Young Martha Dandridge Custis

Young Martha Dandridge Custis

Saturday, October 12, 2024

Militia 1698

1698 

An Abstract of The Militia Within The Several Counties of Virginia As They Were Returned By The Respective Officers

New Kent - Col. Wm Byrd


                                                Capt Wm Bassett     a troop 47

                                                Capt Jos Foster        a troop         44

                                                Capt Jno Liddal a troop         102

                                                Capt Lancelot Bathurst         78

                                                Capt Fr Burnell *                 76

                                                                        347

                                                                       

-'Virginia Militia Officers, 1698', The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1941),


New Kent at that time would have included Hanover and Louisa to the west and on the east the York River coast of James City. It would have lacked the Chickahominy River area from Providence Forge to Lanexa. William Byrd did not live in New Kent but commanded the militia units of Henrico and New Kent.


* Could very well be 'Burrell'


Monday, September 30, 2024

Fort Harrison- September 1864- Pt II

 The follow up to Friday's post on the capture of Fort Harrison, and the role in its defense by the Pamunkey Artillery . . . another letter to the Richmond Sentinel.




                                                [Correspondence to the Sentinel.]

                                CHAFFIN'S BLUFF, Oct 11, 1864


Mr. Editor- Inasmuch as there seems to be great misunderstanding in regard to the part taken by the battalion of artillery stationed at this place, in the fight with the enemy on the 29th of September, when the advance was made on our line of defences, immediately below this place, and as there seems to be a strong disposition on the part of some, who are entirely ignorant of the whole affair, to attach all the blame of the fall of Fort Harrison to our battalion, of the sake of justice, I desire to make a plain  statement of facts, that the public may know who are to blame and who are not.
About 5 o'clock on the morning of the 29th September, the battalion, hardly two hundred strong, (more than one hundred of it being on duty at Signal Hill, about -- miles below, was marched to the breastworks.- Thirty five men of the Goochland Artillery, under Lieut. Guerrant, were ordered to Fort  Harrison; the remainder, ten, were at Fort Gilmer, manning the two guns there. These even lighted the fuses in their shells and rolled them down on the enemy in the ditch, when they were too close for their pieces. - The James City artillery, commanded by Lieut. Davis, were sent North of Fort Harrison, on the Varina road, to man four pieces of artillery there, two of which could not be used on account of the ammunition being too large. The others were worked until nearly all the ammunition was expended, and the enemy between them and our lines. The men then made their way back as best they could and, as infantry, helped to repulse a charge of the enemy on a redoubt next to Fort Harrison, and afterwards the attack on Fort Gilmer.
The Lunenburg artillery, Captain Allen; Howitzer company, Lieut. Winder; and Pamunkey artillery, Capt. Jones- the three numbering less than one hundred and twenty five men- were ordered to defend the line of works from Fort Harrison to the river- about a mile and a half- with no infantry support. Capt. Allen had a detachment of fourteen men with him in a redoubt next to and commanded by Fort Harrison. The remainder of his company were in different detachments, considerably lower down the line. As soon as the enemy came in view of the fort, the guns were opened on them, and continued to fire until after the infantry support had left, and Lt. Col. Maury, Maj. Taylor, Adjutant Ellerson, and six of the Goochland artillery were captured at the guns.- While the infantry, which were there to support the  artillery, (a portion of them Reserves, which a certain newspaper editor of Richmond delights so much to extol for their gallantry, left the fort, many of them before the enemy had got within good musket range. Soon after the guns in the fort had opened Capt. Allen did so from his redoubt. Our guns lower down the line were in such a position that the enemy could not be seen from them until they were rushing late the fort, and then our men were kept from firing by a captain of some other command, who said that the enemy were our own men falling back. Capt. Allen continued to fire after they had  captured the fort, until he was flanked; he then fell back to the third redoubt from the fort, with Lieut. Winder, who had hauled two howitzers by hand some three hundred yards, under fire of the enemy, and put them in position in the third redoubt; and there Capt. Allen and Lieut. Winder, with less than one hundred men, with two small howitzers, one twenty-four pound siege piece and a lot of smoothbore muskets; and Capt. Jones a little farther back, in another redoubt, with but a handful of men and two pieces of artillery, check the triumphant advance of the enemy for nearly an hour, when that portion of the battalion on duty at Signal Hill, and a portion of Johnson's Tennessee brigade, came to our assistance; but had we not held the position, all of these would have been cut off and probably captured.
And now Mr. Editor, since there are some very wise and officious persons, who are so desirous of giving this battalion all the blame for the fall of Fort Harrison, when there was only 35 men of it there, and some of those were taken at the guns, when, too, the enemy admit that our artillery fire was very destructive, I desire that those will tell who checked the advance of the enemy and kept them from coming to and capturing the Bluff while our gunboats were below, and having command of our lower pontoon bridge, as their papers falsely state they do.
And I would further state that late in the evening, when reinforcements came, General Pickett's men were charged the enemy cut off the two redoubts next to Fort Harrison, that a portion of our battalion joined them and were among the foremost in the charge, as some of General Pickett's men can testify.
But some may say, that after remaining silent so long, we might have remained so in reply, we have to say, that several communications have been sent to a certain paper in Richmond, called, by some, the soldier's friend, and neither have been heard from; not even from an official list of casualties- and we feel that we have a right to demand that justice which, though tardy, is sweet to those who having done their duty feel they deserve it.


