Researched by Jan Waltonen & Roger Engels, HFFI Marker Committee
Written by Jan Waltonen
Article compiled for the 2019 Candlelight Tour. Properties on the tour included the Rising Sun Tavern, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1513, and 1517 Caroline Street.
This year’s Candlelight Tour (CLT) explores a neighborhood whose history began more than a hundred years before the American Revolution. Before about 1779, “Land Patent” documents conveyed land in the royal colony of Virginia from the colonial governor in Williamsburg—in the name of the King of England—to individuals who could pay their passage to America. This “headright” system rewarded persons with 50 acres of land if they sailed to Virginia to “inhabitate.” However, if new immigrants could not afford to travel to Virginia, others could finance the cost of transporting them, receiving 50 acres for each person they imported. Designed to attract colonists to Virginia to work for its benefit and provide revenues for the Crown, the system successfully encouraged settlement and increased the colony’s population. Both Fredericksburg and the area encompassing this year’s Candlelight Tour owe their beginnings to the Land Patent system.
In 1662, a large Land Patent of 812 acres was granted to Captain Thomas Hawkins, a close friend of the earliest Washingtons, who paid to transport 17 persons to Virginia. Seventy years later, Hawkins family descendants sold their Patent in two equal parts. The 406 acres that Francis Thornton of King George County purchased extended north from Lewis Street—the original boundary of Fredericksburg—to present-day Hunter Street, embracing all the properties on this year’s CLT.
Seven years later, in 1742, Colonel John Lewis (1694–1754) bought the Thornton “half tract” for £500. Lewis’s purchase, adjoining the upper end of town, supported his new and ambitious business enterprise. As a prominent merchant, he was shipping goods to the West Indies, London, and other trans-Atlantic ports. Within 1 year of acquiring the Thornton tract, Lewis had built and was operating a store, warehouses, and a shipyard, all located at the site of the present-day Fredericksburg Library. To oversee the mercantile extension of his shipping business, he enlisted his second son, Fielding, and in 1749, built the Lewis Store on the west side of Caroline Street just outside the town line. (Today, the Lewis Store, one of the oldest surviving urban retail stores in the United States, is headquarters for HFFI.) As the store’s manager, Fielding Lewis sold items such as rum, buttons, gloves, sugar, coffee, “brest” buckles, and “soop” spoons. His customers included George Washington, who, in a letter to his mother, requested she buy cloth, hose, and thread for him from “Mr. Lewis’s store.”
Although all this year’s CLT properties lay outside the corporate limits of Fredericksburg in Spotsylvania County before 1759, several factors fueled Fredericksburg’s growth and expansion to include new land. Founded in 1728 as a shipping port, Fredericksburg became an important center of trade. Ships brought European goods for sale in local stores, and tobacco, the basis of Virginia’s economy, was exported to England and Europe, solidifying Fredericksburg’s prominence as a center of commerce. Owing to its standing as a major port and seat of justice, the fledgling town grew rapidly. In 1759, to accommodate the burgeoning population of merchants and tradesmen, court justices, tavern keepers, and enslaved and free blacks, the Virginia General Assembly expanded the town limits to include present-day Dixon, Winchester, and Canal streets—bringing all of this year’s CLT properties within town limits.
A beneficiary of Fredericksburg’s prosperity was merchant Fielding Lewis (1725–1781). By 1754, the year his father died, Fielding had amassed an estate of 1,300 acres, including the Thornton tract he had inherited. It was said he owned “half the town” in the days before the War for Independence. In 1775, on the eve of the Revolution, he and his second wife, Betty, George Washington’s sister, moved into their newly constructed Georgian mansion (now called Kenmore). Lewis, a patriot of the American Revolution, established a weapons factory in Fredericksburg. By May 1777, the Gun Manufactory was producing about 20 muskets weekly. Lewis spent £7,000 of his own money, which was never repaid, leaving the family to struggle financially after the war.
When Lewis died in 1781, his son John inherited not only his father’s lands in Fredericksburg but also his substantial debts. To pay them down, John sold three town lots in 1785 to Henry Fitzhugh of Bell Air, Stafford County. Lot 178, site of two of this year’s CLT homes, marked the northernmost boundary of Fredericksburg and was considered a “suburb” of the town. (The term “suburb” was commonly used then as now to refer to an outlying part of a town or city.) In the early nineteenth century, a number of planned suburbs were laid out on the fringes of Fredericksburg and named after the land speculators who developed and financed them. Henry Fitzhugh, member of one of the “first families of Virginia,” was among those investors. He divided his new acquisitions into residential lots, naming the area “Fitzhughtown” after himself. Two houses on this year’s Candlelight Tour, 1513 and 1517 Caroline Street, are on Fitzhughtown lots. By 1787, Fitzhugh was renting his land to “sundry free Negroes and whites.”
The 1300 block of Caroline Street was also under development during the late eighteenth century. In 1761, Warner Lewis, Fielding’s older brother, sold George Washington’s younger brother, Charles, the lots where Charles would build his private residence in 1762. Thirty years later, the building was sold outside the Washington family and converted to a tavern. Today, Washington Heritage Museums operates the Rising Sun Tavern as a living history museum to showcase Fredericksburg’s colonial history.
Upper Caroline continued to develop as a diverse neighborhood in the 1800s. The United States Censuses are organized in order of households visited. The 1860 Census reveals that individuals working as shoemakers, “washwomen,” plasterers, weavers, and stone masons lived side by side with more affluent residents: a carriage maker, barrel maker, “loom boss in a factory,” and a dry goods merchant.
The impact of the Civil War on the upper Caroline neighborhood was devastating. On December 11, 1862, Union engineers attempted to build three pontoon bridges. The northernmost crossing site terminated at Hawke Street, just one block south of this year’s CLT properties. Ordered to delay the Union troops, General William Barksdale’s Mississippi riflemen, positioned along Sophia Street, fired on the bridge builders, preventing them from completing the northern pontoon bridge. Union commanders responded by ordering a massive artillery bombardment. The shelling of Fredericksburg destroyed about 100 structures—10% of the city. Two beams in the Rising Sun Tavern’s roof were cut through by artillery fire.
Despite the fire of 150 cannons, the Mississippi sharpshooters, entrenched in cellars and doorways, could not be dislodged. Union infantry finally crossed the river and ultimately cleared away the snipers, although they fiercely contested every block. Among the streets most closely associated with the street fighting were the streets on this year’s CLT—Fauquier, Hawke, Pitt, and Canal. The cost was great. In gardens and backyards, graves of the dead were scattered across the city.
The area comprising this year’s CLT was also hard hit with indiscriminate destruction and looting the day before the Battle of Fredericksburg. Argalus E. Samuel, a carriage maker owned the lot on which 1513 Caroline now stands. He was just one of several residents who filed “A Memorandum of Losses in the Shelling & Since” with the Common Council of the town, which passed the following resolution on January 10, 1863: “Resolved that the funds now being raised by the voluntary contributions of the Army for the relief of the citizens of Fredericksburg who have suffered so severely by the bombardment & sacking by the abolition Army shall be received and disbursed. . .” Receipts collected totaled a remarkable $32,292.60. Samuel’s inventory of losses included “provisions on hand and groceries stolen” worth $96.60—much more than the value he placed on any of his furniture or even his “working tooles” [sic].
The war continued to be a harrowing experience for A.E. Samuel. Following the Battle of the Wilderness in May 1864, about 60 Union soldiers—many slightly wounded—made their way to Fredericksburg, seeking to return to Union lines. Placed under citizens’ arrest, they were sent to Richmond as prisoners of war. In retaliation, federal authorities arrested a corresponding number of local citizens to be held as hostages until the Union soldiers were released and returned. Samuel was one of 57 men sent to the military prison at Fort Delaware. After 3 weeks, Fredericksburg’s mayor and Common Council sent an appeal to the Confederate Secretary of War in Richmond: “Surely the matter of a few [federal] prisoners cannot be allowed to interfere with the humane and generous work of restoring to those desolated homes and those mourning women and children, the only source of comfort in this war-ravaged and desolated town. . .” Samuel was subsequently exchanged in July, only to find that his sister had died during his imprisonment.
After the war, Fredericksburg’s residents were left to rebuild in a shattered economy. It took nearly a generation for the town to begin to prosper again. The houses on this year’s CLT—built between 1870 and 1911—echo that slow recovery. They illustrate not only Fredericksburg’s eventual renewal but also the contrasts that came to define Upper Caroline’s character. 1513 Caroline, constructed shortly after the war in 1870, was built for James Ryan, an Irish immigrant and stone mason. Assessed at only $350.00 at the time, it represents the many post-war working class residences of this diverse neighborhood. In contrast, in 1911, the Victorians at 1308 and 1310 Caroline were built by G.B. Wallace, a prominent Fredericksburg citizen who served as the Commonwealth’s Attorney for 20 years. These three CLT properties symbolize the wide diversity of architectural styles and residents’ socio-economic levels, offering a vivid glimpse into a rich history. Welcome to Upper Caroline!
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.png00HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2020-01-09 17:16:272020-01-09 17:17:59Upper Caroline Neighborhood History
For generations, Fredericksburg residents have taken pride in learning, sharing, and retelling tidbits of the extraordinary history our city holds. Many might recall that we once proclaimed ourselves to be “America’s Most Historic City.” An ambitious moniker that might sound audacious and pompous to some, yet we need only spend some time at local historic sites or read about the notable individuals and events that have put FXBG “on the map” for a few centuries now.
Other places have their own important history, but what TRULY sets Fredericksburg apart from the majority of localities is our community’s decades of dedication to Historic Preservation—the act of preserving the physical tangible evidence of our unique past.
Fredericksburg was a national leader in preservation in 1891 when a group of residents saved Mary Washington’s house from dismantling; in 1922 when efforts were made to save one of the finest examples of early American plasterwork; in when 1955 when Historic Fredericksburg was created to save an antebellum kitchen outbuilding; in 1972 when our historic district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places; in the 1980s when the nation’s first undergraduate program in Historic Preservation was established at what is now the University of Mary Washington; in 1991 when Fredericksburg was one of two localities selected for study in a ground-breaking economic analysis on the financial impact of historic preservation across the community; in 1996 when Ferry Farm was saved from being turned into a Walmart; and in 2021 when an archaeological ordinance more than a decade in the making was adopted.
Preserving the City’s cultural legacy—the historic buildings, sites, stories, and places, big and small, elaborate and commonplace—is a choice. It’s what we choose to do in Fredericksburg and our elected representatives are preeminently charged with caring for this tangible inheritance from the past.
As another Historic Preservation Month draws to a close, HFFI’s Board of Directors has laid out some important goals for the coming year—many of which are familiar to those with local leadership experience. By May 2025, we hope to report that these goals have been met. A full description of these goals is spelled out in HFFI’s press release (at bottom of post) with an abbreviated list below:
Establish a Preservation Advisory Committee—Outlined in the City’s 2021 Preservation Plan, listed among Council’s top priority tasks that same year, and more recently proposed by the City’s Preservation Planner, this standing advisory committee would provide local preservation insight, expertise, and additional resources to carry out several City preservation goals. HFFI will work with the City to provide needed support and network with professional preservationists in the community to accomplish the goals of this committee.
Conduct aHistoric Preservation Economic Impact Study—It is important that the community and its leaders are aware of the significant and far-reaching economic impacts generated by the preservation of the City’s historic character and diverse built environment, including its direct and indirect benefits. Last summer, the National Park Service released an economic impact study of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park that found its visitors spent $49.9 million in surrounding communities in 2022 alone. Funding for this kind of study was requested by City staff and the Planning Commission last fall. It did not make the FY2025 budget and was recently struck from a list of potential state grant applications. HFFI will work with City staff, the EDA, EDT, Main Street, Chamber of Commerce, cultural historic sites, and other organizations to make this longstanding goal come to fruition. We hope we can count on City Council’s support in the future.
Implement Incentives for Preservation—Daniel Becker’s expert Recommendations report, completed in June 2023,outlined several potential incentives to fulfill one of City Council’s priority goals for Historic Preservation. The EDA and Council were briefed on this study last summer. We will work to support the City in acting upon those recommendations.
Implement the 2012 MOU between City and HFFI—In 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding was established between the City and HFFI following years of proactive discussion and collaboration to improve the community’s response to decaying and blighted buildings. Several of the tasks and goals therein were reiterated in the June 2023 report on Economic Incentives and Prevention of Spot Blight and Demolition by Neglect. In the next year, HFFI will work toward implementing some of those tasks to assist property owners in and around Fredericksburg’s historic downtown core that are affected by blighted resources. We will coordinate with City Planning and Public Works staff in our efforts and expand the community’s support network for preserving our existing building stock, especially its residential resources. HFFI hopes that increased outreach, combined with more productive preservation incentives, will help achieve the City’s goal to ensure demolitions of historic buildings are the option of last resort.
Preserve Neighborhood Character—HFFI is pleased to engage in ongoing Planning staff and City Council discussions about Neighborhood Character Preservation, including the current dialog concerning Conservation District zoning. We share the desire to help protect the character of neighborhoods and to ensure housing options in the City.
Adopt Best Practices for City-Owned Historic Properties, including Renwick Courthouse Complex—HFFI would like to see the Renwick Working Group continue to interact with City staff and meet quarterly to support work to rehabilitate the complex. This model of collaboration among different skill sets from the community looks to be the best chance for success. Beyond the Renwick, the City oversees many historic resources that require sensitive and thoughtful approaches for their maintenance and preservation. HFFI will continue to advocate for best preservation practices to prevent the deterioration and destruction of our historic built environment.
Assist in Identifying and Protecting FXBG’s cultural historic resources as Master Plans, Small Area Plans, and Comprehensive Planning moves forward—The civic pride distilled from the preservation of historic places and spaces across our community is visible and reiterated in every planning document intended to guide Fredericksburg’s growth and development since the twentieth century. Hiring consultants for assistance in steering future growth, many based outside the Fredericksburg area who lack the depth of awareness that local historians, organizations, and repositories possess about local history, has limited the City’s ability to preserve and nurture our community’s sense of place. Recent planning documents and presentations have shown significant gaps and omissions regarding known archaeological sites and historic resources within the City. Greater awareness of local history and the places that embody it is important to avoid the unnecessary destruction of cultural resources along with any valuable information they could reveal. HFFI wants to work with various city department staff to fill those gaps and support the City’s goal to preserve significant historic resources and protect archaeological sites across the community moving forward.
