Historical Structure Project: Magnolia Grange

Description:

Magnolia Grange was built in 1823 by William Winfree, and is notable as one of the few examples of Federal architecture still standing in Chesterfield county. The house stands two stories tall, and is laid out in a simple, double-pile design with a central passage on both floors. On the first floor there is a parlor, dining room, modernized kitchen, music room, and a central stairwell. The second floor holds a library, guest bedroom, nursery, and a master bedroom. Over the years the house has retained almost all of its original trim. The most notable examples include the elaborate Federal mantels, cornices and ceiling medallions in the parlor dining room. The second-floor rooms are also significant for their mantels, as well as their molded chair rails.  The central passageway is largely taken up by the open-string, u-shaped stairway. The exterior of the house is constructed of brick. The façade was laid using Flemish bond, while the side and rear walls were laid using common bond. The façade is dominated by a central, two-story portico that features a double door with elliptical fanlights and sidelights on both levels. The entirety of the house is encircled by Doric style cornice.[1]

Historical Context:

Magnolia Grange is significant mainly for its architecture. In addition to being one of the oldest remaining houses in the county, it is also one of the very few formal brick houses of its kind in the area. While it may lack the curved interiors of many Federal style buildings, its detailed and beautiful interior and exterior have set it apart from other buildings in the county since it was built.[2] Another area of significance is the contributions of some of its residents to the community. One of the residents, Stephen Duval, built a tavern on the northern end of the property. Though the tavern is no longer standing, for a time it helped bring business to the community. Later, the descendants of Emma Cogbill, who purchased the property in 1881, would make an even greater impact on the community. Several of them served as Commonwealth’s attorneys, a state senator, and a county clerk.[3] One final area of significance is the house’s Civil War history. In May, 1864, Magnolia Grange (then simply known as the Winfree House) was at the center of the Battle of Chester Station.[4] According to at least one report the house was used to provide cover for Union sharpshooters, and the Union artillery batteries were so close their shots shattered the windows.[5] Whether these stories are true is not known for certain, however it is undoubtable that Magnolia Grange was the center of the fighting.

History of Treatment:

Magnolia Grange has housed many different owners over its history. It was originally built in 1823 by William Winfree, whose family had deep roots in the area. The property remained in the Winfree family until 1845. After being sold by the family, the house went through multiple owners, many of whom were forced to sell the house due to financial troubles soon after acquiring it. This cycle continued until 1861 when the house was purchased by Stephen Duval. After Duval the house was owned by two more residents before being acquired by Emma Cogbill in 1881. This marked the beginning of Magnolia Grange’s single longest period of ownership, as the house remained in the Cogbill family until 1969 when it was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Philip Daffron, who owned the house at the time of its inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.[6] The property was later owned briefly by the Magnolia Investments Association before being purchased by the County of Chesterfield which is the current owner.[7]

Magnolia Grange has seen very little major change since it was built. The only major additions to the interior of the house are a remodeled, modern kitchen[8] and the recent installation of a modern HVAC system.[9] The exterior of the house has seen more significant change. The rear wall has required significant rebuilding due to issues regarding its structural integrity. The rear wall also originally featured a one-story porch that was removed sometime before the Cogbill family sold the house. The roof of the building features five chimneys, but only four are original. The fifth chimney is fake and was built to conceal wiring and ductwork that was installed during restoration. Finally, there is a partial cellar below the house that was dug c. 1900 in order to provide room for the installation of a furnace.[10]

Current and Future Use:

Magnolia Grange is primarily used today as a house museum depicting life in the early 19^th century. However, it also serves a number of other functions. It is used by the county to host visiting officials from other cities and counties as well as hold official county ceremonies and historical society functions. The house is also home to the Chesterfield County Historical Society’s gift shop. It is the goal of the historical society to one day be able to rent the building for use in private events. Before that can happen however, there are a number of improvements that need to be done. There is a campaign underway to raise enough money to pay for necessities such as new carpet, paint, wallpaper, repairs to the molding, extermination work, new furniture, and basement and baseboard repairs. [11]

This picture shows the hipped roof
characteristic of Federal architecture.

Physical Investigation:

Magnolia Grange has many features that identify it as a Federal style structure. These can be used to narrow down the time in which it was constructed.

1.      Elliptical entryway fanlights. These fanlights are typical of Federal constructions[12] and soon went out of style when Greek Revival architecture became common in the 1830s and 1840s.[13]

The exterior cornice can
be seen at the top of the
portico.

