USA > Rhode Island > Washington County > Westerly > Some papers delivered before the Westerly Historical Society 1916-1927; and a list of the members Jan. 1927 > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
The central hall plan held sway throughout the Revolutionary period up to the beginning of the Greek Revival of 1830.
All these descriptions apply to Connecticut houses. Massachu- setts' style was slightly, if any, different, but that of Rhode Island seems quite clearly separated from the other two.
In the present limits of Rhode Island we find a difference be- tween Providence and Newport and the old King's Province, our own "South County." Rhode Island was settled by different groups at different times. The buildings of Providence find little analogy in Massachusetts or in Connecticut or with Newport even, except at the very outset. The houses there which succeeded the log huts contained only the single room, the Fire Room so-called, one end of which was entirely taken up by the huge stone chimney. Beside the fireplace, in the corner of the room, was the staircase leading to the
74
chamber above. Such was possibly the Captain Card house next to us on Margin Street, though now it has rooms in the rear. The slope of the roof, evidently much steeper at one time, may have covered only one room. The house formerly possessed rooms to the right of the entry, making it a symmetrical whole. This addition was later removed so that at present it is more nearly in its original condition than 50 years ago. The doors are two panelled and therefore earlier than those in the Randall House which have four panels. There are also grooves for inside sliding shutters.
The framing of these houses was typical and interesting. That of the two story house was simple in the extreme. The main mem- bers of construction were of oak. broad-ax-hewn from straight tree trunks. Upon foundation walls of stone a continuous horizontal timber known as the sill or groundsill was laid flatwise and the cor- ners framed together by means of a mortise and tenon joint. The joists of the first floor were spanned the width of each room. In some cases the ground floor was laid below the sills which thus projected into the room. Upon each corner of the framed sills a corner post was erected. Where there was no framed overhang the posts were of one piece from sill to plate ;- in other words, the height of two stories. Four similar posts, a total of eight in all, were also erected, two in the front and two in the rear wall, as intermediate supports. These four posts are known as the front and rear chimney posts. In the earliest house the posts flare from floor to ceiling. Accordingly there was a double flare, one for each story. This is the case in the Randall House.
At the level of the second floor a continuous set of heavy timbers known as girts were in corresponding position with the sills but of much greater size. In addition to these girts on the outside walls two additional timbers. called chimney girts, were framed across the house from front to rear, one on either side of the central chimney. From the middle of the end girt to the middle of the chimney girt extended a timber which was generally the heaviest of the whole framework, called variously the summer, the summer beam, or the summer tree. The ends of the summer were framed into the girts by an ingenious dovetail joint from which it could not possibly slip or pull out. The framing of the garret corresponds to the framing on the second floor. The girts become plates and form the supports for the rafter feet. In the Randall House the rear plate is framed in the conventional way but the front plate is arranged to project the roof well beyond the house line. This is done by means of a second plate.
The earliest form of roof was the steep gable. Rafters are broad-ax-hewn and framed together at the ridge. According to Mr. Kelly the gambrel roof was a comparatively late feature, not occur- ring before 1750. and the hiproof not before revolutionary times or later. Two exceptions to this rule orcur to me. both hiproof houses. one Dr. Charles Williams' house in Stonington, built about 1750, and the other the Holmes house on Cossaduc Hill. dated 1734. The gam-
75
brel roof of Mr. Orlando Smith's house is a later addition, the original house having had the plain gable and lean-to roof.
