25planninghistoric.pdf

North

Carolina

Michael

O. Hartley

As

an

archaeologist

working

with the historic re-sources of Carolina for

more

than twentyyears I

havefoundthattheissuesofplanning have

been an

ever-present consideration in the study of our culture. It might

be

thought that this refers to the interface

be-tween

the archaeologist or preservation planner

and

twentiethcentury change. It

may

also referto the de-struction ofhistorically significantmaterial resources,

for

example

theexcavation ofaplantation ruin inthe

path ofabypass

around

Charleston orthe clearanceof

a reservoir basin

on

one

of ourriversystems.

There

is,however,abroaderaspecttothe

approach

of archaeology: the ability of the discipline to

examine

processovertime

and

determinethe relationshipof

one

point intimetoanotherinterms ofprocess. It is that aspect of the archaeological analysis of Carolina that thisdiscussionwilltreat.Inparticular,itisintended here

to

examine

the presence of planning in the originsof

Carolina,inthe originsofthe

Moravian

towns of

west-ern

North

Carolina,

and

to

draw

some

conclusions

about the effect of that planning in the present day. Planningisa basichistoric artifactofCarolina,

an

arti-fact

which

isvisible initsmaterial structure

and

inthe

ongoing

flow ofitsculture.

As

currentplanningtakesplaceitisimportantto

be

aware

thatprocesses

begun

generationsbeforecontinue

intothe present.

As

never before

we

havethe capability to irrevocablytransformthe configurationofour

land-scape

and

inthatprocessalterthestreams ofourculture.

As

ourrateof

change

accelerates

and

ourabilitytoaffect physical

change

intensifies,itisimportanttorecognize

and

enhance

what

isalready present.

MichaelO. Hartley serves asdirectoroftheBethania

Town

Lot

StudyundertheauspicesoftheBethaniaHistorical Association.

An

historicalarchaeologist, Hartley's

work

focuses

on

theCarolinas

from European

contactto today.

Strategic

Planning:

English Colonization

The

plannedoriginsofCarolinalieintheElizabethan periodinEngland,

when

the ascension of Elizabethto thethrone provideda

new

stability

which

allowedthat

nationtoconsiderparticipationinthe colonialactivities ofAmerica.Spain, thearch

enemy

ofEngland,

and

other

European

nations

were

making

great

headway

inthe

ac-quisitionoflands

and

wealthinthe

New

World.

England

was

initially leftoutbecause ofinternaldisruption,but herlocation

on

thewestern

edge

ofthe

European

con-tinent

was

well-placedwith regardtothe Atlanticroutes.

England

was

now

positionedinthe

mainstream

ofthe

Atlantic ratherthan

on

theperiphery ofthe

Mediterra-nean

center as she

had been

in the past.

With

this advantageouspositioning

and

thestabilityofapowerful

monarch,

England

turneditsconsiderationtothe

acqui-sitionof

New

World

land

and

wealth.

The method

takenbytheElizabethans

was

not based

on

thethrowing out ofblind

and

blunderingprobes;it

was founded

on

careful

and

considered planning.

Two

scholars,cousins

who

were

both

named

RichardHakluyt,

were engaged

on

the highestlevelsof English

decision-making

toformulateplansforEngland'sentry into the

colonial enterprise.

These two

cousinsfirstgatheredall theaccounts ofexplorations

and

conditionsofthe

New

World

which

could

be

obtained, translatingthose

which

were

inforeigntonguesintoEnglish.

These were

even-tuallypublished

under

thetitleDiverseVoyagesto

Amer-ica in1582.

The

accounts

were

analyzed

and

synthesized intoaplanforEnglishentry into the colonial contest.

Two

basicHakluyt

documents,

Notes

On

Coloniza-tion(1578)andthe Discourse

Of

Western Planting (1584), present thesubstance oftheEnglishplan,

which

eventu-ally led to the formation ofCarolina.

The

first work,

Notes

On

Colonization, dealswith the elements ofthe individual colony,

whereas

the

much

longer

and

more

procedures tobe

employed

inthe acquisitionof

New

World

lands desiredbythe English.

