The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia: An Archeological and Historical Investigation of the Port Town for Stafford County and the Plantation of John Mercer, Including Data Supplied by Frank M. Setzler and Oscar H. DarterWatkins, C. Malcolm
History
The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia: An Archeological and Historical Investigation of the Port Town for Stafford County and the Plantation of John Mercer, Including Data Supplied by Frank M. Setzler and Oscar H. Darter
Watkins, C. Malcolm
Excavations (Archaeology) -- Virginia -- Marlborough; Marlborough (Va.) -- Antiquities; Mercer, John, 1704-1768; Plantation life -- Virginia
Inevitably, perhaps, history repeated itself. In 1710 the Act for Ports,
like its predecessors, was rescinded. The reasons given in London were
brief and straightforward; the Act, it was explained, was "designed to
Encourage by great Priviledges the settling in Townships." These
settlements would encourage manufactures, which, in turn, would promote
"further Improvement of the said manufactures, And take them off from
the Planting of Tobacco, which would be of Very Ill consequence," thus
lessening the colony's dependence on the Kingdom, affecting the import
of tobacco, and prejudicing shipping.[18] Clearly, the Crown did not
want the towns to succeed, nor would it tolerate anything which might
stimulate colonial self-dependence. The Virginia colonists' dream of
corporate communities was not to be realized.
Most of the towns either died entirely or struggled on as crossroads
villages. A meager few have survived to the present, notably Norfolk,
Hampton, Yorktown, and Tappahannock. Marlborough lasted as a town until
about 1720, but in about 1718 the courthouse and several dwellings were
destroyed by fire and "A new Court House being built at another Place,
all or most of the Houses that had been built in the said Town, were
either burnt or suffered to go to ruin."[19]
The towns were artificial entities, created by acts of assembly, not by
economic or social necessity. In the few places where they filled a
need, notably in the populous areas of the lower James and York Rivers,
they flourished without regard to official status. In other places, by
contrast, no law or edict sufficed to make them live when conditions did
not warrant them. In sparsely settled Stafford especially there was
little to nurture a town. It was easier, and perhaps more exciting, to
grow tobacco and gamble on a successful crop, to go in debt when things
were bad or lend to the less fortunate when things were better. In the
latter case land became an acceptable medium for the payment of debts.
Land was wealth and power, its enlargement the means of greater
production of tobacco--tobacco again the great gamble by which one would
always hope to rise and not to fall. When one could own an empire, why
should one worry about a town?
FOOTNOTES:
[16] Ibid., pp. 404-419.
[17] "Petition of John Mercer" (1748), (Ludwell papers,
Virginia Historical Society), _VHM_ (Richmond, 1898), vol. 5,
pp. 137-138.
[18] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other
Manuscdit. William P. Palmer, M.D.
(Richmond, 1875), vol. 1, pp. 137-138.
[19] _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_ (Richmond, 1909), pp.
285-286.
ESTABLISHING COURTHOUSES
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account