HFFI’s Board of Directors and staff hopes that the next year will bear witness to the successful completion of longstanding preservation goals in Fredericksburg. To ensure their completion, we would greatly appreciate your help. Show our elected officials and leaders that you care! Write them a note directly (visit City Council’s website to submit comments) or sign HFFI’s petition to show your support!
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Fig-3.png8801066HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2022-06-09 17:30:142022-06-09 17:34:19A Closer Examination of Historical Significance: The Charles Dick House and J.W. Masters’ Domestic Outbuilding at 204 Lewis Street
by Natalie Chavez and
Danae Peckler; edited by Linda Billard
The Lewis Store, HFFI’s headquarters, is the embodiment of
honest brick construction in a classic Georgian architectural style from the mid-eighteenth
century. This mass masonry brick building has multiple wythes, or vertical
sections of brick wall, laid in two different bonds. The Lewis Store’s
elevation showcases the stylish Flemish bond, while the interior wall of the
building showcases the stronger English bond. Most of the building’s brick dates
from its original construction in 1749 and added second story in 1808, although
some minor repairs were made to damaged areas during its rehabilitation in 1999
and 2006. Contributing to the Lewis Store’s durability is the craftsmanship and
skills of its builders and the make-up of its mortar.
Figure 1:
Brick Bonds from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th
Edition, Volume 4, Part 3,
1911.[1]
All mortars are composed of three main ingredients: a binder or
cementing material, an aggregate such as sand, and water. Prior to the late nineteenth
century, lime was used as the binding agent. It was created by crushing stone
or oyster shells and burning the resulting material to create quick lime that
was later mixed with water and sand. Traditional lime mortars are remarkably forgiving
of both the weathering of time and the environment, allowing for “some
movement in the brickwork without showing signs of cracking under normal
seasonal conditions.”[2] This differs greatly from
the rigidity of Portland cement, which became commonplace by the early-20th century.
Owners of historic brick buildings make a crucial mistake by repairing mortar joints using a
Portland-based mortar. While Portland cement has many benefits, its use in
historic masonry creates long-term problems, even inducing decay of the bricks
themselves.
Figure 2: Image from Colonial Williamsburg Showing Oyster Shells
After Burning.[3]
Experts in the field of preservation advocate for using the gentlest
techniques in the maintenance of historic brick. Such work is only needed every
100–150 years and, in most cases, a sensitive repointing with lime mortar will
last another 100 years unless the repair is addressing the symptom of a larger
problem that has gone unaddressed.
Cooperation for Preservation of Historic Properties
by David James, HFFI Board President
Since 1955, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI) has been devoted to protecting and preserving historic structures and landscapes of our city that give it a true sense of place and authenticity. Recognizing that each modification of an historic building could impact the integrity of our architectural heritage, the organization takes proposed changes very seriously. Therefore, HFFI has decided to appeal a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) approved by the Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board (ARB) on December 10, 2018.
The ARB approved replacement of a wooden front porch at the home on 129 Caroline Street with concrete, brick and tile. HFFI has held a restrictive preservation covenant on the property since 1974. It has worked with the current owners on several occasions, including on a well-designed, historically sensitive, and substantial addition made in the early 1990s.
The ARB, HFFI, and many other preservation commissions and organizations are charged with the review of alterations to significant historic resources. They draw from the same professional standards and guidelines, known as the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The modifications proposed are in clear violation. These Standards specify that:
— “The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure … shall not be destroyed.”
—“The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.”
—“Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible.”
In a previous application some time ago, the property owners sought to make similar changes, proposing to replace the wood front porch with brick. This portion of the application was denied by the ARB on grounds that the porch was an important architectural feature of the house.
Because it holds a restrictive covenant in the deed to this property, HFFI has standing in this matter. The homeowners have attempted to void the covenants, but HFFI holds that the covenants cannot be modified or terminated except by the agreement of all parties entitled to enforce the covenant.
Moving forward, HFFI asks that:
—The wood front porch remains in place and be repaired using in-kind materials as the Historic District Handbook and ARB guidelines require, unless the property owners work with HFFI to establish a mutually agreed upon alternative compatible with preservation practices and ARB guidelines in a new COA.
—The ARB adheres to the Secretary of Interior Standards detailed in the Historic District Handbook and articulated by the design standards and guidelines therein.
—The ARB provides HFFI with notice when a request for alteration is made on property covered by one of its covenants.
—It be an active partner in any revision of ARB guidelines.
—City Council reviews its 2012 Memorandum of Understanding with HFFI to clarify the organization’s role in protecting structures in the historic district.
Besides enforcing its restrictive covenant, HFFI hopes that the City Council would give it standing to appeal to the Circuit Court on decisions to raze, demolish, or move any structure in the city. Unfortunately, in the last few years, we have lost historic properties that should not have been destroyed. This is why HFFI was formed in the first place, and so HFFI wants the right to stop this injustice.
Homeowners and building owners are temporary stewards of these unique properties. The organization has partnered with them throughout its history to preserve, protect, and revitalize this great city. With support from the community, HFFI has led the effort to preserve Fredericksburg for the past 64 years. The organization wants the tools to continue these efforts.
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.png00HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2019-02-01 15:50:032019-02-01 15:50:03Cooperation for Preservation of Historic Properties
Ducking stools, “an instrument of punishment for nags, gossips, witches, and difficult individuals”, often consisted of a “…chair suspended from a sweeplike pole” that would be lowered into water.[1] While used throughout Europe during the medieval period, it was also used here in Virginia until the 19th century.
Legislation passed in 1662 by the Virginia Assembly stated that “Whereas, many babbling women slander and scandalize their neighbors, for which their poor husbands are often involved in chargeable and vexatious suit, and case in great damage: Be it, therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in actions of slander, occasioned by the wife, after judgement passed for the damages, the woman shall be punished by Ducking…”[2]
Mrs. Vivan Minor Fleming recounts, from an old resident, such a ducking in her book “Historic Period of Fredericksburg 1608-1861”,
“She saw Peggy, a noted termagant, as tied in a gig that had been improvised into a ducking stool, she was pushed along through the streets polluting the air with her foul oaths and surrounded by a clamorous crowd of men and boys. Dr. Edward Carmichael and Mr. William White, then small chaps, being not the lead vociferous. She was pushed along to the old baptizing place and into the river-the water over her head. Then they drew her out, but she was more vituperative than ever. Again they pushed her in and she came out sputtering anathemas, but the third submersion silenced her. She returned through the same streets, in the same gig, as quiet as a lamb.”[3]
Fredericksburg seems to have adopted ducking as a form of punishment fairly early and continued it for some time. The first reference to ducking in Fredericksburg was made in 1746 when Marquis Calmes, of Winchester, Virginia was paid £5:5 for erecting a “ducking stool according to the model of that of Fredericksburg.” The reference goes on to allude to the general configuration of the stool when describing the punishment of a prisoner, “…the culprit was tied to the end of a long plank working on a pivot”.[4]
A second mention of a ducking stool occurs in Fredericksburg Council minutes from 1795 with “Zachariah Lucas & James Brown” tasked with finding “some person” to build the device, obviously a replacement from the earlier one.[5] It appears that by 1799 they were successful with Joshua Ingham being paid £10:9 “for making a ducking stool.”[6] A third, and possibly final ducking stool, was made for Fredericksburg in 1822 by John Ferneyhough at a cost of $30.[7]
The location of the ducking stool, was at the “old baptism place” which both court records as well as Silvanus Quinn, in his 1908 “History of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia”, note as being at the end of Wolfe Street adjacent to Thornton’s Tavern. This would have made sense as this was also the location of one of Fredericksburg’s early ferries and so would have had a water depth adequate to facilitate the ducking.
Figure 1: Image from Pioneer Pittsburgh, a 1937 publication showing a representation of a ducking stool. The actual configuration of the one at Fredericksburg may have been similar.
Virginia Herald, June 28, 1799 Reference to Ducking Stool.
___________________________________
[1] Lounsbury, Carl. An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape, pg. 124
[2] Norris, J.E., History of Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties.
[3] Fleming, Historic Period of Fredericksburg 1608-1861, pg. 25-26
1210 Sophia Street is in danger of being demolished. If the clock runs out—it will be gone. But there is a chance to relocate this 100+ year old property to a new location. YOU can help save it!
1210 Sophia Street – Photo Credit: Fredericksburg City Staff
Located within Fredericksburg’s Downtown Historic District, 1210 Sophia Street is a contributing resource. This modest building, situated along the Rappahannock River, is an example of housing used by Fredericksburg’s working class residents at the turn of the twentieth century. It is in good condition and structurally sound, but the only option besides demolition is relocation.
The City of Fredericksburg has offered up to $20,000 to aid in the costs of moving the house to an open lot within the city, but no matter of its location it will remain under the purview of the city’s Architectural Review Board and the city’s historic district overlay. But there is a deadline, so don’t delay! Help us get the word out, and this 1890’s house may once again be called a home.
Built in 1894, this two-story house was built for Gilbert C. Walker, an iron worker, and it remained in the Walker family for almost 100 years. The rear addition was added in 1953, (identified through an independent archive of city records), and Sanborn Maps as well as census records round out the history of the house and its residents. (Special thanks to Kate Schwartz, Historic Resource Planner—City of Fredericksburg, for her efforts in researching the history of this home. – Read more about the history of this home here.)
1210 Sophia Street Interior – Photo Credit: Fredericksburg City Staff
Do you own a lot that this building could be moved to? Or perhaps you know someone who does? This is a chance for us to save a historic building from demolition, and HFFI is happy to see the city contributing funds from the Blight Abatement Fund to assist in the project.
Learn more and read the city’s Memorandum to the Architectural Review Board about 1210 Sophia Street (including additional history and applicable Historic District Design Standards & Guidelines).
For UMW student, and HFFI intern, Kiernan Ziletti’s perspective on the situation, read his article featured in the March issue of Front Porch Magazine.
Questions or ideas on how to save this historic building? Contact us at [email protected] or 540-371-4504, or Kate Schwartz at [email protected] or 540-372-1179.
UPDATE: An open lot near downtown has been located, further details to be worked out. Are you interested in taking on this project? Contact HFFI at 540-371-4504 to learn more.
Wet or Dry: A History of Prohibition in Fredericksburg
By Barbra Anderson
“The saloon is the devil’s headquarters on earth,” declared the Anti-Saloon League in the late 1800s. Alcohol was blamed for every social problem: poverty, domestic violence, crime, ill health, and moral turpitude. The average American man drank 88 bottles of whiskey a year—three times as much as now.
Temperance groups swept the nation. Each member had to take a pledge against “any Spirituous or Malt beverage.” Fredericksburg had three chapters of the Sons of Temperance, which held rallies and parades, weekly meetings, and “grand excursions” to inspire the citizens. Not only did temperance influence the social scene, the “liquor platform” soon dictated state politics.
Prohibition came early to Virginia. In 1886, the General Assembly passed the “local option,” which let each county vote to ban alcohol or not. In May 1908, the people of Fredericksburg voted in a referendum to “go dry,” with 53 percent of the vote. Two years later, the “wets” petitioned for another vote, which was signed by 180 citizens, including the town’s biggest saloon owners. The Daily Star proclaimed that “the city is unquestionably better off than ever in its history,” and that “business had in no way been injured by elimination of the saloon.” The 1910 referendum reaffirmed the dry vote by an even bigger margin. However, enforcement of the law proved problematic. In 1911, Fredericksburg convened a special Grand Jury to investigate allegations of Prohibition violations. The jury of prominent citizens trumpeted, perhaps too heartily, that “there is no evidence whatever, much less proof, that there is any violation of the revenue laws.” The panel was, however, very concerned about the crowds that congregated at several corners around town, many located near former saloons.
All of Virginia went dry in 1916, and the 18th Amendment enacted national Prohibition in 1920.
By the mid-1920s, Prohibition violations in Fredericksburg became commonplace. Because Route 1 was the only paved road in the area, bootleggers used it to transport “ardent spirits.” Local reporter Warren Farmer described how local police would hide next to the bridges and catch them as they came into town. One rumrunner crashed going around Deadman’s Curve near the National Cemetery. The liquor caught on fire, and he was incinerated beyond recognition.
Because bootleggers often used aliases, the ensuing court cases frequently named the car as the defendant. In 1926, “Virginia vs. Packard Touring Car” involved the transport of 210 gallons of corn whiskey. The penalties were stiff. In another case, two brothers-in-law were convicted for transporting 48 quarts of liquor in their car. Each was fined $50 and given a sentence of 6 months. Moreover, as dictated by law, their car was confiscated and sold.
Because bootlegged liquor was hard to get, some Fredericksburgers tried alternatives:
“Vine-Glo” was a concentrated grape juice product. Instructions said to dissolve it in water, but warned “Do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for 20 days, because then it would turn to wine.”
Doctors could prescribe medicinal liquor for 27 ailments—including cancer, diabetes, and depression—up to one pint every 10 days. Each doctor could write up to 100 liquor prescriptions per month.
Some tried to make their own liquor, although it could blind, sicken, or even kill a person if not properly processed. Makers of “bathtub gin” converted denatured alcohol to a drinkable form, but the process is prone to both chemical and bacterial mishaps.
According to court and police records, many people were arrested for alcohol offenses. A sampling from the newspapers of the day reveals some colorful characters. “Poodles” Limerick was charged for transporting liquor at the Virginia Cafe. Albert Grimes was fined $20 for being drunk and carrying a concealed weapon (iron knuckles) at the Athens Hotel. Yat Sullivan was convicted of manufacturing and selling liquor. He was fined $250 (about 2 month’s salary) and sentenced to 3 months in jail. “Dinksy” Scott was arrested three times for “unlawfully and feloniously selling ardent spirits.”
Dedicated drinkers had to know where to look to find liquor in Fredericksburg. Like drug dealers today, certain men on certain corners could be relied on to get a bottle. At a nearby country store, people asking for a “pair of size eight shoes” would receive a discreetly wrapped package. Others went straight to the top, such as the reporter who claimed that the best whiskey he drank was served by a local judge.
Although the term “speakeasy” is not used in court records, there were several establishments in town whose patrons were arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. The Virginia Cafe, the Athens Hotel, and the A-1 Cafe, all located on Caroline Street, were well known for their rowdy customers. The owner of the Fredericksburg Cafe was charged with allowing drinking and gambling and running a “disorderly house,” perhaps the legal term for speakeasy.