                                                                JUSTITIA

-The Sentinel(Richmond), October 13, 1864


Sunday, September 29, 2024

Fort Harrison - September 1864

 


NPS map of portion Richmond National Battlefield Park

The Union moves north of the James River in the early fall of 1864 led to the capture of the Confederate Fort Harrison on the 28th of September, 1864. Fort Harrison is probably know to most people in New Kent at the main component of the Richmond National Battlefield Park in eastern Henrico. The fort has another connection to New Kent other than that of simple proximity; the Pamunkey Artillery, also know as Jones' Company, Heavy Artillery as well as a few other names, was an artillery regiment raised in New Kent. Battery sized, this unit operated not field artillery, but the heavier pieces used to defend fortified positions.

What follows is a "letter to the editor" written to the Richmond Sentinel in October 1864 by a Confederate soldier describing the roles of the various artillery companies in the unsuccessful defense of the fort.



                                 CHAFFIN'S BLUFF,
                                October 8th, 1864


I have heard so much, for the last few days, about what part this battalion acted in the engagement near here, on the 29th of September last, I feel that justice should be done, if possible. For about ten days before the 29th, over one hundred and fifty of our battalion had been detailed to throw up works at "Signal Hill," about two mile below here. On the morning of the advance of the enemy, the few remaining men were ordered to proceed out to our line of fortifications between here and "Signal Hill." Very soon after the enemy appeared in front of "Fort Harrison." A small portion of the Goochland Artillery were in the fort; Capt. Allen, with a small portion of the Lunenburg Artillery, was to the right in a small redoubt; Lieut. Winder, with two small howitzers, was to his right; Capt. Jones, with a portion of the Pamunkey Artillery, to his right. When the enemy entered Fort Harrison, Captain Allen was forced with his few men, to join Lieut. Winder. They then for several hours kept the enemy in check until about ten o'clock, when Captain A. received a painful wound in the right hand. Shortly after, other troops came to their assistance. Then the enemy were completely checked. Lieut. Col. J.M. Ellerson, had left the Bluff early in the morning for Fort Harrison, where they were all taken prisoners by the rapid advance of the enemy. All testify to the bravery of Captain Allen and Lieutenant Winder, during the whole engagement. They had but a few men, until our other men joined them from Signal Hill, but they disposed them to the best advantage. I hope before long the case can be made to all, that what few men we had here should not be blamed for the fall of Fort Harrison. If our battalion had not been scattered so much, the enemy would never have occupied any of the works. I am happy to say the small portion of the works the enemy occupy does them no material service towards their "on to Richmond." Hoping some abler pen may take this matter in hand, I will say no more for the present.