In the earliest houses the interiors showed little attempt to hide their construction. Posts and girts projected into the room. The big summer beam ran through the center of the ceiling. Often the sum- mer was chamfered and sometimes the girts and posts. The walls were sheathed in wood or crudely plastered. In many rooms only the fireplace wall was sheathed, the vertical boards matched and their edges moulded. Some of these are still covering the walls of the two hundred year old ell of the Palmer House on Pendleton Hill. The boards extended in unbroken lengths from floor to ceiling. Wainscot was also employed which ran horizontally, with and without moulded joints. Later on wainscot gave way to plaster. Thus even after plaster on the front rooms of the house became the rule, wainscot was still used for finishing the walls of the rear rooms, especially the kitchen. From the use of wainscot on the walls against the chimney an arrangement of panels held in place by rails and stile ; is bat a sten Panelling of this type is never to be found in the earliest houses ex- cept as a later introduction. The panelling of fireplace walls from 1740-1750 onward is nearly always of great beauty and forms in nearly every instance the most distinctive feature of the house of which it is a part. White pine, free from knots and of clear even grain, furnished an ideal material for such work. The fireplace was surrounded by a simple roll moulding. No attempt was made at symmetrical arrangement. for the fireplace was rarely on the centrai axis of the room, and there was always a door one side of it opening onto the porch or entry. But the results are in every care ad nirable The use of panelled woodwork on the fireplace wall did not persist after 1800. About that time plastering took its place and builders concentrated their abilities upon the mantelpiece which was applied against it.
The first fireplaces were cavernous affairs, usually surmounted by an oak lintel. They consumed vast quantities of wood but did not throw much heat. The oven was in the back of the fireplace itself so that its flames could shoot directly up the chimney. This style was improved by 1700, when fireplaces were made shallower, and the oven placed at one side. The door was set well in from the sur- face of the wall, leaving room for a narrow masonry passage above. which conducted the flames and smoke into the main flue. The door was of sheet iron and fitted into grooves between this passage and the oven. There it was slid into place after the oven became heated. In its last stage the oven had a separate flue of its own and a hinged cast iron door on the wall surface.
If all these dates were exact and positive the conclusion must necessarily be that the Randall House was built some time between 1700 and 1750. Unfortunately it appears that the oldtime builders did not always live up to the rules laid down by these modern archi- tects and sometimes trespassed on each other's periods in a way most confusing to the amateur student.
76
When we had arrived at this point we were able, through the kindness of Mr. Orlando Smith, who is really restoring a house, to borrow his architect for one afternoon. This architect is none other than Mr. Isham, author of the book mentioned already, a member of the faculty of the Rhode Island School of Design and an anti- quarian architect of such reputation that he was relied upon by the authorities of the Metropolitan Museum in the installation of those interiors in the American wing where restorations were required. especially the earliest of all, largely reproductions-the entry, the kitchen and the keeping room or parlor, all New England examples.
Any one with the slightest sympathy for antiquarian hobbies may imagine the interest incident upon his visit to our new possession. Would the 200 year theory be confirmed? Would it dwindle? We knew fairly certainly that the house could not have been built before 1700. Here it was stripped and bare-everything movable gone, no cranes, no corner cupboard nor sliding shutters, in some rooms no woodwork even around the fireplace-but marks and scars where all these things had been. Here, in one room, was a type of moulding with which he was not familiar, here the marks of an old door which led to nothing. here a room with a great beam across the ceiling. here only ugly plastering marred and stained, but with waves and cracks showing where beams were, waiting to be uncovered to reveal what- ever treasures they may possess of casing, chamfering or marks of broadaxe. In the cellar he showed us a stone-walled enclosure to be used for storing wood ashes for the making of lye and soap, and a carefully constructed little recess in the wall of the root cellar, made to hold the candlestick, while one sorted over apples. or potatoes. He puzzled long over the fact that the front wall of the east end of the cellar was not in alignment with that of the west end and that a stone stairway against the front of the chimney foundation led up to the blank wall of a closet in the west parlor. In the cellar also he admired the great summer beam. an unusual feature. This one measures 15 × 13 inches and is 20 feet long. rough hewn from one oak tree. All investigations were accompanied by a running com- ment which he called "thinking aloud" and which often contradicted itself as we moved from room to room. This was early, that was late. but exactly what late and early meant was impossible to determine till the parlor mantel was pronounced of the Revolutionary period and therefore late. The smoke oven in the garret is usually a late feature. yet how this one could be late was a mystery, since it was an integral part of the chimney, necessarily the first part of the house to be built.