Prohibition was repealed in 1933, but selling liquor in Virginia did not become legal until 1934 when the state established the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). In the first month, the ABC granted Fredericksburg 14 licenses to sell beer and wine. The ABC maintained strict control of alcohol throughout the remainder of the century, gradually easing some restrictions. For example, it was not for another 35 years that liquor was sold by the drink. Cocktails were illegal unless you belonged to a “social club” where you would bring your own liquor. On February 9, 1969, the first mixed drink in Fredericksburg—a Tom Collins- was sold at the Princess Anne Inn.
To celebrate the 100th anniversary of Prohibition in Virginia, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation hosted a Prohibition Pub Tour on Saturday, September 10, 2016.
Much thanks to Nancy Moore and Sue Stone for providing most of the research for this story.
Sources:
Fredericksburg Court Records. Grand Jury, May 1911
Burns, Ken and Lynn Novick, Prohibition (film documentary), 2011
Fredericksburg Police blotters, 1920s
Eaton, Lorraine. Virginian Pilot. “Virginia’s Prohibition History.” Nov 30, 2008 The Free Lance, March 5, 1925
Moore, Nancy. Interview, September, 2016.
Farmer, Warren. Oral History. HFFI, 1998. Free Lance Star, August 15, 1977 Free Lance Star, May 2, 1934 Free Lance, March 5, 1925 Daily Star, March 10, 1925
Gambino, Megan, Smithsonian Magazine. “During Prohibition, Your Doctor Could Write You a Prescription for Booze.” October 7, 2013.
Clark, Patrick Michael, Rappahannock Magazine. “Drink the Dominion Dry: Prohibition Comes to Virginia”. October, 2015, Volume 2, Issue 1.
Kamieniak, Ted, Fredericksburg: The Eclectic Histories for the Curious Reader. “The Pledge of Brotherhood”.
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Prescription.png4531025HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2016-10-23 23:52:382016-10-26 00:45:09Wet or Dry: A History of Prohibition in Fredericksburg
HFFI Letter to the City,
RE: Proposed Townhouses on 300 Block, George Street
In regards to the City’s settlement with JON Properties and the townhouses on the 300 block of George Street HFFI was asked for our input on the updated (9/9/16) building design. Though the scale is not optimal to us, we understand the need for a settlement and want to see the City and all involved parties be able to move forward.
Below is the letter HFFI submitted to City Manager, Tim Baroody in regards to the building design. We hope that JON Properties and City Council will consider these recommendations that we feel increase the building’s compatibility with historic downtown Fredericksburg.
September 16, 2016
Dear Mr. Baroody,
We would like to first thank the City for being open to input from the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI). It is our hope that by working together we can make the best of the current situation.
HFFI applauds all parties involved for reaching the proposed settlement. We hope that we can do our part to assist in making this building, which is much larger than most buildings in the area, relate to our historic district. It is the details of this project that are of the utmost importance, and will aid in making it more compatible with the Downtown Historic District.
HFFI’s primary goal on this matter is ensuring the project fits into the block’s context and blends into the surrounding streetscape.
Essentially, we have two specific areas of the building that are of the greatest concern and we feel can be adjusted to ensure our goal is accomplished.
Concern #1
The rooftop decks that currently face George Street.
HFFI suggests the rooftop decks be located on the rear elevation.
We feel that of the two options recently presented by JON Properties, in regards to the rooftop decks, the design of rear facing is a better choice. The current building predominantly reflects a period of early-nineteenth century architecture using Federal and Greek Revival style details. The symmetrical balance of the facades with center doors, double hung windows flanked by shutters (both Federal), and the entry porches supported by prominent columns (Greek Revival) reference architectural features similar to those found in the surrounding buildings.
The proposed rooftop decks are not keeping with the stylistic traditions echoed in this building’s design. They not only disrupt the rhythm of the building itself, but also of the entire streetscape when viewing the block. As one approaches the 300 block from the west, the profile of the building would be distinctly different from the surrounding area and immensely out of context.
The adjustment to rear-facing instead of front-facing decks will also remove the conflicting issue of modern and historically reminiscent materials on the George Street elevation. For example, the metal-cable railing and the more traditional railing along the entry stairs, and the rooftop deck exterior cladding are an issue. This relocation would not only place these modern porches in a less-public area, but would allow additional privacy in these spaces and obscure any deck furniture and decorations from the highly public views along George Street.
The Charles Street (west) and “Princess Anne Street”/ Bank Building (east) façades are also profoundly affected by the rooftop balconies. We would like to see the mansard roof fully extended from the front to the rear elevations to avoid appearing “cut out” or half-finished as they do now. This change would produce the needed symmetry, keeping with stylistic traditions seen in the surrounding buildings, for these highly visible elevations and also improve the view of the building when approaching it from a distance.
Concern #2
The Charles Street Façade
HFFI suggests treating the Charles Street elevation as a primary façade due to the building’s location on a corner and highly visible location.
Historically, buildings located on corners treated both street-facing elevations with equal attention. By carrying details used on the primary, George Street, elevation onto the Charles Street elevation it will unify the design. Maintaining the fenestration pattern and its articulation will show the attention to detail this location deserves. We see two significant ways in which this can be accomplished:
Lentils & Sills – the lentils and sills on the Charles Street elevation should match those on George Street, following the hierarchy currently used for each story.
Bay Window – bay windows are a later design element that does not match the style of this project. HFFI suggests removing the bay window from the highly visible Charles Street elevation (as is planned for the east elevation facing the bank building) to create a more coherent unified design on these public elevations and keeping with the symmetry prominently displayed by surrounding buildings.
The bay windows that are currently proposed for the interior units would benefit from a straightening of roof lines to remove the stylistically inappropriate curve now found on them, perhaps employing a hipped or shed roof instead.
The removal of the bay window on the Charles Street elevation should be mitigated by replacing it with 2-3 (symmetrically placed) single, double-hung windows. If having a physical window in the bays that are currently bricked over is an issue, we suggest using a more historically accurate “blind” window that appears to have permanently closed shutters.
As the process of reviewing this project continues, HFFI would ask that City Council be cognizant of the many details found on a building such as this.
Materials – please ask for examples or specifications on materials being used, such as all railings, bricks (color), window mullions, doors, stone detailing, and metal roof materials.
Building methods – please specify details on methods of construction for things such as brick bond, brick mortar joints, application of metal roofs (hand-crimped, etc), and functioning or non-functioning shutters.
HFFI hopes that our input can help JON Properties and City Council develop a building design that reflects the surrounding locations and is better-suited to our city’s Downtown Historic District. The citizens and visitors to Fredericksburg love and appreciate its history, together we can keep that history alive while allowing our city to grow.
Thank you for your time,
HFFI Board of Directors
Barbra Anderson
Paul Eakin
David James
Terrie James
Mary Maher
Danae Peckler
Leslie Pugh
Ed Sandtner
Scott Walker, President
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/9_9_2016-Design.jpg6671000HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2016-09-27 23:16:202016-10-14 01:00:28HFFI Letter to the City Re: Townhouses on 300 Block George Street
A Lesson in the Benefits of Restoration: St. George’s Episcopal Church
By Sam Biggers
As we celebrate Historic Preservation this May, it is worth remembering the benefits Fredericksburg has seen from the preservation of our built heritage. There are numerous preservation success stories, and one need not look far to see the benefits of preservation in our community. One of the most prominent buildings in Fredericksburg, St. George’s Episcopal Church, is a superb example of the positive effects of preservation. In 2009, St. George’s completed a seven-year restoration project, restoring the interior to its former glory. Though the official project lasted seven years, efforts to preserve the church have been ongoing since the late 1990s.
St. George’s Episcopal Church can lay claim to having a church on their lot for almost as long as Fredericksburg has existed. The current 1849 church is the third on the site, and was built as the congregation grew immensely during the 1830s and 1840s. The church was built in 1849 in the Romanesque Revival style, with decoration an obvious aim. Though it is not clear if decorative paint was present when the church was built, it existed sometime before 1894, when an account lamented that “a good deal of the frescoing was peeling off.”
It appears that the issue of peeling decorative paint was rectified in 1906, when a renovation sought to accentuate the interior of the church through new decorative paint. An article in The Free Lance from November 1st, 1906, describing these changes, reads:
“It would be difficult for any one not an artist to describe the improvements that have recently been completed in St. George’s Episcopal church.
The entire vestibule has been tiled with grey and brown tiles, and its walls have been tinted a very deep cream color, while the celling has been finished in small rolled iron squares.
The body of the church has been frescoed throughout. The wainscoting is a Nile green, the walls the yellow green now the favorite color of some of the principal church decorators in the country. The ceiling has been smoothed into broad panels by the campo board and tinted in delicate green with gold borders. The divisions between wainscoting and walls are marked by dotted bands old rose, and the overhead sides, above the gallery and under the cornices with a deep border of intricate cross design.
The arches are centered with medallions in which the symbols of the name of our Lord are wrought in gold.
The chancel (1) has its memorial window blended in one group by diaper work (2), and on each side are the Easter lilies in faces. The general effect of the color scheme is quiet and restful to the eye, not elaborate or ornate, but wrought out in exquisite taste by the artist, G.M. Strueby, of Washington.”
A series of renovations from the 1920s to the 1950s eliminated much of the interior decoration of St. George’s. The decorative paint, which had served to beautify the church for almost a century, was painted over in favor of a stark white color. Whereas the 1906 renovation’s goal was “putting the Church in order and the beautifying [of] the Church,” less than twenty years later much of the decorative paint was removed. A 1954 renovation removed the intricate wood paneling on the wall behind the alter, believed to be original to the 1849 building.
The wood paneling, original to the 1849 church, shown here during its restoration. Circa 2000.
By the 1990s, the interior of St. George’s was a shadow of its former self. Recognizing this, the church began the process of returning the interior of the church to an appearance comparable to its original 1849 look. One of the first charges of the restoration effort was the reinstallation of the historic wood paneling. Still in storage since their removal in 1954, the church hired Mark Moyers, a local wood restoration expert, to restore, assemble, and install the paneling. For four months, Moyers painstakingly refinished and assembled the more than 1,500 pieces of wood that comprised the paneling. Following their reinstallation, the church began its seven-year restoration effort.
When St. George’s undertook the restoration project, the church understood that planning would be crucial before changes were to be made. The church recognized their building’s rich history, and made the preservation and commemoration of it central to the restoration plan. Changes to paint in the nave (1) from the 1920s to the 1950s had left the interior whitewashed, eliminating much of the original decorative paint. The discovery of a 1906 photograph served as the basis for the reapplication of the decorative paint. The 1906 picture was taken during a renovation whose aim was very similar to the one undertaken in 2002—to recapture the church’s former interior appearance.
The aim of the restoration was not to return the church’s interior to a single point in the past. Rather, the restoration attempted to upgrade the church with a strong understanding of the history of the interior. Much of the interior decorative paint had been lost, and despite having the 1906 photograph as a record of what existed, the church chose not to replicate the lost paint. Instead of reapplying paint motifs visible in the 1906 picture during the new restoration, they instead moved them to the vestibule. The new motifs for the interior were chosen because of their symbolic ties to the Episcopal Church. The use of new paint motifs gave reference to the church’s rich decorative past, while moving the church forward with a modern design.
The addition of decorative paint was complemented by the installation of improved lighting to transform the nave and chancel areas (1). Additionally, the church updated crucial infrastructure, including electrical wiring, handicap accessibility, and fire suppression. While the restoration project was projected to cost $4 million, the church utilized Virginia Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits, which allowed the church to finish under budget. The seven-year restoration effort by St. George’s Episcopal Church resulted in a completely transformed interior. The picture below perfectly summarizes the changes in the church’s interior. The story of St. George’s is a common one in Fredericksburg— renovations completed with a view to the past.
Interview with Ben Hicks, Business Manager, St. George’s Episcopal Church, April 21, 2016.
Interview with Mark Moyers, Owner, Mark Moyers Antiques, May 2, 2016.
Quenzel, Carrol H. The History and Background of St. George’s Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Richmond, VA: Clyde W. Saunders and Sons, 1951.
St. George’s Episcopal Church documents (accessed at St. George’s Episcopal Church)
Learn more about the parts of a church on Wikipedia
“Diaper is any of a wide range of decorative patterns used in a variety of works of art, such as stained glass, heraldic shields, architecture, and silverwork. Its chief use is in the enlivening of plain surfaces.” – Wikipedia
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/StGeorgeInterior.png649975HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2016-05-25 14:36:352016-05-25 15:03:29A Lesson in the Benefits of Restoration: St. George’s Episcopal Church
Puffs of smoke billowed up from the engine toward the sky and a cheering crowd gathered around the train as it came to a rumbling stop. It seemed as though everyone in town was gathered at the station, eagerly awaiting the door to open. It was October 23, 1886, and President Grover Cleveland stepped off the train to greet the citizens of Fredericksburg.(1) Only two decades prior, the North and South battled over this rail line chartered by the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad (RF&P). The line that ran through Fredericksburg sat on a strategic point during the Civil War, with both armies laying track to move supplies and then burning it after it was no longer needed. President Cleveland’s stop in Fredericksburg was welcomed by all that day and over 100 years later Fredericksburg came together again to welcome another train’s arrival.
1926 construction of the train bridge across the Rappahannock River.
The turn of the century was the beginning of an exciting new era for train travel in Fredericksburg. Built in 1910 by the RF&P, the Georgian Colonial style train station was a gem standing proudly downtown on what was then known as Prussia Street. The street name paid tribute to the German State of Prussia, which was ruled by Frederick William I in the early 1700s. However, Anti-German sentiment took over when the U.S. entered World War I in 1917 and Fredericksburg demanded a change. City Council voted to rename the street Lafayette Boulevard in 1918, honoring Marquis de Lafayette.(2) A friend of George Washington, Lafayette fought alongside the United States during the Revolutionary War. In 1907, an additional set of tracks connecting Washington, D.C. and Richmond was completed by the RF&P, though Fredericksburg would not join the line until 1927.(3) Along with the new tracks, the bridge over the Rappahannock was finally replaced in 1927.(3) With these additions, the bustling station needed more room to grow. On May 1st, 1927, the citizens of Fredericksburg celebrated the arrival of their new train station; additional wings and a raised platform allowed the station to handle the increased traffic.(3)
The train proved to be a vital asset during wartime. The government relied on the RF&P heavily during WWII to move soldiers and supplies, so much so that traffic on the rails at this time was at its highest point in RF&P history.(3) After the war was won and soldiers returned home, the automobile quickly found its way onto America’s growing stretches of roadways. The average American family now owned a car and no longer wanted to sit on a train to get where they needed to go. The station held on for a few more decades, but eventually faded into the background. In December 1976, Amtrak closed the ticket office and the station became unmanned. With only a caretaker on site only on weekdays (locals may remember caretaker Archie Elder), the station soon fell victim to neglect. Paint peeled off of the walls, the roof leaked onto the few passengers who continued to use the station, and dark corridors became a haven for unlawful activity and vandals.
