[log in to unmask]">
1. The canal of "Canal Street" (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:50:47 -0500
From: EGB <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The canal of "Canal Street"
>From your description, I'd say you are confusing the canal that ran up
modern Broad Street with the one dug in the early 19th c. to drain the Fresh
Water pond (subsequently covered by modern Canal Street). That may explain
why your sources seem contradictory.
Edwin G. Burrows
Department of History
Brooklyn College
-----Original Message-----
From: A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
history. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Phil Lord
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The canal of "Canal Street"
I am trying to get focused on this "canal" and am finding
ambiguous or contradictory data in the literature.
My understanding, thus far, is that is was a dead-end slip, dug
in the mid-1600s, to allow ships into New Amsterdam from the
harbor. It did not cut through from river to river, and was
filled in in the late 1600s.
If anyone has any primary sources or better insights, I would
appreciate hearing from you.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:54:15 -0500
From: Patricia Tidmarsh <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The canal of "Canal Street"
Trust an expert will have better information. The contemporary Canal
Street which goes from the Hudson to the East River is quite far above
Nieuw Amsterdam.
The Spier Map shows the canal which went up Prince Street, (later Broad
Street) but it doesnt look like it would be big enough for ships
http://www.teachout.org/vna/map.html
------------------------------
End of NYHIST-L Digest - 22 Mar 2002 to 25 Mar 2002 (#2002-40)
**************************************************************