Historical Richmond, Va

[lord of the mark]

I was in Richmond a week ago. I saw the canal walk, starting at the Tredegar Iron works, which in addition to being part of Richmonds pre and post civil war industrialization, was a key confederate munitions manufacturer during the civil war. I learned about the canals which both powered the works, and brought in raw materials, as they did more Richmonds many mills.

I walked along the canal, learning more of Richmonds industrial history, and also about a slavery, and some attempted rebellions, and succesful escapes. And the Newport cross, marking the first exploration of the area in the early 17th century.

Also dined with QOTM at historic Shockoe Bottom, the beginning of the warehouse district.

[Patroklos]

I like Richmond, but unfortunetly most of its pre Civil War history was burned with the city in 1865.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

How old is the place, and how much of the city consists of antiquities? It might make my "must visit" list.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
How old is the place, and how much of the city consists of antiquities? It might make my "must visit" list.

the place was founded, in theory, as a trading post shortly after the colony was founded, when Smith and Newport bought an island in the James from Powhatan in 1607-1608. But there wasnt a town there till William Byrd settled one below the rapids in about 1675 (he named the place after Richmond on Thames, IIUC). And theres very little there from before 1770 or so, AFAIK. There is some surviving pre-civil war stuff, including the state house, designed by Jefferson, a church associated with Patrick Henry, and some pre civil war industrial buildings, including the remains of Tredegar itself. The fire was mainly on the west side of town, and Tredagar was saved by its owners and empoloyees. Theres plenty of post civil war 19th c industrial buildings, and some wonderful late 19th c residential neighborhoods.

If you want more early stuff, about 20 minutes down river are several 17th and 18th century plantations. We didnt have time, but plan to see them when we go back.

About 20 minutes south of Richmond is Petersburg, again major civil war history. It was founded around 1700 I think, though an early exploration up the Appomatox river was launched from there in the early 17th c.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Confederate White House (and Museum) was a pretty interesting part of history as well.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
...a church associated with Patrick Henry...

St. John's Church, where Henry said:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark If you want more early stuff, about 20 minutes down river are several 17th and 18th century plantations. We didnt have time, but plan to see them when we go back.

About 20 minutes south of Richmond is Petersburg, again major civil war history. It was founded around 1700 I think, though an early exploration up the Appomatox river was launched from there in the early 17th c.

Also, Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown are all within an hour's drive of Richmond.

[DAVOUT]

I am impressed by Patrick Henry's speech. I would appreciate that experts in English language explain if today orators' style must be different. To make my question clear, if I did not know that it was delivered in 1775 I could have as well dated it on 2000, or today.

[DanS]

He's about one-fourth the way to Shakespeare.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I am impressed by Patrick Henry's speech. I would appreciate that experts in English language explain if today orators' style must be different. To make my question clear, if I did not know that it was delivered in 1775 I could have as well dated it on 2000, or today.

There's some tell-tale signs that date the speech. For example, in the paragraph:

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

Today, public speakers try to identify themselves as a common man speaking to common men, and would rarely if ever use the word "sir."

"God of nature" is a term from the Enlightenment.

No one says "hath" anymore.

While speakers might call on God's help, only extremely reglious speakers would wind the expectation of God's help into a speech. Likewise, no "holy causes."

So today, this paragraph would be something like:

We are not weak if we make a proper use of the means which nature has placed in our hands: Three million people, armed in the cause of liberty. And in such a blessed country as we possess, we are invincible against any force which our enemy can send against us. The justice and liberty for which we fight will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.