Broken window at Fredericksburg Train Station before renovation.
The first big break in the journey to a rehabilitated station was Amtrak’s allocation of $50,000 for a new passenger platform roof in 1980. Amtrak was confident that the station rehabilitation might not cost as much as originally thought and that no other major work was needed.(4) Work on the roof was to begin in August of that year, but was delayed as the roof, and the riders, would have to wait. During the years that followed, riders were left to defend themselves against both the criminal and decaying structural elements that were making the station an eyesore on the historic downtown. To make matters worse, the station was not regularly inspected. In order to be inspected, the city had to declare it unsafe. To answer the public safety outcry, Amtrak and the RF&P teamed up with local police in 1988 to patrol the station daily.(5) The patrols were a success, but the floors were still crumbling, graffiti covered the walls, and corridors remained dark at night.
In June 1989, RF&P and Amtrak put an additional $200,000 toward the rehabilitation effort. These funds were only allocated to cover the bare bones of the building. The leaking roof, crumbling concrete, broken lights and windows would be fixed, but all cosmetic needs would have to wait.(6) Both the RF&P and Amtrak’s initial plans for the rehabilitation of the station did not comply with the city’s regulations for the renovation of a building in the historic district. The Architectural Review Board refused to permit the changes both companies proposed for the station, due to alterations such as removal of the original canopies over the passenger platforms and installation of modern glass shelters.(7) The RF&P claimed that they were not familiar with regulations for buildings in historical districts when they made their initial plan.(7)
Interior photo of the Fredericksburg Train Station before renovation.
Throughout the 1980s and 90s, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. regularly advocated on behalf of the Fredericksburg train station. HFFI worked with city entities, ranging from City Council to the Architectural Review Board, to gather support and momentum for the preservation and rehabilitation of the station. The Foundation stressed rehabilitation and staying true to the historic design of the building, as opposed to a complete overhaul and modern redesign. HFFI was not only concerned with conserving the historical integrity of the building, but was also worried about the growing safety threat the decaying station had on the downtown community. Train riders and City Council members alike were eager to say goodbye to the crumbling train station and the dangers that came along with it. However, getting Amtrak, the RF&P, and local entities to agree on a deal to bring the Fredericksburg train station back to life would prove to be more difficult than any party imagined.
During this same time period, the RF&P reviewed the possibilities of turning the train station into a bustling center of commerce and downtown tourism; retail and factory outlet stores and tour coaches.(8) However, the RF&P was never able to negotiate a deal for redeveloping the station for retail. With no plans in place, the station continued to decay. Members of City Council grew impatient and made their voices heard. In the winter of 1989 Councilman Robert C. Wheeler referenced the large amount of money the RF&P spent on rail facilities in Richmond and Northern Virginia and urged the RF&P that it was time to invest in Fredericksburg.(9) Councilman H. William Greenup said it was “high time” that the station get restored and pressed for a time frame to hold all parties accountable.(8) Former Councilman W. Sidney Armstrong was disillusioned with the project, telling TheFree Lance-Star in January, “I’m not sure there will ever be a whole lot done.”(9)
When work on the passenger platform roof finally started in 1990, things got off to a slow and frustrating start. After Amtrak and the RF&P removed the roof, work slowed to a halt. Upon spending roughly $65,000 on asbestos removal and setting aside another $135,000 for stabilizing the platform, both companies wanted to trim costs. (10) They hired inexpensive labor and sourced volunteer work from the community, to even include new cornice work done by a James Monroe High School shop class. Riders were still able to use the station during this time, but unfortunately, there was no roof to protect them from the elements. Councilman Gordon W. Shelton told The Free Lance-Star, “Stupidity tore the roof off before they had a plan in place.”(11)
Volunteers donate their time to bring the neglected Fredericksburg Train Station back to its previous glory.
The Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail was another issue hanging in the balance in 1990. City Council approval of a line through the town meant more riders and increased cooperation from Amtrak and RF&P to invest in Fredericksburg’s historic station.(10) Though downtown citizens, HFFI, and city entities were eager to bring more visitors to their historic town and revitalize the area, there were still concerns to be had, given the companies’ reluctance to fully support the station’s continued use. Chief among them, parking and traffic, which had to be carefully planned for and accommodated without significantly changing the character of the area.(12) To help fund the project, the city started collecting a 2% tax on gasoline in August 1990. By September 1991, the tax raised $800,000 for the city to put toward construction costs.
In early 1992, things were finally starting to look up. The Architectural Review Board had approved a design for a new VRE passenger platform adjacent to the old station and the first commuter train was scheduled to arrive in town June of that year.(13) Executive Director of HFFI, Catharine Gilliam, was pleased with the plan, which included new windows and lights in the passenger shelter that reflected the original design. Unfortunately, the initial bids on the project came in $350,000 too high, forcing the city to take a step back.(14) The platform design was revised, and work got off to a late start in April 1992. Construction crews worked around the clock during the weekend leading up to the opening of the station. The new VRE platform had ticket machines and was handicap accessible. On July 20, 1992, excited commuters left on the first VRE train out of Fredericksburg at 5:29 a.m.(15)
Though this was a hard-fought victory for Fredericksburg, both HFFI and citizens still hoped that something would be done with the old station across from the new VRE line. In 1992 the city submitted a proposal seeking federal grant money to aid in the rehabilitation of the station.(16) With $500,000 eventually awarded from the federal government to use on the rehabilitation, Fredericksburg was ready to make their station dreams a reality. Three years later, the station finally had a buyer. Business owners Gary and Catherine Musselman moved to Virginia in the early 1990s to find the old station in a sorry state. Inspired by the building’s history and potential, they signed a deal to buy it from the RF&P in 1995.(17) Joined by restaurant owner Claiborne Thomasson, the three put one million dollars toward the project, in addition to the $500,000 federal grant, and got to work.(18) Claiborne’s opened in October 1997 to great acclaim, ushering in a new era of fine dining in Fredericksburg, and breathing new life into the train station.
Today, the train station is once again the pride of Fredericksburg. Serving 117,423 riders annually, the station is a hive of activity in the historic downtown.(19) The station connects Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Washington, D.C., giving commuters and travelers alike an alternative to the gridlock on Interstate 95. Amtrak runs six trains through the station daily. Weary train riders searching for a bite to eat need not look far. The Bavarian Chef, a restaurant specializing in authentic German cuisine, is housed in the interior of the old train station. Although Fredericksburg Amtrak train riders can no longer buy a ticket to their destination at the old station, they can still admire the historic building and hear the train whistle blow as it rolls into town.
Sources
A young helper does his part during an HFFI volunteer clean-up day at the Fredericksburg Train Station
Wrenn, Tony P. “Tracking train station’s history.” The Free Lance-Star, February, 1999. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3wMzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iAgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3630%2C1271095
Alvey Jr., Edward. The Streets of Fredericksburg. Fredericksburg: The Mary Washington College Foundation, Inc., 1978.
Pearce, John N. and students. “Gateway and Focal Point: Preservation Planning for Fredericksburg’s RF&P Station and for the Area Adjacent to it.” Mary Washington College Department of Historical Preservation, 1987.
Giegerich, Steve. “New Roof tops train station needs.” The Free Lance-Star, May, 1980. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19800530&id=jfpNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1994,4682880&hl=en
Toler, Jim. “Station showing its age.” The Free Lance-Star, January, 1989.
Hedelt, Rob. “Rail lines agree to fix station here.” The Free Lance-Star, June, 1989.
Toler, Jim. “Preservation dispute delays station project.” The Free Lance-Star, July, 1989.
Toler, Jim. “Councilman seeks action on station.” The Free Lance-Star, January, 1989.
The Free Lance-Star, “‘Eyesore’ station stirs vote for action.” January, 1989.
Toler, Jim. “Railroad trying to stretch its repair dollar.” The Free Lance-Star, June, 1990. Accessed April 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19900605&id=IfxNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4627,850490&hl=en
Toler, Jim. “Renovations stalled; Fredericksburg train station continues to deteriorate.” The Free Lance-Star, August, 1990. Accessed April 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19900816&id=WftEAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BowDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5440,2763360&hl=en
Catharine Gilliam to Tony Hooper, memorandum, December 18, 1991.
The Free Lance-Star, “Design for commuter rail station approved.” January, 1992.
Burke, Robert. “City races to finish station.” The Free Lance-Star, July, 1992. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19920718&id=Uf9NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w4sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5924,2824985&hl=en
Lease, Daryl, and Jim Toler. “Commuters climb on board.” The Free Lance Star, July, 1992. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9fRKRCJz75UC&dat=19920720&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
Toler, Jim. “Commuter rail seeks federal funds to add service.” The Free Lance Star, May, 1992. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19920508&id=DOJLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1YsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1453,4291912&hl=en
Dennen, Rusty. “Would be buyers want fix station.” The Free Lance Star, June, 1992. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19960606&id=AtYyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ywcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6407,1015165&hl=en
Byrd, Ted. “A railside renaissance.” The Free Lance Star, October, 1997. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19971010&id=jS4zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eAgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4247,2270020&hl=en
“Station Facts.” Great American Stations. Accessed April 2016. http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/FBG.
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-06-01-02-001-1-e1462853126120.jpg6671000HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2016-05-09 03:17:372016-10-14 01:00:57Oh Hear That Train Whistle Blowin'
From Great Virginians to Gloria Swanson: A History of Smithfield and the Fredericksburg Country Club
By Deborah Walters Pederson
(Abridged version—for the full article, see The Journal of Fredericksburg History, Volume 11)
Its tree-lined driveway hints of something from Gone with the Wind. The place has hosted presidents, first ladies, and movie stars. Union generals held council, slaves toiled, and both Union and Confederate wounded received succor there. Royalty, statesmen, Olympic champions, and George Washington visited—the latter running his greyhounds in the fields along the Rappahannock. Music from grand balls floated through its rooms.
The property known as Smithfield underwent a transformation common to many of the region’s plantations. In 1753, on the original Crown-issued patent given to Lawrence Smith in 1671, the Brooke family built the first great mansion—Smithfield—by the Rappahannock River. John Pratt, Jr., purchased Smithfield in 1813, but had to rebuild the house on the same location after the great fire in 1819, where it stands today. During the Civil War, Thomas Pratt was the owner of Smithfield—just a stone’s throw away from the Union front line during the December 1862 and May 1863 Battles of Fredericksburg. The Pratt family owned the great mansion until 1905.
The house was the site of a hospital serving the wounded of the Union First Corps’ First Division. Here, General Franklin had his headquarters and watched the 32,000 men of his Grand Division hurl themselves time after time at the lines of Stonewall Jackson, breaking the lines and thrusting through the gaps with victory in their grasp, only to be driven back. In front of the mansion house, General Doubleday moved with his division of infantry, and to the left, General Rufus Dawes made the charge against Jackson’s lines. Nearby, the Union army threw two pontoon bridges across the Rappahannock River to allow the army to cross. Today, within walking distance, are several gun pits in original condition.
A member of the Second Pennsylvania Reserves recounted the seizure of Smithfield on December 12, 1862: “Our regiment was sent to occupy the buildings and out-houses at ‘Smithfield,’ and to hold the bridge across Deep Run actually another, unnamed creek, which had been dammed to create the pond. The main building was Dr. Thomas Pratt’s large brick house, which, being unoccupied, we entered through a window, and found it very handsomely furnished. Colonel McCandless caused the arrest of the overseer and two other white men and sent them off to be detained until the battle as over.”
Smithfield was subsequently converted to a hospital. Another Union infantryman penned this account of his unnerving sojourn near the building later that day: “We came to the halt near a large brick plantation house that was being used for a field hospital. It was an awful sight to see hosts of wounded men being brought there, the ghastly amputating tables, the surgeons at work and the piles of arms and limbs and the poor fellows laid in rows in and around the house and outbuildings. We stopped here but a short time, but all of us were not sorry when we got orders to move.”
Page from a 1926 Mannsfield Country Club publication highlighting visitor Gloria Swanson.
From 1866 to 1868, workmen disinterred the remains of 78 Union soldiers at “Pratt’s Farm” (Smithfield), and moved them to the Fredericksburg National Cemetery.
The next owner was Conroy Vance. He bought adjoining property and renamed his home Mannsfield Farm. He was a banker and valued member of the community. In 1922, after he and his wife died in the Knickerbocker Theater in Washington, DC, when the roof collapsed due to heavy snow. Vance’s greatest wish had been for the area to have a country club. His dream came true after his death; in May 1925, several local businessmen got together and formed the Mannsfield Hall Country Club. It was the grandest of openings, with the Sid Shannon Serenaders band, Japanese lanterns glistening, and the townspeople dressed in their best formal clothes dancing till dawn. The Club became a social hub of the community as it is today.
On October, 19, 1928, the nearby battlefields were dedicated on the front steps of Mannsfield Hall Country Club. What a day it was—President Coolidge and many prominent figures came to the Country Club to formally dedicate the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. More than 5,000 people attended, including many luminaries, as recorded by The Free Lance-Star.
During the ceremony, the United States Marines from Quantico were placed in charge of securing the city streets and escorting the presidential party. Representing the South during the unveiling was Miss Rebecca Mason Lee, great niece of General Fitzhugh Lee and a great granddaughter of Captain Sidney Smith Lee, Robert E. Lee’s brother. Representing the North was Miss Clem, daughter of General Clem, USA (Retired). During the ceremonies, while the President was speaking and the tablet was unveiled, cameras clicked and movie cameras filled the air with the sound of their cranks as thousands of people watched.
Unlike many historic houses in the region, Smithfield/Mannsfield Hall Country Club/Fredericksburg Country Club still lives. The echoes of those who trod the halls and grounds before us still reverberate— the Brookes, the Pratts, their slaves (names unknown, quarters vanished, and burial places unrecorded), soldiers by the thousands, the Vance family, golfers by the foursomes (including Gloria Swanson), and even a president. The story continues, but what a good thing it is to pause and remember, as Judge Francis Brooke mused: “Tis pleasant to recall our former days, what we have been, and done, and seen, and heard, and write it down for those we love, to read.”