                                                                L.G.C.


-The Sentinel(Richmond), October 12, 1864


This is a reposting from 2014 

Monday, September 2, 2024

100 Years Ago

                                          

                                      SEIZE BIG STILL IN NEW KENT CO. 

Plant, Located on Island in Chickahominy, Said to Be Owned  Here. 

State and federal officers yesterday descended in force on a distilling plant, supposed to be owned by Richmonders, in New Kent county and captured a 800-gallon still, thirteen fifty-gallon fermenters and two 500 gallon fermenters. 

The raid was participated in by State Inspectors J.C. Dillard. V.O. Smith, J.N. Wood. J.C. Elliott. P. O. Nance and W.F. Gregory, and Federal Agents W.L. Willis and S.W. Davis. 

The seizure was made on the Chickahominy river near Bottom's Bridge. The still was constructed of  copper and wood and was of the so-called submarine style. It was located on a small island in a marsh. The officers had to go through water and muck waist-deep to get to it. 

    Floated Materials. 

It is believed that the still was used during the high-water period when materials could be floated in and the distilled product floated out. It is thought that with the coming of low-water it was abandoned with the purpose of making it again a base of operations in the fall. 

Inspector T.M. Gravely today reported the seizure of a sixty-gallon copper still on Little Creek, in Tazewell county. The officers laid in wait from dawn to late in the afternoon. But no one appeared and therefore they took the still and went on their way. A seventy-five gallon still was also taken in the same county.


-News Leader, 29 August 1924

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

The "Cross-House" in New Kent Pt V

 

Criss Cross stands on a gentle knoll surrounded by cultivated fields and woodland and is reached by unpaved state and private roads. The house enjoys an immediate environment whose character has changed little since it was built late in the seventeenth century. Although much altered, the house retains its original overall appearance and important late-seventeenth century detailing.

The brick house is T-shaped in plan, and like nearby Foster's Castle, and the Mathew Jones house in Newport News, it was a one or a one-and-a half-story building with a two-story single-bay projection in the center of the facade. The original walls are Flemish bond with glazed headers, constructed of unusually thick bricks, averaging 8 314" x 4 1/4" x 3 114". The watertable consists of mixed Flemish and English bonds on the main body of the house, with predominantly Flemish on the porch projection. Much of the brickwork of the front wall of the projection has been replaced, but it retains a belt course that wraps around the sides between the first and second floors and breaks upward on the front projection to emphasize the doorway.  

The three brick gables were replaced with wood in the nineteenth- century, the east end wall being completely rebuilt in wood. At that time the porch projection was raised several feet and given a less steeply  pitched gable roof. The brick exterior end chimneys also date from the nineteenth century. However, the original ones apparently were in the same position since the interior summer bean runs the length of the rooms rather than being shortened by chimneys projecting inward. In the same period, the eastern half of the main body was raised to two stories. The window openings are in their original locations, but the trim and sash date from the n nineteenth century. Exterior restoration in 1953 removed the addition above the porch chamber and returned its roof to the approximate original pitch. Also during this restoration the frame second floor was removed from the main body. The pitch of the western end of the main roof is believed to have remained unchanged, and Harden De V. Pratt, the restoration architect, found one rafter in situ that he believed to be original. The later brickwork of the front wall of the projection was replaced with new Flemish bond, as was the frame east end. Wood was retained as the material of the new gables, rather than rebuilding them in brick. 

Tradition has it that the frame back wing was added in 1790, and this addition appears to have been raised from one-and-a-half to two stories in the second half of the nineteenth century. As part of the restoration of 1953, the back wing was encased in one story of brick and given a gambrel roof. Pratt believed that he found evidence of an original north wing in the brick work of the north wall. Such a wing, perhaps containing the original stair, could have mirrored the form of the existing porch chamber and formed a genuine cross plan, but no definite evidence was recorded and it can not be safely assumed that an original wing existed the location.

