Craig,

This could refer to the fact, I believe, that the original 1704 capitol was 
built without fireplaces. Later, they were added, and the place burnt down. 
Perhaps others can either verify this or not. Perhaps Ball was referring to 
this succession of events for allowing the building to catch fire.

Stuart Butler


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Kilby" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject: [VA-HIST] Burning of the Capitol in 1747


In going through Joseph Ball's Letter Book, he writes a letter to his nephew 
Joseph Chinn, who was his agent in Virginia. Chinn was also a Burgess at 
this time. Ball's letter to him from London is dated 10 Mar 1748/9, in which 
he heartily congratulates his nephew for his part in the 40-38 to rebuild 
the capitol in Williamsburg, as opposed to the nearly-successful push to 
have it moved further inland. Typically, Ball is quite direct in his opinion 
on the matter, saying it would be "the most absurd thing imaginable to 
remove the Seat of Government, because the Capitol was DESIGNEDLY BURNT."

It is those last two words in caps that have me wondering. Considering the 
rest of the tone of this letter, it almost seems that Ball was of the 
opinion that the building burned as a result of arson. So my question is, 
were such rumors flying around at the time?

Ball also advises his nephew to remain steady in his resolve "upon a second 
struggle, as I am informed will be aimed at" and that he thinks it a "great 
presumption to remove the King's Court and seat of Government, and which 
would not be suffered, unless they first the Leave of the King."

Craig Kilby

______________________________________
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