Click image to view film footage of the President Calvin Coolidge’s visit to Smithfield and downtown Fredericksburg in 1928.
Sources
Francis H. Brooke, A Family Narrative (New York: The New York times & Arno Press, 1971)
Free Lance-Star, November 23, 1909, January 31, 1922, May 14, 1925, May 13, 1932
Gershon Fishbein, “A Winter’s Tale of Tragedy,” Washington Post, January 22, 2009
Noel G. Harrison, Fredericksburg Civil War Sites, December 1862-April 1865 (Lynchburg, 1990)
Virginia Gazette, November 15, 1770, August 1, 1771, September 2, 1773
Virginia Herald, April 3 and July 10, 1804, May 15, 1819, April 20, 1833, April 22, 1835
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/club-1926-gov-crop.jpg5731036HFFI Staffhttps://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HFFI_Logo1.pngHFFI Staff2016-04-16 01:37:052016-04-20 03:44:59From Great Virginians to Gloria Swanson: A History of Smithfield and the Fredericksburg Country Club
Image compilation by Preserve FXBG. Black and white drawing source – ARB application, NBJ Architecture. Color image source – Google Earth
On Monday, March 14th, the Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board (ARB) will review an application for a five-story condominium project to be located at the corner of Sophia and Hanover Streets. This building is proposed to be 56′ tall. The project received a variance from the city to allow it to be built 6′ taller than the current height limit.
This building will be 10′ taller than the recently proposed townhouses on the 300 block of George Street.
The proposed design was approved in 2013 but that expired after one year, so they must now reapply. This is our one chance to speak up and get public comment on the record about the project.
Image source – ARB application, NBJ Architecture
HFFI is not against the development of this corner, we understand that in growing we sometimes must sacrifice things, and we would like to see a compromise when it comes to the design of this building. The building’s height is the largest of our concerns. We hope with enough voices from the community we can encourage a scaled down version of this project.
If you would like to comment on this project, please come to the ARB meeting on Monday evening, March 14th at 7:30 p.m. You do not need to put your name on a list ahead of time, just attend and come forward when the case is being heard.
Click here to learn more about the current One Hanover project application.
Read the March 11th Free Lance-Star article about the project here.
It is the collective voice of our community that speaks the loudest, and we are very grateful for your input!
Read the full agenda for the March, 14, 2016 Fredericksburg ARB meeting
When contacting or addressing members of the Architectural Review Board, please remember to be polite and courteous. They give much of their time to make the city a better place; please be respectful in your communication.
NOTE: When speaking before the Architectural Review Board, City Council, or the City’s other Boards and Commissions, please respect the following guidelines:
Clearly state your name and address.
Take no more than five (5) minutes (brevity is appreciated).
Confine your comments to City business.
Personal attacks on board members or others will not be tolerated.
Follow us on Facebook to see the latest and join the conversation
Additional Updates
3/11/2016
Read the comments from 2013 HFFI Executive Director, Sean Maroney, when the project was first brought before the ARB (2013). In his comments Mr. Maroney urges the ARB (and all citizens) to consider the implications of the many large-scale projects being considered, or that have already being constructed, in downtown Fredericksburg—many being more than 60,000 square-feet. ARB_05132013_MaroneyComments
If you cannot attend the meeting and would like to submit comments to the ARB, they can be sent to Kate Schwartz, Historic Resources Planner, [email protected]. She will then forward them onto the members of the ARB and enter them into the public record.
Upper Caroline Neighborhood History
/in Historic Buildings, Local History /by HFFI StaffResearched by Jan Waltonen & Roger Engels, HFFI Marker Committee
Written by Jan Waltonen
Article compiled for the 2019 Candlelight Tour. Properties on the tour included the Rising Sun Tavern, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1513, and 1517 Caroline Street.
This year’s Candlelight Tour (CLT) explores a neighborhood whose history began more than a hundred years before the American Revolution. Before about 1779, “Land Patent” documents conveyed land in the royal colony of Virginia from the colonial governor in Williamsburg—in the name of the King of England—to individuals who could pay their passage to America. This “headright” system rewarded persons with 50 acres of land if they sailed to Virginia to “inhabitate.” However, if new immigrants could not afford to travel to Virginia, others could finance the cost of transporting them, receiving 50 acres for each person they imported. Designed to attract colonists to Virginia to work for its benefit and provide revenues for the Crown, the system successfully encouraged settlement and increased the colony’s population. Both Fredericksburg and the area encompassing this year’s Candlelight Tour owe their beginnings to the Land Patent system.
In 1662, a large Land Patent of 812 acres was granted to Captain Thomas Hawkins, a close friend of the earliest Washingtons, who paid to transport 17 persons to Virginia. Seventy years later, Hawkins family descendants sold their Patent in two equal parts. The 406 acres that Francis Thornton of King George County purchased extended north from Lewis Street—the original boundary of Fredericksburg—to present-day Hunter Street, embracing all the properties on this year’s CLT.
Seven years later, in 1742, Colonel John Lewis (1694–1754) bought the Thornton “half tract” for £500. Lewis’s purchase, adjoining the upper end of town, supported his new and ambitious business enterprise. As a prominent merchant, he was shipping goods to the West Indies, London, and other trans-Atlantic ports. Within 1 year of acquiring the Thornton tract, Lewis had built and was operating a store, warehouses, and a shipyard, all located at the site of the present-day Fredericksburg Library. To oversee the mercantile extension of his shipping business, he enlisted his second son, Fielding, and in 1749, built the Lewis Store on the west side of Caroline Street just outside the town line. (Today, the Lewis Store, one of the oldest surviving urban retail stores in the United States, is headquarters for HFFI.) As the store’s manager, Fielding Lewis sold items such as rum, buttons, gloves, sugar, coffee, “brest” buckles, and “soop” spoons. His customers included George Washington, who, in a letter to his mother, requested she buy cloth, hose, and thread for him from “Mr. Lewis’s store.”
Although all this year’s CLT properties lay outside the corporate limits of Fredericksburg in Spotsylvania County before 1759, several factors fueled Fredericksburg’s growth and expansion to include new land. Founded in 1728 as a shipping port, Fredericksburg became an important center of trade. Ships brought European goods for sale in local stores, and tobacco, the basis of Virginia’s economy, was exported to England and Europe, solidifying Fredericksburg’s prominence as a center of commerce. Owing to its standing as a major port and seat of justice, the fledgling town grew rapidly. In 1759, to accommodate the burgeoning population of merchants and tradesmen, court justices, tavern keepers, and enslaved and free blacks, the Virginia General Assembly expanded the town limits to include present-day Dixon, Winchester, and Canal streets—bringing all of this year’s CLT properties within town limits.
A beneficiary of Fredericksburg’s prosperity was merchant Fielding Lewis (1725–1781). By 1754, the year his father died, Fielding had amassed an estate of 1,300 acres, including the Thornton tract he had inherited. It was said he owned “half the town” in the days before the War for Independence. In 1775, on the eve of the Revolution, he and his second wife, Betty, George Washington’s sister, moved into their newly constructed Georgian mansion (now called Kenmore). Lewis, a patriot of the American Revolution, established a weapons factory in Fredericksburg. By May 1777, the Gun Manufactory was producing about 20 muskets weekly. Lewis spent £7,000 of his own money, which was never repaid, leaving the family to struggle financially after the war.
When Lewis died in 1781, his son John inherited not only his father’s lands in Fredericksburg but also his substantial debts. To pay them down, John sold three town lots in 1785 to Henry Fitzhugh of Bell Air, Stafford County. Lot 178, site of two of this year’s CLT homes, marked the northernmost boundary of Fredericksburg and was considered a “suburb” of the town. (The term “suburb” was commonly used then as now to refer to an outlying part of a town or city.) In the early nineteenth century, a number of planned suburbs were laid out on the fringes of Fredericksburg and named after the land speculators who developed and financed them. Henry Fitzhugh, member of one of the “first families of Virginia,” was among those investors. He divided his new acquisitions into residential lots, naming the area “Fitzhughtown” after himself. Two houses on this year’s Candlelight Tour, 1513 and 1517 Caroline Street, are on Fitzhughtown lots. By 1787, Fitzhugh was renting his land to “sundry free Negroes and whites.”
The 1300 block of Caroline Street was also under development during the late eighteenth century. In 1761, Warner Lewis, Fielding’s older brother, sold George Washington’s younger brother, Charles, the lots where Charles would build his private residence in 1762. Thirty years later, the building was sold outside the Washington family and converted to a tavern. Today, Washington Heritage Museums operates the Rising Sun Tavern as a living history museum to showcase Fredericksburg’s colonial history.
Upper Caroline continued to develop as a diverse neighborhood in the 1800s. The United States Censuses are organized in order of households visited. The 1860 Census reveals that individuals working as shoemakers, “washwomen,” plasterers, weavers, and stone masons lived side by side with more affluent residents: a carriage maker, barrel maker, “loom boss in a factory,” and a dry goods merchant.
The impact of the Civil War on the upper Caroline neighborhood was devastating. On December 11, 1862, Union engineers attempted to build three pontoon bridges. The northernmost crossing site terminated at Hawke Street, just one block south of this year’s CLT properties. Ordered to delay the Union troops, General William Barksdale’s Mississippi riflemen, positioned along Sophia Street, fired on the bridge builders, preventing them from completing the northern pontoon bridge. Union commanders responded by ordering a massive artillery bombardment. The shelling of Fredericksburg destroyed about 100 structures—10% of the city. Two beams in the Rising Sun Tavern’s roof were cut through by artillery fire.
Despite the fire of 150 cannons, the Mississippi sharpshooters, entrenched in cellars and doorways, could not be dislodged. Union infantry finally crossed the river and ultimately cleared away the snipers, although they fiercely contested every block. Among the streets most closely associated with the street fighting were the streets on this year’s CLT—Fauquier, Hawke, Pitt, and Canal. The cost was great. In gardens and backyards, graves of the dead were scattered across the city.
The area comprising this year’s CLT was also hard hit with indiscriminate destruction and looting the day before the Battle of Fredericksburg. Argalus E. Samuel, a carriage maker owned the lot on which 1513 Caroline now stands. He was just one of several residents who filed “A Memorandum of Losses in the Shelling & Since” with the Common Council of the town, which passed the following resolution on January 10, 1863: “Resolved that the funds now being raised by the voluntary contributions of the Army for the relief of the citizens of Fredericksburg who have suffered so severely by the bombardment & sacking by the abolition Army shall be received and disbursed. . .” Receipts collected totaled a remarkable $32,292.60. Samuel’s inventory of losses included “provisions on hand and groceries stolen” worth $96.60—much more than the value he placed on any of his furniture or even his “working tooles” [sic].
The war continued to be a harrowing experience for A.E. Samuel. Following the Battle of the Wilderness in May 1864, about 60 Union soldiers—many slightly wounded—made their way to Fredericksburg, seeking to return to Union lines. Placed under citizens’ arrest, they were sent to Richmond as prisoners of war. In retaliation, federal authorities arrested a corresponding number of local citizens to be held as hostages until the Union soldiers were released and returned. Samuel was one of 57 men sent to the military prison at Fort Delaware. After 3 weeks, Fredericksburg’s mayor and Common Council sent an appeal to the Confederate Secretary of War in Richmond: “Surely the matter of a few [federal] prisoners cannot be allowed to interfere with the humane and generous work of restoring to those desolated homes and those mourning women and children, the only source of comfort in this war-ravaged and desolated town. . .” Samuel was subsequently exchanged in July, only to find that his sister had died during his imprisonment.
After the war, Fredericksburg’s residents were left to rebuild in a shattered economy. It took nearly a generation for the town to begin to prosper again. The houses on this year’s CLT—built between 1870 and 1911—echo that slow recovery. They illustrate not only Fredericksburg’s eventual renewal but also the contrasts that came to define Upper Caroline’s character. 1513 Caroline, constructed shortly after the war in 1870, was built for James Ryan, an Irish immigrant and stone mason. Assessed at only $350.00 at the time, it represents the many post-war working class residences of this diverse neighborhood. In contrast, in 1911, the Victorians at 1308 and 1310 Caroline were built by G.B. Wallace, a prominent Fredericksburg citizen who served as the Commonwealth’s Attorney for 20 years. These three CLT properties symbolize the wide diversity of architectural styles and residents’ socio-economic levels, offering a vivid glimpse into a rich history. Welcome to Upper Caroline!
Fredericksburg’s 2024-2025 Goals for Preservation
/in Uncategorized /by Danae PecklerFor generations, Fredericksburg residents have taken pride in learning, sharing, and retelling tidbits of the extraordinary history our city holds. Many might recall that we once proclaimed ourselves to be “America’s Most Historic City.” An ambitious moniker that might sound audacious and pompous to some, yet we need only spend some time at local historic sites or read about the notable individuals and events that have put FXBG “on the map” for a few centuries now.
Other places have their own important history, but what TRULY sets Fredericksburg apart from the majority of localities is our community’s decades of dedication to Historic Preservation—the act of preserving the physical tangible evidence of our unique past.
Fredericksburg was a national leader in preservation in 1891 when a group of residents saved Mary Washington’s house from dismantling; in 1922 when efforts were made to save one of the finest examples of early American plasterwork; in when 1955 when Historic Fredericksburg was created to save an antebellum kitchen outbuilding; in 1972 when our historic district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places; in the 1980s when the nation’s first undergraduate program in Historic Preservation was established at what is now the University of Mary Washington; in 1991 when Fredericksburg was one of two localities selected for study in a ground-breaking economic analysis on the financial impact of historic preservation across the community; in 1996 when Ferry Farm was saved from being turned into a Walmart; and in 2021 when an archaeological ordinance more than a decade in the making was adopted.
Preserving the City’s cultural legacy—the historic buildings, sites, stories, and places, big and small, elaborate and commonplace—is a choice. It’s what we choose to do in Fredericksburg and our elected representatives are preeminently charged with caring for this tangible inheritance from the past.