The original interior plan consisted of a hall-and-parlor on the first floor, the larger room being entered from the enclosed porch chamber. With the 1790 addition, the entrance front was changed from the south to the north, through the new wing. At some point, the eastern part of the large hall room was partitioned off to form a center hall plan. The partition was removed in the recent restoration and the main block of the house was returned to a hall-and-parlor plan. 

The exterior of Criss Cross has suffered a number of alterations, but significant exterior fabric survived and the building has now been returned to its general original appearance. As such, it is one of Virginia's four existing Tudor-Stuart style structures with porch projections, the others being nearby Foster's Castle, the Mathew Jones House in Newport News, and Bacon's Castle in Surry County. The two story porch projection appears to represent a major seventeenth and very early eighteenth century Virginia building form. The interior contains especially rare period framing and details, the hall-porch door and post carving being the only such survival in the state.

Little is known about Criss Cross' early history, but according to tradition, it was built by George Poindexter about 1690. Poindexter had moved to New Kent County from Gloucester by 1681, when he is recorded as being in St. Peter's Parish. He was elected a vestryman of the parish in 1690, but he refused to serve. The back wing was added around 1790. The house is believed to have left the Poindexter family circa 1830, and J.F. Gilmer's 1863 map of the county shows that Criss Cross was occupied by S. P. Marsters, with Poindexters still living in the area. The house is said to have been used as a commissary during the War Between the States, and aa a refuge for Mrs. Fitzhugh Lee after the destruction of nearby White House by Federal Forces in 1862. The present owners, Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Harrison, bought the house in 1953 and undertook extensive restoration. They did not attempt to return the house to its exact original form, however, and therefore interesting post-seventeenth century interior details were retained.

                                                                    E.A.C.

 

 

-Historic American Buildings Survey Inventory1958 Federal Library of Congress




Location of Criss Cross on 1863 Gilmer map



Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Foster's Castle Images - Pt IV

 Since there was some interest in actual images form the last post here we have some photographs and plans from the Historic American Buildings Survey at the Library of Congress website.






















Tuesday, August 20, 2024

The "Cross-House" in New Kent Pt III

 Today on our architectural dive into Seventeenth Century New Kent we look at Foster's Castle from the Historic American Buildings Survey Inventory (see bottom) 


Foster's Castle is located in the sparsely populated north·west section of New Kent County. The building stands amid cultivated fields whose limits, now as in the seventeenth century, are formed by the Pamunkey River to the north, marshland to the east and west, and irregular terrain to the south. Although the building has sustained considerable alteration, most of the exterior fabric has survived, and the original appearance of the house is obvious.

The T-shaped brick building, constructed as one or one-and-a-half stories with two-story central projection at the front, is similar to neighboring Criss Cross. The main body of the house was raised to a full two stories with a low pitched roof in 1873, and window openings were altered. The original brickwork, that had been whitewashed prior to the alteration, contrasts with the dark red brickwork-used to fill in window openings and raise the walls. The old steep roof line can be seen on the interior of the end walls, where the nineteenth century masonry is not as thick as the original work.

The earlier roof is said to have had four dormer windows; these may have been rare seventeenth-century examples or they may have been later additions. Except for three small first-floor end windows, whose arched openings arc original, but whose frames and sash appear to date from the early nineteenth century, all window openings have been altered. Both front and back walls were pierced by two large openings that had to be partially. filled in before the 1873 windows could be added. Each of the four openings (one now·· destroyed or obscured by a mid-twentieth century addition to the back) must have held a series of perhaps three vertical windows, probably casement with leaded panes. The filling in at the sill and lintel levels of all visible window openings may represent evidence of an architectural treatment similar to that seen in the window surrounds on the second floor of Bacons-Castle in Surry County. The main entrance to the house is, as it was originally, through the two-story projection. The two side windows on the first floor of the projection and the three windows on the second level have been slightly relocated, but they are in the same general position, and are of approximate size of the originals. An interesting detail, now surviving only in outline, was the round window in the gable of the porch chamber. 