The feature upon which we were the most anxious to get judg- ment, was the panelling in the parlor chamber. This had been an object of interest since our first inspection when the former owner hearing the word panelling had exclaimed. "Oh, that's panelling, is it? Last spring an antique dealer offered me $40 for my panelling and I sent him away because I didn't want to say I didn't know what he meant by panelling."
The verdict on this was more than satisfying. The dealer should
77
-
have been jailed to offer such a price. Any museum would pay largely for such work. It must be not later than 1740. The woodwork in this room was of a recognized style, all the details of moulding and casing formed a consistent whole, and so forth.
This panelling is very simple and unremarkable to the eyes of the uninitiated. Two panels with arched tops over the fireplace are the only attempt at decoration. There is no mantel shelf of course. but a wide roll moulding frames the fireplace. The little cupboard doors to the left of the chimney have brass H hinges. Apparently the whole was made originally for some other room, possibly the parlor below. There is a variation in the size of the panels which suggests a door-a door which in the parlor would have connected with the now blind steps in the cellar.
Panelling went out of style about Revolutionary times and the plastered walls and dentilled mantel of the parlor were probably con- sidered a great improvement and so became responsible for the banishment of the old panelling to the chamber above. All this is guess work, of course.
At the end of the inspection the 200 year theory was supported, for Mr. Isham put the date for the original construction at about 1720, though all the visible woodwork was of a later date and some very much later. His final advice was, if we desired something more accurate. to search deeds, wills, genealogies, local histories and local traditions, remembering always that an old house is a very human thing and that the more we know about its inhabitants the more we would know about it.
The following of his advice involved considerable amount of investigation into the history of the Randall family, which at times seemed to come dangerously close to gossip. For this we can only hope the present Randalls will forgive us. It seems probable that they will because all our discoveries were to their credit. if not especially useful to our purpose. We have examined deeds and docu- ments in Stonington. North Stonington and New London. We have secured photostat copies of wills from the state library at Hartford. we have studied Mr. Richard Wheeler's history of Stonington and the genealogies of the Randall and Brown families, and have dis- cussed local tradition rather largely with all sorts of people who are considered or who consider themselves authorities on such matters. One story which came to us early was that the house was built 100 years ago, by a Randall, name uncertain, who had a very red nose and a very bad temper. This is obviously impossible in every detail.
What we have discovered amounts to this: The farm was bought in 1680 by John Randall the first, a tract of land rather in- definitely bounded by brooks and rocks and marks upon oak trees. John the second went there to live when he "reached manhood." probably about 1690. There must, therefore, have been a house built before the present one. This supposition might account for the fact that the cellar is narrower to the westward of the front door than to
78
the eastward of it, also for the walled-in cellar stairs, which Mr. Kelly says is a feature of only the very early houses, and rare enough to be remarkable. In the garret part of the front plate has obviously been used before. Great notches are cut in it for summer beams. Perhaps it is a girt taken from that original house built in 1690.
The farm was enlarged at various times according to deeds recorded in Stonington till it extended from Anguilla Brook on the west to Shunoc River on the east. Tradition says that before the road existed, a bridle path leading from Westerly to "Milltown" passed close to the house and crossed another leading from Stoning- ton, near the place where the "Old Cedar Swamp" Burving Ground was and still is. This junction might account for the location of the burying ground at this, otherwise unaccountable spot, as might also the fact that the earth does not readily freeze there.
If our theories are correct the present house was built by this John Randall II, and afterward owned and occupied by his descend- ants, John III, John IV. Roswell, William and Darius Randall, the father of the present Dean of Brown University. Darius Randall sold the farm in 1882 when his son elected not to be a farmer. Just two hundred and two years after the first purchase.
All these Randalls were prominent people locally, captains and colonels in all the wars as they came along. judges, members of assembly and justices of the peace in civilian life, active supporters of the church and prominent in the establishment of the Second Baptist Church which we call the Miner Meeting House. Other families point with evident pride to marriage connections with the Randall family which is referred to as one of "the most progressive and honorable" in the neighborhood. The Randall genealogy makes a pretty complete collection of local names-Brown, Avery, Hewitt. Wheeler, Palmer, York, Miner, Chesebro. Denison, etc.