As another Historic Preservation Month draws to a close, HFFI’s Board of Directors has laid out some important goals for the coming year—many of which are familiar to those with local leadership experience. By May 2025, we hope to report that these goals have been met. A full description of these goals is spelled out in HFFI’s press release (at bottom of post) with an abbreviated list below:
HFFI’s Board of Directors and staff hopes that the next year will bear witness to the successful completion of longstanding preservation goals in Fredericksburg. To ensure their completion, we would greatly appreciate your help. Show our elected officials and leaders that you care! Write them a note directly (visit City Council’s website to submit comments) or sign HFFI’s petition to show your support!
A Closer Examination of Historical Significance: The Charles Dick House and J.W. Masters’ Domestic Outbuilding at 204 Lewis Street
/in Uncategorized /by HFFI StaffHistoric Bricks and Mortar
/in Uncategorized /by HFFI Staffby Natalie Chavez and Danae Peckler; edited by Linda Billard
The Lewis Store, HFFI’s headquarters, is the embodiment of honest brick construction in a classic Georgian architectural style from the mid-eighteenth century. This mass masonry brick building has multiple wythes, or vertical sections of brick wall, laid in two different bonds. The Lewis Store’s elevation showcases the stylish Flemish bond, while the interior wall of the building showcases the stronger English bond. Most of the building’s brick dates from its original construction in 1749 and added second story in 1808, although some minor repairs were made to damaged areas during its rehabilitation in 1999 and 2006. Contributing to the Lewis Store’s durability is the craftsmanship and skills of its builders and the make-up of its mortar.
Figure 1: Brick Bonds from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 4, Part 3, 1911.[1]
All mortars are composed of three main ingredients: a binder or cementing material, an aggregate such as sand, and water. Prior to the late nineteenth century, lime was used as the binding agent. It was created by crushing stone or oyster shells and burning the resulting material to create quick lime that was later mixed with water and sand. Traditional lime mortars are remarkably forgiving of both the weathering of time and the environment, allowing for “some movement in the brickwork without showing signs of cracking under normal seasonal conditions.”[2] This differs greatly from the rigidity of Portland cement, which became commonplace by the early-20th century. Owners of historic brick buildings make a crucial mistake by repairing mortar joints using a Portland-based mortar. While Portland cement has many benefits, its use in historic masonry creates long-term problems, even inducing decay of the bricks themselves.
Figure 2: Image from Colonial Williamsburg Showing Oyster Shells After Burning.[3]
Experts in the field of preservation advocate for using the gentlest techniques in the maintenance of historic brick. Such work is only needed every 100–150 years and, in most cases, a sensitive repointing with lime mortar will last another 100 years unless the repair is addressing the symptom of a larger problem that has gone unaddressed.
You can find more information about taking care of historic brick buildings on HFFI’s website and review Cristine Lynch’s 2012 National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Lewis Store to learn more about our great building!
Other great resources
Traditional brick construction: https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/traditional-brickwork/traditional-brickwork.htm
Efflorescence https://johnspeweik.com/2011/11/17/efflorescence-of-masonry/
How to identify lime mortar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh0Ad3FKDrE
Importance of lime mortar: https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/podcast-episode-33-andy-degruchy-on-the-historic-uses-of-lime-mortar-and-its-continuing-importance-today/ Finding the right mason for the job: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmW8ZvsBUs
[1] The Project Gutenberg EBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition,Volume 4, Part 3. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19699/19699-h/19699-h
[2] Geoff Maybank, “Traditional Brickwork.” https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/traditional-brickwork/traditional-brickwork.htm
[3] Image from Colonial Williamsburg’s Richard Charlton’s Coffeehouse blog: https://research.history.org/Coffeehouse/Blog/index.cfm/2009/3/4/Lime-Burn
Cooperation for Preservation of Historic Properties
/in Historic Buildings /by HFFI StaffCooperation for Preservation of Historic Properties
by David James, HFFI Board President
Since 1955, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI) has been devoted to protecting and preserving historic structures and landscapes of our city that give it a true sense of place and authenticity. Recognizing that each modification of an historic building could impact the integrity of our architectural heritage, the organization takes proposed changes very seriously. Therefore, HFFI has decided to appeal a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) approved by the Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board (ARB) on December 10, 2018.
The ARB approved replacement of a wooden front porch at the home on 129 Caroline Street with concrete, brick and tile. HFFI has held a restrictive preservation covenant on the property since 1974. It has worked with the current owners on several occasions, including on a well-designed, historically sensitive, and substantial addition made in the early 1990s.
The ARB, HFFI, and many other preservation commissions and organizations are charged with the review of alterations to significant historic resources. They draw from the same professional standards and guidelines, known as the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The modifications proposed are in clear violation. These Standards specify that:
— “The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure … shall not be destroyed.”
—“The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.”
—“Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible.”
In a previous application some time ago, the property owners sought to make similar changes, proposing to replace the wood front porch with brick. This portion of the application was denied by the ARB on grounds that the porch was an important architectural feature of the house.
Because it holds a restrictive covenant in the deed to this property, HFFI has standing in this matter. The homeowners have attempted to void the covenants, but HFFI holds that the covenants cannot be modified or terminated except by the agreement of all parties entitled to enforce the covenant.
Moving forward, HFFI asks that:
—The wood front porch remains in place and be repaired using in-kind materials as the Historic District Handbook and ARB guidelines require, unless the property owners work with HFFI to establish a mutually agreed upon alternative compatible with preservation practices and ARB guidelines in a new COA.
—The ARB adheres to the Secretary of Interior Standards detailed in the Historic District Handbook and articulated by the design standards and guidelines therein.
—The ARB provides HFFI with notice when a request for alteration is made on property covered by one of its covenants.
—It be an active partner in any revision of ARB guidelines.
—City Council reviews its 2012 Memorandum of Understanding with HFFI to clarify the organization’s role in protecting structures in the historic district.
Besides enforcing its restrictive covenant, HFFI hopes that the City Council would give it standing to appeal to the Circuit Court on decisions to raze, demolish, or move any structure in the city. Unfortunately, in the last few years, we have lost historic properties that should not have been destroyed. This is why HFFI was formed in the first place, and so HFFI wants the right to stop this injustice.
Homeowners and building owners are temporary stewards of these unique properties. The organization has partnered with them throughout its history to preserve, protect, and revitalize this great city. With support from the community, HFFI has led the effort to preserve Fredericksburg for the past 64 years. The organization wants the tools to continue these efforts.
Ducking Stools in Fredericksburg
/in Local History /by HFFI StaffDucking Stools in Fredericksburg
By: Michael Spencer
Ducking stools, “an instrument of punishment for nags, gossips, witches, and difficult individuals”, often consisted of a “…chair suspended from a sweeplike pole” that would be lowered into water.[1] While used throughout Europe during the medieval period, it was also used here in Virginia until the 19th century.
Legislation passed in 1662 by the Virginia Assembly stated that “Whereas, many babbling women slander and scandalize their neighbors, for which their poor husbands are often involved in chargeable and vexatious suit, and case in great damage: Be it, therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in actions of slander, occasioned by the wife, after judgement passed for the damages, the woman shall be punished by Ducking…”[2]
Mrs. Vivan Minor Fleming recounts, from an old resident, such a ducking in her book “Historic Period of Fredericksburg 1608-1861”,
“She saw Peggy, a noted termagant, as tied in a gig that had been improvised into a ducking stool, she was pushed along through the streets polluting the air with her foul oaths and surrounded by a clamorous crowd of men and boys. Dr. Edward Carmichael and Mr. William White, then small chaps, being not the lead vociferous. She was pushed along to the old baptizing place and into the river-the water over her head. Then they drew her out, but she was more vituperative than ever. Again they pushed her in and she came out sputtering anathemas, but the third submersion silenced her. She returned through the same streets, in the same gig, as quiet as a lamb.”[3]
Fredericksburg seems to have adopted ducking as a form of punishment fairly early and continued it for some time. The first reference to ducking in Fredericksburg was made in 1746 when Marquis Calmes, of Winchester, Virginia was paid £5:5 for erecting a “ducking stool according to the model of that of Fredericksburg.” The reference goes on to allude to the general configuration of the stool when describing the punishment of a prisoner, “…the culprit was tied to the end of a long plank working on a pivot”.[4]
A second mention of a ducking stool occurs in Fredericksburg Council minutes from 1795 with “Zachariah Lucas & James Brown” tasked with finding “some person” to build the device, obviously a replacement from the earlier one.[5] It appears that by 1799 they were successful with Joshua Ingham being paid £10:9 “for making a ducking stool.”[6] A third, and possibly final ducking stool, was made for Fredericksburg in 1822 by John Ferneyhough at a cost of $30.[7]
The location of the ducking stool, was at the “old baptism place” which both court records as well as Silvanus Quinn, in his 1908 “History of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia”, note as being at the end of Wolfe Street adjacent to Thornton’s Tavern. This would have made sense as this was also the location of one of Fredericksburg’s early ferries and so would have had a water depth adequate to facilitate the ducking.
Figure 1: Image from Pioneer Pittsburgh, a 1937 publication showing a representation of a ducking stool. The actual configuration of the one at Fredericksburg may have been similar.
Virginia Herald, June 28, 1799 Reference to Ducking Stool.
___________________________________
[1] Lounsbury, Carl. An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape, pg. 124
[2] Norris, J.E., History of Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties.
[3] Fleming, Historic Period of Fredericksburg 1608-1861, pg. 25-26
[4] Morton, Frederic. The Story of Winchester.
[5] Fredericksburg City Council Minutes 1795, [transcribed by Gary Stanton]
[6] Virginia Herald, June 28, 1799, pg. 3 col. 3
[7] Fredericksburg City Council Minutes 1822, [transcribed by Gary Stanton]
1210 Sophia Street
/in Historic Buildings, Local History, Riverfront Development /by HFFI Staff1210 Sophia Street – Can it be Saved?
By HFFI Staff
(Updated 5/1/2017)
1210 Sophia Street is in danger of being demolished. If the clock runs out—it will be gone. But there is a chance to relocate this 100+ year old property to a new location. YOU can help save it!
1210 Sophia Street – Photo Credit: Fredericksburg City Staff
Located within Fredericksburg’s Downtown Historic District, 1210 Sophia Street is a contributing resource. This modest building, situated along the Rappahannock River, is an example of housing used by Fredericksburg’s working class residents at the turn of the twentieth century. It is in good condition and structurally sound, but the only option besides demolition is relocation.
The City of Fredericksburg has offered up to $20,000 to aid in the costs of moving the house to an open lot within the city, but no matter of its location it will remain under the purview of the city’s Architectural Review Board and the city’s historic district overlay. But there is a deadline, so don’t delay! Help us get the word out, and this 1890’s house may once again be called a home.
Built in 1894, this two-story house was built for Gilbert C. Walker, an iron worker, and it remained in the Walker family for almost 100 years. The rear addition was added in 1953, (identified through an independent archive of city records), and Sanborn Maps as well as census records round out the history of the house and its residents. (Special thanks to Kate Schwartz, Historic Resource Planner—City of Fredericksburg, for her efforts in researching the history of this home. – Read more about the history of this home here.)
1210 Sophia Street Interior – Photo Credit: Fredericksburg City Staff
Do you own a lot that this building could be moved to? Or perhaps you know someone who does? This is a chance for us to save a historic building from demolition, and HFFI is happy to see the city contributing funds from the Blight Abatement Fund to assist in the project.
Learn more and read the city’s Memorandum to the Architectural Review Board about 1210 Sophia Street (including additional history and applicable Historic District Design Standards & Guidelines).
Also online, read The Free Lance-Star article about the city’s decision to remove the building.
For UMW student, and HFFI intern, Kiernan Ziletti’s perspective on the situation, read his article featured in the March issue of Front Porch Magazine.
Questions or ideas on how to save this historic building? Contact us at [email protected] or 540-371-4504, or Kate Schwartz at [email protected] or 540-372-1179.
UPDATE: An open lot near downtown has been located, further details to be worked out. Are you interested in taking on this project? Contact HFFI at 540-371-4504 to learn more.
UPDATE – 5/1/2017:
The official RFP for the sale of this building has been released and can be seen on the Fredericksburg website at http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/bids.aspx?bidID=82
Closing date/ time – 9/21/2017 2:00 PM
Pre-bid Meeting – May 4, 2017, 10AM at site
Contact Person – Lynn Enders
[email protected]
Wet or Dry: A History of Prohibition in Fredericksburg
/in Local History /by HFFI StaffWet or Dry: A History of Prohibition in Fredericksburg
By Barbra Anderson
“The saloon is the devil’s headquarters on earth,” declared the Anti-Saloon League in the late 1800s. Alcohol was blamed for every social problem: poverty, domestic violence, crime, ill health, and moral turpitude. The average American man drank 88 bottles of whiskey a year—three times as much as now.
Temperance groups swept the nation. Each member had to take a pledge against “any Spirituous or Malt beverage.” Fredericksburg had three chapters of the Sons of Temperance, which held rallies and parades, weekly meetings, and “grand excursions” to inspire the citizens. Not only did temperance influence the social scene, the “liquor platform” soon dictated state politics.
All of Virginia went dry in 1916, and the 18th Amendment enacted national Prohibition in 1920.
By the mid-1920s, Prohibition violations in Fredericksburg became commonplace. Because Route 1 was the only paved road in the area, bootleggers used it to transport “ardent spirits.” Local reporter Warren Farmer described how local police would hide next to the bridges and catch them as they came into town. One rumrunner crashed going around Deadman’s Curve near the National Cemetery. The liquor caught on fire, and he was incinerated beyond recognition.
Because bootleggers often used aliases, the ensuing court cases frequently named the car as the defendant. In 1926, “Virginia vs. Packard Touring Car” involved the transport of 210 gallons of corn whiskey. The penalties were stiff. In another case, two brothers-in-law were convicted for transporting 48 quarts of liquor in their car. Each was fined $50 and given a sentence of 6 months. Moreover, as dictated by law, their car was confiscated and sold.
According to court and police records, many people were arrested for alcohol offenses. A sampling from the newspapers of the day reveals some colorful characters. “Poodles” Limerick was charged for transporting liquor at the Virginia Cafe. Albert Grimes was fined $20 for being drunk and carrying a concealed weapon (iron knuckles) at the Athens Hotel. Yat Sullivan was convicted of manufacturing and selling liquor. He was fined $250 (about 2 month’s salary) and sentenced to 3 months in jail. “Dinksy” Scott was arrested three times for “unlawfully and feloniously selling ardent spirits.”