2.      Low hipped roof. While not limited solely to Federal architecture, this type of roof is the most common type used on Federal structures.[14]

3.      Decorative exterior cornice. This again is not limited to Federal structures, but is  a typical feature of them.[15]

4.      Elaborate, decorative mantles.

5.  Ceiling medallions.

6.      Curved, classically decorated staircase.[16]

The entryway is dominated by this elaborate staircase.

An example of the many ceiling medallions
Magnolia Grange features.

Bibliography:

Chesterfield County. “Base Parcel Information, Magnolia Grange.” Real Estate Assessments. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.chesterfield.gov/eservices/realestateassessments/LegacyService/Detail_Base.asp

Chesterfield County Historical Society. “Own a Piece of Chesterfield County History.” Chesterfield County Historical Society. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://chesterfieldhistory.com/Historic-Sites/Revive-Magnolia-Grange.html 

Cranford, George. “The Yellow House.” The Village News. Last modified May 4, 2016. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://villagenewsonline.com/2016/05/04/the-yellow-house/

Historic New England. “Architectural Style Guide.” Preservation at Historic New England. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.historicnewengland.org/preservation/your-older-or-historic-home/architectural-style-guide#federal-adam-1780-1820

National Park Service. “CWSAC Battle Summaries: Chester Station.” The American Battlefield Protection Program. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va051.htm

Press Release. Village News. May 11, 2016.

Poppeliers, John C. What Style is it?: A Guide to American Architecture. Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press., 1983.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Magnolia Grange. Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Stagg. Form no. 10-300. 1979. Accessed Dec 4, 2016. http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Chesterfield/020-0074_Magnolia_Grange_1980_Final_Nomination.pdf

---

[1]Virginia Department of Historic Resources. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Magnolia Grange. Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Stagg. Form no. 10-300. 1979. Accessed Dec 4, 2016. Pg. 2 http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Chesterfield/020-0074_Magnolia_Grange_1980_Final_Nomination.pdf 

[2] Ibid., 3

[3] Ibid., 3

[4] National Park Service, “CWSAC Battle Summaries: Chester Station.” The American Battlefield Protection Program. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va051.htm

[5]Cranford, George, “The Yellow House.” The Village News, Last modified May 4, 2016. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://villagenewsonline.com/2016/05/04/the-yellow-house/  

[6] Ibid., 3

[7] Chesterfield County. “Base Parcel Information, Magnolia Grange.” Real Estate Assessments. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.chesterfield.gov/eservices/realestateassessments/LegacyService/Detail_Base.asp

[8] Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Registration Form,3 http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Chesterfield/020-0074_Magnolia_Grange_1980_Final_Nomination.pdf

[9] Press Release, Village News, May 11, 2016.

[10] Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Registration Form, 3

[11] Chesterfield County Historical Society, “Own a Piece of Chesterfield County History” Chesterfield County Historical Society, Accessed December 4, 2016. http://chesterfieldhistory.com/Historic-Sites/Revive-Magnolia-Grange.html 

[12] Historic New England. “Architectural Style Guide.” Preservation at Historic New England. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.historicnewengland.org/preservation/your-older-or-historic-home/architectural-style-guide#federal-adam-1780-1820

[13] Poppeliers, John C, What Style is it?: A Guide to American Architecture. Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press., 1983. 36-37

[14] Ibid., 36-37

[15] Ibid., 36-37

[16] Historic New England, “Architectural Style Guide.”  http://www.historicnewengland.org/preservation/your-older-or-historic-home/architectural-style-guide#federal-adam-1780-1820

Reflection on Studying Magnolia Grange

Choosing a structure to study was relatively simple. Virginia is filled with historic structures, and the county I live in is no different. There are many buildings and museums within driving distance that I’ve never visited. Magnolia Grange was simply the first one that came to mind. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to choose a structure that more accessible information about it. My initial plan was that I would be able to visit the house as well as the local historic society research library during Thanksgiving break. As it turns out I was unable to do either due to odd museum hours and a busier than expected Thanksgiving. This unfortunately limited my research to what could be found online, and like most other small house museums, there was very little to be found. One incredibly useful source was the nomination form to put the house on the National Register of Historic Places Inventory. This form was essentially an abbreviated historic structures report. While useful, the form did not go into very much detail on anything, and was completed in 1979. That left a 37 year gap to be filled in by other sources. I was able to find out through a local newspaper about some restoration that had been done earlier this year, and I learned that there were two sales of the property since the nomination form had been done.

