Far be it for me to criticise anything about Charleston, for if I did
not live in Williamsburg, Charleston would be my logical next choice.
My comments are not meant to slight Charleston but these are comparing
apples and oranges.

Colonial Williamsburg has 88 buildings that are original to the 18th
century.  To be accurate, one  is from the 17th since the Wren
Building of the College is original to 1695.  Virtually none of the
extant buildings are post-Revolutionary; between wartime shortages and
the capital moving to Richmond in 1780, the bulk of the buildings were
built well before the Revolutionary period.

There were a few 19th century buildings removed by Mr Rockefeller but
most of those were architecturally insignificant except for the 1864
Greek Revival Williamsburg Baptist Church.  Most of those that were
removed were moved to other parts of Williamsburg, not demolished.
While the number of buildings reconstructed by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation is vastly higher than the 88 figure, I find
arguments about authenticity to be spurious at best.

Remember that Williamsburg was among the very first planned cities and
was built strictly as governmental center.  There has never been a
deep water port, and at its height in the third quarter of the 18th
century it never surpassed 2000 permanent residents.  Charleston was a
thriving port city, hence its larger size, but I think that you will
find that almost all of the extant historic buildings are from the
first two quarters of the 19th century, which explains the vastly
different architectural styles between the two cities.  I hope that it
is not sacreligious of me to say that I believe Charleston to be the
more interesting city architecturally but that is only an opinion.
Most of the restoration was done privately, without a wealthy
benefactor, and it has been of the highest order.

If Mr Rockefeller were restoring Williamsburg nowadays he might be
pursuaded to preserve more post-Revolutionary buildings in their
original settings, there are really too few of such buildings to merit
a realistic complaint about the focus of the Restoration period.

Regards,

J. S. Freeman
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Member, Williamsburg Baptist Church, est 1828

On 2/27/07, Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> William Kelso's new book about Jamestown has a lot on the condition
> of Williamsburg before it became "colonial" again, and a picture of a
> run-down street, many of the colonial buildings were decrepit stores,
> an old gas station, etc. So we may, in hindsight, criticize what
> Rockefeller did, but if he hadn't done it, there might be nothing
> left of Williamsburg now but a bulldozed away, built-over "golfing
> community" [or yet another one...].
>
> I have a lovely watercolor my mother, who was a very good semi-
> professional artist, did of the old Gaol before it was rehabbed. I
> have at times wondered if some historical place might like it.
>
> Randy, my great grandmother Ida Jacobs Cardwell, who supported
> herself and her young daughter after her husband died at age 33, was
> a seamstress in addition to running a boarding house. Supposedly she
> made clothes for some of the leading ladies in Richmond, including
> Mrs. James Branch Cabell.
>
> Nancy
>
> -------
> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>
> --Daniel Boone
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Randy Cabell wrote:
>
> > Those pesky Carolinianans again.  First it was the Movavians
> > claiming they brought brass music to Amercia, and now the
> > Charlestonians eclipse Williamsburg on the preservation front.
> >
> > But really that is pretty much like comparing apples and oranges.
> > Charleston had a BIG reason to be there.  It was THE southern port,
> > center of commerce and industry, even had a railroad going
> > upcountry while we Virginians (alas, led by Joseph Carrington
> > Cabell) were still digging a canal to nowhere.  And of course as
> > every good South Carolinian knows, Charleston is located on the
> > point where the Ashley and Cooper Rivers flow together to form the
> > Atlantic Ocean.
> >
> > All in all, Chas had a lot more buildings to start with, so even if
> > they preserved the same %, it would be a potload more than
> > Williamsburg ever had to start with.
> >
> > Randy Cabell - The Trumpeter of Jamestowne
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Langdon" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Williamsburg preservaton
> >
> >
> >> The Williamsburg Foundation states that 88 historic buildings
> >> remain. Of these, only a few are pre-revolutionary and not re-
> >> constructed. I'd like to know the exact number. I think it is 20,
> >> but possibly only 19. Then again - maybe it depends on how much
> >> gutting counts, before it is counted as *reconstructed*, rather
> >> than *preserved*.
> >>
> >>  Charleston, SC, has 73 pre-revolutionary buildings, and 136 from
> >> the late 18th century, and 600 more that are  pre- 1840.  I
> >> believe the difference between the two cities is that Charleston
> >> got a head start of about 10 years on Williamsburg.  That makes me
> >> think that every year of neglect counts. It also means that we
> >> should really pay more attention to our heritage and watch out for
> >> plans to modernize. We will loose enough from natural disasters.
> >>
> >>  Langdon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> >> instructions
> >> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> >
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> > instructions
> > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html