Prohibition was repealed in 1933, but selling liquor in Virginia did not become legal until 1934 when the state established the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). In the first month, the ABC granted Fredericksburg 14 licenses to sell beer and wine. The ABC maintained strict control of alcohol throughout the remainder of the century, gradually easing some restrictions. For example, it was not for another 35 years that liquor was sold by the drink. Cocktails were illegal unless you belonged to a “social club” where you would bring your own liquor. On February 9, 1969, the first mixed drink in Fredericksburg—a Tom Collins- was sold at the Princess Anne Inn.
To celebrate the 100th anniversary of Prohibition in Virginia, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation hosted a Prohibition Pub Tour on Saturday, September 10, 2016.
Much thanks to Nancy Moore and Sue Stone for providing most of the research for this story.
Sources:
Fredericksburg Court Records. Grand Jury, May 1911
Burns, Ken and Lynn Novick, Prohibition (film documentary), 2011
Fredericksburg Police blotters, 1920s
Eaton, Lorraine. Virginian Pilot. “Virginia’s Prohibition History.” Nov 30, 2008
The Free Lance, March 5, 1925
Moore, Nancy. Interview, September, 2016.
Farmer, Warren. Oral History. HFFI, 1998.
Free Lance Star, August 15, 1977
Free Lance Star, May 2, 1934
Free Lance, March 5, 1925
Daily Star, March 10, 1925
Gambino, Megan, Smithsonian Magazine. “During Prohibition, Your Doctor Could Write You a Prescription for Booze.” October 7, 2013.
Clark, Patrick Michael, Rappahannock Magazine. “Drink the Dominion Dry: Prohibition Comes to Virginia”. October, 2015, Volume 2, Issue 1.
Kamieniak, Ted, Fredericksburg: The Eclectic Histories for the Curious Reader. “The Pledge of Brotherhood”.
HFFI Letter to the City Re: Townhouses on 300 Block George Street
/in New Development in Downtown /by HFFI StaffHFFI Letter to the City,
RE: Proposed Townhouses on 300 Block, George Street
In regards to the City’s settlement with JON Properties and the townhouses on the 300 block of George Street HFFI was asked for our input on the updated (9/9/16) building design. Though the scale is not optimal to us, we understand the need for a settlement and want to see the City and all involved parties be able to move forward.
Below is the letter HFFI submitted to City Manager, Tim Baroody in regards to the building design. We hope that JON Properties and City Council will consider these recommendations that we feel increase the building’s compatibility with historic downtown Fredericksburg.
September 16, 2016
Dear Mr. Baroody,
We would like to first thank the City for being open to input from the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI). It is our hope that by working together we can make the best of the current situation.
HFFI applauds all parties involved for reaching the proposed settlement. We hope that we can do our part to assist in making this building, which is much larger than most buildings in the area, relate to our historic district. It is the details of this project that are of the utmost importance, and will aid in making it more compatible with the Downtown Historic District.
HFFI’s primary goal on this matter is ensuring the project fits into the block’s context and blends into the surrounding streetscape.
Essentially, we have two specific areas of the building that are of the greatest concern and we feel can be adjusted to ensure our goal is accomplished.
Concern #1
The rooftop decks that currently face George Street.
HFFI suggests the rooftop decks be located on the rear elevation.
We feel that of the two options recently presented by JON Properties, in regards to the rooftop decks, the design of rear facing is a better choice. The current building predominantly reflects a period of early-nineteenth century architecture using Federal and Greek Revival style details. The symmetrical balance of the facades with center doors, double hung windows flanked by shutters (both Federal), and the entry porches supported by prominent columns (Greek Revival) reference architectural features similar to those found in the surrounding buildings.
The proposed rooftop decks are not keeping with the stylistic traditions echoed in this building’s design. They not only disrupt the rhythm of the building itself, but also of the entire streetscape when viewing the block. As one approaches the 300 block from the west, the profile of the building would be distinctly different from the surrounding area and immensely out of context.
The adjustment to rear-facing instead of front-facing decks will also remove the conflicting issue of modern and historically reminiscent materials on the George Street elevation. For example, the metal-cable railing and the more traditional railing along the entry stairs, and the rooftop deck exterior cladding are an issue. This relocation would not only place these modern porches in a less-public area, but would allow additional privacy in these spaces and obscure any deck furniture and decorations from the highly public views along George Street.
The Charles Street (west) and “Princess Anne Street”/ Bank Building (east) façades are also profoundly affected by the rooftop balconies. We would like to see the mansard roof fully extended from the front to the rear elevations to avoid appearing “cut out” or half-finished as they do now. This change would produce the needed symmetry, keeping with stylistic traditions seen in the surrounding buildings, for these highly visible elevations and also improve the view of the building when approaching it from a distance.
Concern #2
The Charles Street Façade
HFFI suggests treating the Charles Street elevation as a primary façade due to the building’s location on a corner and highly visible location.
Historically, buildings located on corners treated both street-facing elevations with equal attention. By carrying details used on the primary, George Street, elevation onto the Charles Street elevation it will unify the design. Maintaining the fenestration pattern and its articulation will show the attention to detail this location deserves. We see two significant ways in which this can be accomplished:
Lentils & Sills – the lentils and sills on the Charles Street elevation should match those on George Street, following the hierarchy currently used for each story.
Bay Window – bay windows are a later design element that does not match the style of this project. HFFI suggests removing the bay window from the highly visible Charles Street elevation (as is planned for the east elevation facing the bank building) to create a more coherent unified design on these public elevations and keeping with the symmetry prominently displayed by surrounding buildings.
The bay windows that are currently proposed for the interior units would benefit from a straightening of roof lines to remove the stylistically inappropriate curve now found on them, perhaps employing a hipped or shed roof instead.
The removal of the bay window on the Charles Street elevation should be mitigated by replacing it with 2-3 (symmetrically placed) single, double-hung windows. If having a physical window in the bays that are currently bricked over is an issue, we suggest using a more historically accurate “blind” window that appears to have permanently closed shutters.
As the process of reviewing this project continues, HFFI would ask that City Council be cognizant of the many details found on a building such as this.
Materials – please ask for examples or specifications on materials being used, such as all railings, bricks (color), window mullions, doors, stone detailing, and metal roof materials.
Building methods – please specify details on methods of construction for things such as brick bond, brick mortar joints, application of metal roofs (hand-crimped, etc), and functioning or non-functioning shutters.
HFFI hopes that our input can help JON Properties and City Council develop a building design that reflects the surrounding locations and is better-suited to our city’s Downtown Historic District. The citizens and visitors to Fredericksburg love and appreciate its history, together we can keep that history alive while allowing our city to grow.
Thank you for your time,
HFFI Board of Directors
Barbra Anderson
Paul Eakin
David James
Terrie James
Mary Maher
Danae Peckler
Leslie Pugh
Ed Sandtner
Scott Walker, President
HFFI Staff
Emily Taggart Schricker, Director of Operations
UMW Historic Preservation Department
Michael Spencer, Associate Professor
City Council webpage
A Lesson in the Benefits of Restoration: St. George’s Episcopal Church
/in Historic Buildings /by HFFI StaffA Lesson in the Benefits of Restoration: St. George’s Episcopal Church
By Sam Biggers
As we celebrate Historic Preservation this May, it is worth remembering the benefits Fredericksburg has seen from the preservation of our built heritage. There are numerous preservation success stories, and one need not look far to see the benefits of preservation in our community. One of the most prominent buildings in Fredericksburg, St. George’s Episcopal Church, is a superb example of the positive effects of preservation. In 2009, St. George’s completed a seven-year restoration project, restoring the interior to its former glory. Though the official project lasted seven years, efforts to preserve the church have been ongoing since the late 1990s.
St. George’s Episcopal Church can lay claim to having a church on their lot for almost as long as Fredericksburg has existed. The current 1849 church is the third on the site, and was built as the congregation grew immensely during the 1830s and 1840s. The church was built in 1849 in the Romanesque Revival style, with decoration an obvious aim. Though it is not clear if decorative paint was present when the church was built, it existed sometime before 1894, when an account lamented that “a good deal of the frescoing was peeling off.”
It appears that the issue of peeling decorative paint was rectified in 1906, when a renovation sought to accentuate the interior of the church through new decorative paint. An article in The Free Lance from November 1st, 1906, describing these changes, reads:
A series of renovations from the 1920s to the 1950s eliminated much of the interior decoration of St. George’s. The decorative paint, which had served to beautify the church for almost a century, was painted over in favor of a stark white color. Whereas the 1906 renovation’s goal was “putting the Church in order and the beautifying [of] the Church,” less than twenty years later much of the decorative paint was removed. A 1954 renovation removed the intricate wood paneling on the wall behind the alter, believed to be original to the 1849 building.
The wood paneling, original to the 1849 church, shown here during its restoration. Circa 2000.
By the 1990s, the interior of St. George’s was a shadow of its former self. Recognizing this, the church began the process of returning the interior of the church to an appearance comparable to its original 1849 look. One of the first charges of the restoration effort was the reinstallation of the historic wood paneling. Still in storage since their removal in 1954, the church hired Mark Moyers, a local wood restoration expert, to restore, assemble, and install the paneling. For four months, Moyers painstakingly refinished and assembled the more than 1,500 pieces of wood that comprised the paneling. Following their reinstallation, the church began its seven-year restoration effort.
When St. George’s undertook the restoration project, the church understood that planning would be crucial before changes were to be made. The church recognized their building’s rich history, and made the preservation and commemoration of it central to the restoration plan. Changes to paint in the nave (1) from the 1920s to the 1950s had left the interior whitewashed, eliminating much of the original decorative paint. The discovery of a 1906 photograph served as the basis for the reapplication of the decorative paint. The 1906 picture was taken during a renovation whose aim was very similar to the one undertaken in 2002—to recapture the church’s former interior appearance.
The aim of the restoration was not to return the church’s interior to a single point in the past. Rather, the restoration attempted to upgrade the church with a strong understanding of the history of the interior. Much of the interior decorative paint had been lost, and despite having the 1906 photograph as a record of what existed, the church chose not to replicate the lost paint. Instead of reapplying paint motifs visible in the 1906 picture during the new restoration, they instead moved them to the vestibule. The new motifs for the interior were chosen because of their symbolic ties to the Episcopal Church. The use of new paint motifs gave reference to the church’s rich decorative past, while moving the church forward with a modern design.
The addition of decorative paint was complemented by the installation of improved lighting to transform the nave and chancel areas (1). Additionally, the church updated crucial infrastructure, including electrical wiring, handicap accessibility, and fire suppression. While the restoration project was projected to cost $4 million, the church utilized Virginia Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits, which allowed the church to finish under budget. The seven-year restoration effort by St. George’s Episcopal Church resulted in a completely transformed interior. The picture below perfectly summarizes the changes in the church’s interior. The story of St. George’s is a common one in Fredericksburg— renovations completed with a view to the past.
Sources Consulted
“A Beautiful Church,” The Free Lance (Fredericksburg, VA.), Nov. 1, 1906.
Interview with Ben Hicks, Business Manager, St. George’s Episcopal Church, April 21, 2016.
Interview with Mark Moyers, Owner, Mark Moyers Antiques, May 2, 2016.
Quenzel, Carrol H. The History and Background of St. George’s Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Richmond, VA: Clyde W. Saunders and Sons, 1951.
St. George’s Episcopal Church documents (accessed at St. George’s Episcopal Church)
To read more about the history of St. George’s Episcopal Church and its architectural details visit www.stgeorgesepiscopal.net/about-us/history/
Oh Hear That Train Whistle Blowin’
/in Historic Buildings /by HFFI StaffOh Hear That Train Whistle Blowin’
By Olivia R. Blackwell
Puffs of smoke billowed up from the engine toward the sky and a cheering crowd gathered around the train as it came to a rumbling stop. It seemed as though everyone in town was gathered at the station, eagerly awaiting the door to open. It was October 23, 1886, and President Grover Cleveland stepped off the train to greet the citizens of Fredericksburg.(1) Only two decades prior, the North and South battled over this rail line chartered by the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad (RF&P). The line that ran through Fredericksburg sat on a strategic point during the Civil War, with both armies laying track to move supplies and then burning it after it was no longer needed. President Cleveland’s stop in Fredericksburg was welcomed by all that day and over 100 years later Fredericksburg came together again to welcome another train’s arrival.
1926 construction of the train bridge across the Rappahannock River.
The turn of the century was the beginning of an exciting new era for train travel in Fredericksburg. Built in 1910 by the RF&P, the Georgian Colonial style train station was a gem standing proudly downtown on what was then known as Prussia Street. The street name paid tribute to the German State of Prussia, which was ruled by Frederick William I in the early 1700s. However, Anti-German sentiment took over when the U.S. entered World War I in 1917 and Fredericksburg demanded a change. City Council voted to rename the street Lafayette Boulevard in 1918, honoring Marquis de Lafayette.(2) A friend of George Washington, Lafayette fought alongside the United States during the Revolutionary War. In 1907, an additional set of tracks connecting Washington, D.C. and Richmond was completed by the RF&P, though Fredericksburg would not join the line until 1927.(3) Along with the new tracks, the bridge over the Rappahannock was finally replaced in 1927.(3) With these additions, the bustling station needed more room to grow. On May 1st, 1927, the citizens of Fredericksburg celebrated the arrival of their new train station; additional wings and a raised platform allowed the station to handle the increased traffic.(3)
The train proved to be a vital asset during wartime. The government relied on the RF&P heavily during WWII to move soldiers and supplies, so much so that traffic on the rails at this time was at its highest point in RF&P history.(3) After the war was won and soldiers returned home, the automobile quickly found its way onto America’s growing stretches of roadways. The average American family now owned a car and no longer wanted to sit on a train to get where they needed to go. The station held on for a few more decades, but eventually faded into the background. In December 1976, Amtrak closed the ticket office and the station became unmanned. With only a caretaker on site only on weekdays (locals may remember caretaker Archie Elder), the station soon fell victim to neglect. Paint peeled off of the walls, the roof leaked onto the few passengers who continued to use the station, and dark corridors became a haven for unlawful activity and vandals.
Broken window at Fredericksburg Train Station before renovation.
