?  See suggestions on the Adopt Virginia History page.

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

The history of the Executive Mansion (also called Governor’s House or Governor’s Mansion) is well represented in the Library’s archival collections.  The Auditor of Public Accounts, Capital Square Data Records, 1779-1971, document the construction, furnishing, and repair of the 1813 Executive Mansion and the various buildings used by the governor prior to the Mansion’s construction.  The Drawing and Plans Collection includes a photographic copy of a page from Alexander Parris’ sketchbook depicting the floor plan for the Virginia Governor’s Mansion.  Parris designed the mansion in 1811-1812.  An Executive Communication to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, dated 17 February 1813, includes photocopy of a report from David Bullock, William McKim, and Robert Greenhow, the commissioners appointed to superintend the building of the dwelling house, and other houses, for the accommodation of the governor.  The commissioner’s report provides the cost of the dwelling house and out houses and a few details on the exterior and interior of the building.  Also included is a plat showing the Governor’s House, kitchens, ravine, gardens, and private property to be purchased.

12►

Repairs and improvements to the Executive Mansion are a common theme.  Records in the papers of Governors William Smith (1846-1849), Joseph Johnson (1852-1856), Francis Pierpont (1865-1868), Andrew Montague ((1902-1906), and William Mann (1910-1914) describe various repairs and improvements to the Mansion.  The Records of the Secretary of the Commonwealth include a 2 June 1865 inventory of the Executive Mansion.  Contracts and invoices for Mansion services and expenditures can be found in records of the Virginia Land Office and Virginia Department of the Treasury.  The Records of the Executive Mansion Director, 1973-1995, document the work of the Citizens’ Advisory Council for Interpreting and Furnishing the Executive Mansion, events at the Mansion, and the 175th anniversary of the Mansion in 1988.

Under the administration of James S. Gilmore, III (1998–2002), Virginia’s Executive Mansion underwent an extensive renovation in 1999–2000.  This project is well documented in two collections:  Virginia Secretary of Administration, Correspondence and subject files, 1998-2001 and Sadler and Whitehead, Architects, Papers, 1992-2001.  The Secretary of Administration records include episodes of Bob Vila’s Home Again:  Renovation of the Executive Mansion, 1999-2000.  As part of the 1999-2000 restoration, the Commonwealth’s Department of Historic Resources hired the firm of Sadler and Whitehead, Architects, PLC, to document the entire project, especially those previously hidden aspects of construction and ornamentation, using photography and descriptive commentary.  Excavation, demolition, conservation, and new construction were all copiously documented by Mary Harding Sadler and Joseph D. Lahendro.  Their materials include not only written information about their observations, but also hundreds of photographs capturing original interiors, decorative items, and structural elements of the Executive Mansion, Guest House/Cottage, Carriage House, and grounds.   The Library turned this material into the Executive Mansion Rehabilitation Project Database, available on-line.  The database records may contain all or some of the following information: weather conditions, photographs, observational notes, location in the specific building, information source, work type, report author, and date.

These are just some of the records about the Executive Mansion at the Library.  To see what else we have on the Executive Mansion, search the Library’s on-line catalog.

-Roger Christman, Senior State Records Archivist