Despite the lack of easily accessible information on the structure, I was able to gain a much better understanding of Magnolia Grange through this project. On the surface, the house is only remarkable for its architecture, but on closer examination it became obvious that the occupants of the house had made an incredible impact on their community. I believe this is important to remember when engaging in public history because it serves as a reminder that a historic structure is often important in more ways than one. 

New London Day a Week Later

New London Day was an incredible experience in more ways than one. First off, it exceeded all my expectations. I am not sure what the official visitor count was, but it was easily over 150 people. I am something of a pessimist, so I was expecting fifty or so people at best. Another thing I was surprised by was how interested people were in what we had to say to them. There were even several people who clearly loved our presentation. I am used to going to museums where the majority of the people walking through are barely interested in the material, if at all. Almost every group that came by the display asked one of us a question, and all of them genuinely listened to what we had to say. It was rather eye-opening for me to see that there are people out there besides us who are actually interested in things like New London.

Another aspect of New London Day that made it such an incredible experience is the value of what we learned. Our group picked out a topic, devised an interpretation plan, carried out the plan and presented the results. Granted, this was on a much smaller scale than most historical sites would do, but the experience was invaluable. Even for those of us who do not pursue a career in public history, the skills we honed and developed such as collaboration, research, presentation, and others are incredible assets in any career. Possibly the most important lesson learned on New London Day, for me at least, was the value of preparation.

Our finished display before the crowds came.

I did not know what to expect on New London Day, so I was not sure how to prepare for it. There are probably several things I could have done to be better prepared, but the one thing that stands out is practicing. I knew the material I was presenting, but I did not practice my delivery nearly as much as I should have. In the end, it worked out. After the first few groups that went by our table, I was not nervous anymore, but a little extra practice beforehand would have been a great help.

           With all the different groups involved in New London Day, it is a little difficult to see what 

our contribution was to the event as a whole. Perhaps our presentation was the first stop some people 

made, and just maybe it is what convinced them to walk the rest of the town. It is hard to say, 

however one thing that is a little more certain is that some of the people who stopped at our table will 

be back next year. There were many people who loved our display, and at least one little boy who was

fascinated by it. The chances that they will be back next year are definitely high. Another way I 

believe our group contributed is by rounding out our classes efforts. Meaning that our class had 

something to present that would interesting to everyone. Our group probably interested the people 

who may not have found Mead’s Tavern all that exciting and vice versa. All in all, I think it is hard to 

determine how much our group contributed to the event’s success, however I do believe we made a 

valuable contribution. We educated and entertained a lot of people on New London Day, and I call 

that a success.

Professor Donald's coming, look busy !! 

Interpretation of New London's Place in Colonial Conflict

Every interpretation project must begin with a theme. My group decided we are going to tell the story of how the people of New London stood strong through the trials of the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. Like all themes, ours was the result of a process of refinement. Our project initially focused completely on the arsenal that was present in New London before, during, and after the American Revolution. While it is a fascinating topic, our group decided that we needed to expand upon it.

After some discussion we chose colonial conflict in New London as our new topic. Our main focus was still the arsenal, but this  allowed us to talk about the town’s involvement in the French and Indian War, the Tory conspiracy, and the John Hook trial that took place in the New London courthouse. Unfortunately, this theme had the opposite problem of trying to include too many stories in one project. In the end, we decided that the Hook trial did not fit with our theme well enough to justify focusing on it, and that the lack of available information on the Tory conspiracy made it impossible to adequately cover in our project. This leaves us with the arsenal and the French and Indian War. Fortunately, interpretation is an ongoing process. Hopefully future historians will have adequate information to properly interpret these topics.

The courthouse at New London was the site

of the famous Robert Hook trial. This story

unfortunately had to be cut from the project.

All projects need some kind of plan in order to ensure timely completion. There are some slight differences among our group’s deadlines, but the major dates are the same. All initial research is ideally to be completed by October 1^st. Unfortunately, the late omission of the Tory conspiracy from our project has required that date to be adjusted to later this week. After the initial research is completed, the next step is to summarize information into easy to read, interpretive text to be put on posters. This will hopefully be completed by October 7^th or at least as close as possible. The final text and the finished posters will be completed by October 10^th and ready for display on New London Day.

There are many sources that have been invaluable to this project. Some of the more helpful sources are “New London: The Forgotten History” by Claude A. Thompson, Public History: A Textbook of Practice by Thomas Cauvin, and Nearby History by Kyvig and Marty. The Thompson work has been helpful in identifying key events and people in New London’s history, giving us a starting point in our research. The other books deal specifically with public history and interpretation, and give us invaluable guidance on how to interpret a project like this.