The first big break in the journey to a rehabilitated station was Amtrak’s allocation of $50,000 for a new passenger platform roof in 1980. Amtrak was confident that the station rehabilitation might not cost as much as originally thought and that no other major work was needed.(4) Work on the roof was to begin in August of that year, but was delayed as the roof, and the riders, would have to wait. During the years that followed, riders were left to defend themselves against both the criminal and decaying structural elements that were making the station an eyesore on the historic downtown. To make matters worse, the station was not regularly inspected. In order to be inspected, the city had to declare it unsafe. To answer the public safety outcry, Amtrak and the RF&P teamed up with local police in 1988 to patrol the station daily.(5) The patrols were a success, but the floors were still crumbling, graffiti covered the walls, and corridors remained dark at night.
In June 1989, RF&P and Amtrak put an additional $200,000 toward the rehabilitation effort. These funds were only allocated to cover the bare bones of the building. The leaking roof, crumbling concrete, broken lights and windows would be fixed, but all cosmetic needs would have to wait.(6) Both the RF&P and Amtrak’s initial plans for the rehabilitation of the station did not comply with the city’s regulations for the renovation of a building in the historic district. The Architectural Review Board refused to permit the changes both companies proposed for the station, due to alterations such as removal of the original canopies over the passenger platforms and installation of modern glass shelters.(7) The RF&P claimed that they were not familiar with regulations for buildings in historical districts when they made their initial plan.(7)
Interior photo of the Fredericksburg Train Station before renovation.
Throughout the 1980s and 90s, the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. regularly advocated on behalf of the Fredericksburg train station. HFFI worked with city entities, ranging from City Council to the Architectural Review Board, to gather support and momentum for the preservation and rehabilitation of the station. The Foundation stressed rehabilitation and staying true to the historic design of the building, as opposed to a complete overhaul and modern redesign. HFFI was not only concerned with conserving the historical integrity of the building, but was also worried about the growing safety threat the decaying station had on the downtown community. Train riders and City Council members alike were eager to say goodbye to the crumbling train station and the dangers that came along with it. However, getting Amtrak, the RF&P, and local entities to agree on a deal to bring the Fredericksburg train station back to life would prove to be more difficult than any party imagined.
During this same time period, the RF&P reviewed the possibilities of turning the train station into a bustling center of commerce and downtown tourism; retail and factory outlet stores and tour coaches.(8) However, the RF&P was never able to negotiate a deal for redeveloping the station for retail. With no plans in place, the station continued to decay. Members of City Council grew impatient and made their voices heard. In the winter of 1989 Councilman Robert C. Wheeler referenced the large amount of money the RF&P spent on rail facilities in Richmond and Northern Virginia and urged the RF&P that it was time to invest in Fredericksburg.(9) Councilman H. William Greenup said it was “high time” that the station get restored and pressed for a time frame to hold all parties accountable.(8) Former Councilman W. Sidney Armstrong was disillusioned with the project, telling The Free Lance-Star in January, “I’m not sure there will ever be a whole lot done.”(9)
When work on the passenger platform roof finally started in 1990, things got off to a slow and frustrating start. After Amtrak and the RF&P removed the roof, work slowed to a halt. Upon spending roughly $65,000 on asbestos removal and setting aside another $135,000 for stabilizing the platform, both companies wanted to trim costs. (10) They hired inexpensive labor and sourced volunteer work from the community, to even include new cornice work done by a James Monroe High School shop class. Riders were still able to use the station during this time, but unfortunately, there was no roof to protect them from the elements. Councilman Gordon W. Shelton told The Free Lance-Star, “Stupidity tore the roof off before they had a plan in place.”(11)
Volunteers donate their time to bring the neglected Fredericksburg Train Station back to its previous glory.
The Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail was another issue hanging in the balance in 1990. City Council approval of a line through the town meant more riders and increased cooperation from Amtrak and RF&P to invest in Fredericksburg’s historic station.(10) Though downtown citizens, HFFI, and city entities were eager to bring more visitors to their historic town and revitalize the area, there were still concerns to be had, given the companies’ reluctance to fully support the station’s continued use. Chief among them, parking and traffic, which had to be carefully planned for and accommodated without significantly changing the character of the area.(12) To help fund the project, the city started collecting a 2% tax on gasoline in August 1990. By September 1991, the tax raised $800,000 for the city to put toward construction costs.
In early 1992, things were finally starting to look up. The Architectural Review Board had approved a design for a new VRE passenger platform adjacent to the old station and the first commuter train was scheduled to arrive in town June of that year.(13) Executive Director of HFFI, Catharine Gilliam, was pleased with the plan, which included new windows and lights in the passenger shelter that reflected the original design. Unfortunately, the initial bids on the project came in $350,000 too high, forcing the city to take a step back.(14) The platform design was revised, and work got off to a late start in April 1992. Construction crews worked around the clock during the weekend leading up to the opening of the station. The new VRE platform had ticket machines and was handicap accessible. On July 20, 1992, excited commuters left on the first VRE train out of Fredericksburg at 5:29 a.m.(15)
Though this was a hard-fought victory for Fredericksburg, both HFFI and citizens still hoped that something would be done with the old station across from the new VRE line. In 1992 the city submitted a proposal seeking federal grant money to aid in the rehabilitation of the station.(16) With $500,000 eventually awarded from the federal government to use on the rehabilitation, Fredericksburg was ready to make their station dreams a reality. Three years later, the station finally had a buyer. Business owners Gary and Catherine Musselman moved to Virginia in the early 1990s to find the old station in a sorry state. Inspired by the building’s history and potential, they signed a deal to buy it from the RF&P in 1995.(17) Joined by restaurant owner Claiborne Thomasson, the three put one million dollars toward the project, in addition to the $500,000 federal grant, and got to work.(18) Claiborne’s opened in October 1997 to great acclaim, ushering in a new era of fine dining in Fredericksburg, and breathing new life into the train station.
Today, the train station is once again the pride of Fredericksburg. Serving 117,423 riders annually, the station is a hive of activity in the historic downtown.(19) The station connects Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Washington, D.C., giving commuters and travelers alike an alternative to the gridlock on Interstate 95. Amtrak runs six trains through the station daily. Weary train riders searching for a bite to eat need not look far. The Bavarian Chef, a restaurant specializing in authentic German cuisine, is housed in the interior of the old train station. Although Fredericksburg Amtrak train riders can no longer buy a ticket to their destination at the old station, they can still admire the historic building and hear the train whistle blow as it rolls into town.
Sources
A young helper does his part during an HFFI volunteer clean-up day at the Fredericksburg Train Station
Wrenn, Tony P. “Tracking train station’s history.” The Free Lance-Star, February, 1999. Accessed April, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3wMzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iAgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3630%2C1271095
From Great Virginians to Gloria Swanson: A History of Smithfield and the Fredericksburg Country Club
/in Historic Buildings /by HFFI StaffFrom Great Virginians to Gloria Swanson: A History of Smithfield and the Fredericksburg Country Club
By Deborah Walters Pederson
(Abridged version—for the full article, see The Journal of Fredericksburg History, Volume 11)
The property known as Smithfield underwent a transformation common to many of the region’s plantations. In 1753, on the original Crown-issued patent given to Lawrence Smith in 1671, the Brooke family built the first great mansion—Smithfield—by the Rappahannock River. John Pratt, Jr., purchased Smithfield in 1813, but had to rebuild the house on the same location after the great fire in 1819, where it stands today. During the Civil War, Thomas Pratt was the owner of Smithfield—just a stone’s throw away from the Union front line during the December 1862 and May 1863 Battles of Fredericksburg. The Pratt family owned the great mansion until 1905.
The house was the site of a hospital serving the wounded of the Union First Corps’ First Division. Here, General Franklin had his headquarters and watched the 32,000 men of his Grand Division hurl themselves time after time at the lines of Stonewall Jackson, breaking the lines and thrusting through the gaps with victory in their grasp, only to be driven back. In front of the mansion house, General Doubleday moved with his division of infantry, and to the left, General Rufus Dawes made the charge against Jackson’s lines. Nearby, the Union army threw two pontoon bridges across the Rappahannock River to allow the army to cross. Today, within walking distance, are several gun pits in original condition.
A member of the Second Pennsylvania Reserves recounted the seizure of Smithfield on December 12, 1862: “Our regiment was sent to occupy the buildings and out-houses at ‘Smithfield,’ and to hold the bridge across Deep Run actually another, unnamed creek, which had been dammed to create the pond. The main building was Dr. Thomas Pratt’s large brick house, which, being unoccupied, we entered through a window, and found it very handsomely furnished. Colonel McCandless caused the arrest of the overseer and two other white men and sent them off to be detained until the battle as over.”
Smithfield was subsequently converted to a hospital. Another Union infantryman penned this account of his unnerving sojourn near the building later that day: “We came to the halt near a large brick plantation house that was being used for a field hospital. It was an awful sight to see hosts of wounded men being brought there, the ghastly amputating tables, the surgeons at work and the piles of arms and limbs and the poor fellows laid in rows in and around the house and outbuildings. We stopped here but a short time, but all of us were not sorry when we got orders to move.”
Page from a 1926 Mannsfield Country Club publication highlighting visitor Gloria Swanson.
From 1866 to 1868, workmen disinterred the remains of 78 Union soldiers at “Pratt’s Farm” (Smithfield), and moved them to the Fredericksburg National Cemetery.
The next owner was Conroy Vance. He bought adjoining property and renamed his home Mannsfield Farm. He was a banker and valued member of the community. In 1922, after he and his wife died in the Knickerbocker Theater in Washington, DC, when the roof collapsed due to heavy snow. Vance’s greatest wish had been for the area to have a country club. His dream came true after his death; in May 1925, several local businessmen got together and formed the Mannsfield Hall Country Club. It was the grandest of openings, with the Sid Shannon Serenaders band, Japanese lanterns glistening, and the townspeople dressed in their best formal clothes dancing till dawn. The Club became a social hub of the community as it is today.
On October, 19, 1928, the nearby battlefields were dedicated on the front steps of Mannsfield Hall Country Club. What a day it was—President Coolidge and many prominent figures came to the Country Club to formally dedicate the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. More than 5,000 people attended, including many luminaries, as recorded by The Free Lance-Star.
During the ceremony, the United States Marines from Quantico were placed in charge of securing the city streets and escorting the presidential party. Representing the South during the unveiling was Miss Rebecca Mason Lee, great niece of General Fitzhugh Lee and a great granddaughter of Captain Sidney Smith Lee, Robert E. Lee’s brother. Representing the North was Miss Clem, daughter of General Clem, USA (Retired). During the ceremonies, while the President was speaking and the tablet was unveiled, cameras clicked and movie cameras filled the air with the sound of their cranks as thousands of people watched.
Unlike many historic houses in the region, Smithfield/Mannsfield Hall Country Club/Fredericksburg Country Club still lives. The echoes of those who trod the halls and grounds before us still reverberate— the Brookes, the Pratts, their slaves (names unknown, quarters vanished, and burial places unrecorded), soldiers by the thousands, the Vance family, golfers by the foursomes (including Gloria Swanson), and even a president. The story continues, but what a good thing it is to pause and remember, as Judge Francis Brooke mused: “Tis pleasant to recall our former days, what we have been, and done, and seen, and heard, and write it down for those we love, to read.”
Click image to view film footage of the President Calvin Coolidge’s visit to Smithfield and downtown Fredericksburg in 1928.
Sources
Francis H. Brooke, A Family Narrative (New York: The New York times & Arno Press, 1971)
Free Lance-Star, November 23, 1909, January 31, 1922, May 14, 1925, May 13, 1932
Gershon Fishbein, “A Winter’s Tale of Tragedy,” Washington Post, January 22, 2009
Noel G. Harrison, Fredericksburg Civil War Sites, December 1862-April 1865 (Lynchburg, 1990)
Virginia Gazette, November 15, 1770, August 1, 1771, September 2, 1773
Virginia Herald, April 3 and July 10, 1804, May 15, 1819, April 20, 1833, April 22, 1835
For the complete bibliography see the full article in The Journal of Fredericksburg History, Volume 11
Read more about the easement that HFFI holds on the Fredericksburg Country Club in the following Free Lance-Star articles from March, 2016.
March 14, 2016 Free Lance-Star article
March 18, 2016 Free Lance-Star editorial
Five-story “One Hanover” condominium project
/in Riverfront Development /by HFFI StaffImage compilation by Preserve FXBG. Black and white drawing source – ARB application, NBJ Architecture. Color image source – Google Earth
On Monday, March 14th, the Fredericksburg Architectural Review Board (ARB) will review an application for a five-story condominium project to be located at the corner of Sophia and Hanover Streets. This building is proposed to be 56′ tall. The project received a variance from the city to allow it to be built 6′ taller than the current height limit.
This building will be 10′ taller than the recently proposed townhouses on the 300 block of George Street.
The proposed design was approved in 2013 but that expired after one year, so they must now reapply. This is our one chance to speak up and get public comment on the record about the project.
Image source – ARB application, NBJ Architecture
HFFI is not against the development of this corner, we understand that in growing we sometimes must sacrifice things, and we would like to see a compromise when it comes to the design of this building. The building’s height is the largest of our concerns. We hope with enough voices from the community we can encourage a scaled down version of this project.
If you would like to comment on this project, please come to the ARB meeting on Monday evening, March 14th at 7:30 p.m. You do not need to put your name on a list ahead of time, just attend and come forward when the case is being heard.
Click here to learn more about the current One Hanover project application.
Read the March 11th Free Lance-Star article about the project here.
It is the collective voice of our community that speaks the loudest, and we are very grateful for your input!
Read the full agenda for the March, 14, 2016 Fredericksburg ARB meeting
When contacting or addressing members of the Architectural Review Board, please remember to be polite and courteous. They give much of their time to make the city a better place; please be respectful in your communication.
NOTE: When speaking before the Architectural Review Board, City Council, or the City’s other Boards and Commissions, please respect the following guidelines:
Clearly state your name and address.
Take no more than five (5) minutes (brevity is appreciated).
Confine your comments to City business.
Personal attacks on board members or others will not be tolerated.
Follow us on Facebook to see the latest and join the conversation
Additional Updates
3/11/2016
Read the comments from 2013 HFFI Executive Director, Sean Maroney, when the project was first brought before the ARB (2013). In his comments Mr. Maroney urges the ARB (and all citizens) to consider the implications of the many large-scale projects being considered, or that have already being constructed, in downtown Fredericksburg—many being more than 60,000 square-feet.
ARB_05132013_MaroneyComments
If you cannot attend the meeting and would like to submit comments to the ARB, they can be sent to Kate Schwartz, Historic Resources Planner, [email protected]. She will then forward them onto the members of the ARB and enter them into the public record.