The treatment of the string course is a notable exterior feature of the house, and there are period parallels in England and Virginia. Although partially covered by a modern porch, it can be seen that the two course thick stringer wraps around the two-story projection between first and second floors, breaking upward at a right angle above the doorway to emphasize that centralized feature. The same motif was used on the west wall of Carter's Creek in Gloucester County, and one is also seen on Criss Cross' projection, while a more elaborate version embellishes the entrance to Bacon's Castle. Unlike Criss Cross, the brick gable of the projection survives here, and its base is marked by another two-course thick stringer. Also unlike Criss Cross, Foster's Castle's end chimneys are interior, and the unbroken end walls are marked by a stringer between the first floor and garret levels. The chimney stacks are rebuilt, at least above ridge level.

The brickwork exhibits an unusual selection of bonds. The bond of the front (south) wall and two-story projection above the watertable is with glazed headers, all corner headers and some closers being glazed.

 This Flemish bond is the most carefully finished brickwork on the house, although all the masonry is relatively crude. The back and end walls are laid in Flemish cross bond alternating rows of stretchers and stretcher/ headers. Below the watertable, a mixture of bonds occurs: English on the west wall, predominantly Flemish cross bond on the east wall and part of the porch projection, and an unusual bond on the north and parts of the south wall comprised of alternating rows of stretchers, with the non-stretcher rows alternating between headers and stretcher/headers.

The interior was altered prior to the raising of the roof. One now enters from the enclosed porch chamber into a central stair hall, although the original plan may have resembled Criss Cross, where entrance from the porch is directly into the larger of two first floor rooms. The stair in the central hall appears to date from the beginning of the nineteenth century, although it retains some earlier forms. The stair consists of a short run, landing with quarter-turn, and the main run to the second floor.

The rather heavily-molded hand rail is supported by square balusters and posts. The cabinetry of the stair is a pleasing example of circa 1800 work, with vertical raised panels and sawn brackets. First floor mantels, in the east and west rooms exhibit pilasters and reeding typical of about the same period, but brackets supporting shelves above place their date at circa 1830-40. Doors vary in style and date, being contemporary with both the stair and mantels.

The basement, which is excavated only under the hall and east room, is reached by an exterior door in the cast wall. The opening may be original, although the door is not.

Colonel Joseph Foster is believed to have built the Castle between 1685 and 1690 although the loss of New Kent County records in the War Between the States makes definite attribution difficult. Foster was a first generation English emigrant, coming from Newport, Southampton. He represented New Kent County as a burgess in 1688, 1696, and 1700-1702, and was a county sheriff, justice, and lieutenant-colonel of the militia. He was appointed vestryman of Saint Peters Parish in 1690 and Church Warden in 1692 and he acted as supervisor of the construction of the present Saint Peters in 1701-1703. Foster died about 1715, leaving issue.

Later owners of the house were Mrs. Maria Brumley and William Payne Waring. The 1863 Gilmer Confederate-map of New Kent labels Foster's Castle as "Brumley,”(see below) and shows four buildings there, one next to the existing, house and two just to the south-east, across the present farm road. The property was purchased by Dr. J. C. Gregory in 1872 and he altered the house in the next year. The Gregory family still owns and occupies the house.

Foster's Castle shares with nearby Criss Cross, the Mathew Jones House in Newport News, and Bacon's Castle in Surry County the distinction of being one of Virginia's four surviving Tudor-Stuart style structures with porch projections. Such houses, distinguished by two-story single bay entrance projections in the center of the facade appear to represent a major seventeenth and very early-eighteenth century Virginia building form. Foster's Castle, with its interesting masonry architectural features is a rare survival of this distinctive and once-widespread form.


                                                                    E.A.C.


 -Historic American Buildings Survey Inventory1958 Federal Library of Congress



"The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun in 1933. As such, it established methodologies that are now standard practice within the field such as the surveying and listing of historic sites and the creation of documentation for public benefit. It was founded through a unique private-public partnership with the National Park Service (NPS), Library of Congress (LC), and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to record America's architectural heritage. Creation of the program was motivated primarily by the perceived need to mitigate the negative effects of rapidly vanishing architectural resources upon our built environment, history, and culture."


                                 (see above)