The wills which we secured gave us no definite help in our search, but were interesting, especially that of John Randall IV. who was a captain in the Revolutionary Army, and is buried between his two wives in the Cedar Swamp ground. Shortly after the war he deeded to his son Roswell the property in North Stonington, as the deed quaintly says. "in consideration of the great love I hear him and also in consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds." He then bought what is now known as "Elmridge Farm," near Merritt Hill on the Anguilla Road. and at the time of his death was able to leave. in addition to the original farm, which had already been deeded to Roswell. 672 acres of land and something over $1500 in cash. besides furniture, farm equipment and stock : this to his nine children and sixteen grandchildren. Such a record might possibly be regarded as encouraging to anyone contemplating a start on the same property.
Later generations of Randalls were among the first to free their slaves and became ardent abolitionists. This fact seemed to support the persistent rumor that there was under the floor of the old kitchen
79
E
a dungeon which had been used to hide runaway slaves during the days of the underground railway, a rumor confirmed when we removed the very poor floor in that room and discovered beneath it one even poorer very much worm eaten. Just behind the chimney appeared a trap door with a rusty old ring in it. Below that sure enough was the dungeon ten feet deep, and six square, carefully built of squared stone, having no other connection with the outside world-quite a neat fit for three or four individuals of any color. and apparently quite as uncomfortable as a cotton plantation. I understand there is a similar construction in the old house in Ashaway now belonging to Dr. Briggs. Were they built originally for this purpose or merely used for it ?
All this Randall history amounts to exactly nothing in dating the house though it does account for certain details. So we gave up hope of anything more definite. We had by this time become fairly expert at reading old manuscripts with long H's and S's and quaint spellings. and the name Randall stared out at us from any page on which it occurred. Last of all in the rooms of the New London Historical Society we discovered the original act of the Assembly in Hartford drawing the dividing line between the North and South Societies in Stonington in the year 1720. This uses as a landmark among others "the new house of John Randall." It now remains to decide how old a house may be, and still be called new. Certainly one year is not too much. So we have selected the date of 1719.
To restore on the basis of that date, however, we must discard even our panelling of 1740. and go back farther to such things as vertical wainscot, etc. As this is out of the question, the correct thing is obviously to accept whatever woodwork remains and to develop each room in harmony with what it already possesses. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of antiques may imagine what it would cost to furnish even one room completely and consistently in the style of 1740.
Mr. Isham gave us other pieces of information and advice quite as valuable as that about determining dates. He was extremely inter- ested in the fact that the great keeping room, possessed two summer- trees. Obviously there are two in the chamber above also, though covered with plaster. He said he knew of only two houses with this arrangement, one the Hempstead House in New London which we must by all means see, the other the Roger Williams house in Salem. Members of the Historical Society could tell- him of another, for all who took the trip last summer to the Denison house in Mystic saw a double summer in each of its downstairs rooms.
The Denison house transgresses still another of the rules by having been covered originally with shingles. This is almost unique so far east, though common in New Haven and almost universal in the Dutch colonies. The usual covering in this part of the country and east of here was clapboards, often graduated in width, narrower
80
near the ground and becoming wide under the eaves. No one seems to know the purpose of this variation, whether decorative or practi- cal-at all events it was never used on the rear of the house and often not on the ends. The rear wall was covered by wide rough- hewn weather-boards with no pretense at style or beauty.
In making clapboards a log was stood on end and split into halves, then into quarters, eighths, and so on until a number of thin pieces had been produced, each piece wedge-shaped in section and exhibiting the markings characteristic of what is known today as quartered oak. The outside walls were very thin. Wide oak boards extended vertically from sill to plate the whole two stories in height. Laths and plaster were applied directly to the inside surface of these and clapboards to the outside, there is no studding, no air space.
Clapboards were left to weather or were painted either gray or red. No white paint was used inside or out until after the Revolution. Inside woodwork was bare, or painted. usually a light green gray. We felt a bit dubious as to how this would look but were convinced of the correctness of the statement when we tore down a partition which must have been standing for a hundred years or more and uncovered green gray paint on door frame and chair rail.
Since we were eager to follow all advice we made a pilgrimage to the Hempstead house in New London. We found the outside alone more than worth the trip. The house is covered with dark old shingles and buried in woodbine, wistaria and lilacs. It is a house of the leanto type. The long slope from the ridge is broken near the top by an angle where the leanto roof rafters were joined to those of the original roof which must have been extremely steep. It belongs to the poet, Anna Hempstead Branch, and our errand began to appear altogether impudent as we contemplated the terrors of introducing ourselves. total strangers, to a poet, and asking to be allowed to see the inside of her home. Fortunately the wind was tempered to us by the fact that we need not face the poet at all. She was not at home, but we were allowed to look at the two front rooms. Mr. Kelly describes the Hempstead house as one of the most valuable of old Connecticut houses. It embodies in itself the evolution of the typical New England house from its one room beginning. The house con- sisted originally of the west room and entry built in 1647 with stairs against the chimney leading to a chamber above. The walls of this room are almost thick enough to come from Pennsylvania. They are double and filled with eel grass and must be very warm and dry. The sills are above the level of the floor and are hewn out and worn down at the doorways. Later, in 1678, were added the east room, with its double summer, the excuse for our visit, and the chamber above. later still the leanto, necessitating the change in the slope of the rear roof.
The house has been in the Hempstead family from the first. When Benedict Arnold raided New London he and his staff arrived
81
labaizÃ
in the west room just in time to find the family dinner spread upon the table. That dinner was not for the family, but in payment the house was marked and so escaped the burning which later destroyed a large part of the town.
This Hempstead house is a remarkable example of a very old house in an almost perfect state of preservation. At Mr. Isham's invitation we were able to visit another which gives an equally perfect illustration of what can be accomplished by expert restoring. This is the "Hannah Robinson house" in Saunderstown which is being restored under Mr. Isham's direction for some of the Hazards of Peace Dale. In Revolutionary times it belonged to a family well known for their hospitality and social prominence. Lafayette spent a night there and scratched his name on a window pane. Hannah, however, fell distinctly below the family standards, eloped with her dancing master in Newport, and was forgiven by her father only on her deathbed.
The east end of this house is the original part. No one knows how old. It has chamfers on the girts and posts as well as on the summer, a distinctly unusual feature. In this room and the chamber above woodwork is unpainted and has the beautiful reddish tinge which only age can give. The walls have vertical wainscot, some old. some reproduced. with the reproduction of a corner cupboard; in this room also is the brick oven by the fireplace. There is none in the old kitchen where the original fireplace has been torn out.
The front entry is very large and roomy with an exceptionally handsome stairway and bannister elaborately hand carved. It is all most ingeniously painted with artificial graining, which may be inter- esting and valuable, but in my opinion is very ugly. This stairway leads in its elegance all the way up to the garret.
The west room has beautifully carved gray green panelling as has also the chamber above. It has also a handsome and original shell top cupboard set in the north wall.
In the garret was discovered a painted panel which when cleaned disclosed a hunting scene. This is now installed over the fire place in the north room. A few scraps of very old wainscot have been rescued and are considered worthy of being framed and hung.
The house has always been large and has now a huge ell added for the conveniences of modern life. The new clapboards are gradu- ated in width, painted gray and fastened with boat nails, the nearest approach, in appearance, to the handwrought nails of the olden times. The windows have twenty-four panes, sashes are painted white. The doors are a beautiful old blue. We secured samples of this and of the inside green, and tried not to covet the wealth of treasures and interest that the house provided. At least. we said. the Randall house has still almost all its beautiful old worn wide floor boards which in the Robinson house have had to be renewed.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.