Taken

together they constituteageneric

model

ofthe individualcolony

and

the roleofsuchcoloniesinthebroadstrategiccontextof

New

World

colonization.

In

summary,

the English strategic

model

identified

the areaofinterest as lying

on

thecontinentof

North

America from 30

degrees

North

latitude, atthe

upper

end

of peninsularFlorida,to

Cape

Britonat47 degrees

North

latitude.Thisisthetemperate

zone

ofthe conti-nent

and

is basically the land

mass

occupied by the

United

States today. This area

was

regarded by the

Hakluytsasbeinginthe possession of

no

other

Euro-pean power

(ignoring the capitol ofSpanish Florida,

Santa Elena,

on

Port

Royal

atpresentdayParrisIsland, SC),

and was

tobeinitiallyoccupied

on

theseaboardby

two

to threefortifiedportsoftheHakluyt model.

These

plans

were

acted

on

bytheEnglishthrone

and

government, withthe

Roanoke

voyages ofthe 1580's as theinitialattemptto

occupy

the centeroftheproscribed

area ofactivity.

Although

the attempts to the

Outer

Banks

failed,a

movement

ofa half-degreetothenorth

intothe

Chesapeake

successfully

anchored

the centerof

theEnglish colony withtheoccupation of

Jamestown

in 1607.

The

locationofthiscolony

on

the riverinesystem

ofthe

Chesapeake

provided a

much

closer fit to the

Hakluyt

model

forthe individualcolony thantheinitial

attemptstothesouth

on

the barrierislands.

The

occupation of Massachusettsinthe1620s

met

the

requirements ofthestrategicplan,anchoringthe

north-ern

wing

oftheseaboard

and

actingasa buffer against thenewlyestablished

French

on

theSt.Lawrence.

The

presence ofthis English colony to the north allowed expansionagainstthe

French

tothenorth

and

infilling

between

Massachusetts

and

theChesapeake, absorbing

the

Dutch

colony of

New

Amsterdam

thatlay

between

the two.

The

founding of Charles

Town

in1670 providedthe fortifiedport

on

thesouthern

wing

oftheseaboard

and

led totheestablishment ofCarolina,thesouthernbuffer againsttheSpanishinFlorida.

The

form,structure

and

behavior of the Charles

Town

colony fits closely the

Hakluyt

model

ofthe fortifiedportdescribedin their

Notes

On

Colonization.

The

English established

an

area of no-man's land

below

Charles

Town,

lyingalongthe

Savannah

River

and

manned

by Indian warriors allied to the English

colony,eventually to

become

thesouth

and

west

bound-aryofCarolina.

During

thisperiodthe coastal

zone

of Carolina

above

Charles

Town, between

thatcolony

and

the

Chesapeake/Albemarle

settlements,

saw an

ever

increasinginfillingofcolonizationbehindtheCharles

Town

buffer.

The

North

Carolinasettlementsof Bath,

NC

(1690),

New

Bern,

NC

(1710),Brunswick,

NC

(1725)

and

George Town,

SC

(1729) are examples of that

infilling,whileEdenton,

NC

(1710)appears

more

prop-erly to be a part of

an

expansion of the

Chesapeake

settlement into the

North

Carolina Albemarle.

The

English

had

earlierattemptedthesettlement of Stuart

Town

on

Port

Royal

to the south ofCharles

Town, which had

immediately

been

attacked

and

de-stroyedbytheSpanishin1686.

The

successful

establish-ment

ofBeaufort,

SC

on

Port

Royal

(1711) increased pressure

on

theSpanish

below

Charles

Town

aswellas

on

the Indian populations ofthe area.

The

Yamassee

War

of 1715resulted

from

this

movement

ofEnglish settlersintothe areaof Port

Royal

and

the

Savannah and

marked

thebeginning of a period ofunrest

on

theborder

2• Massachusetts

Colony(1620)

Jamestown(1607)

^

Roanoke(1580-1590)

A

Charleslown Colony(1670)

StagesoftheEnglishModel

which

lastedfor fifteen years.

An

outgrowth

ofthis

war

was

theEnglish occupation of

Guale

on

the coast well

south ofthe

Savannah

in1721, resultinginthe creation

ofthecolony of

Georgia

in1733.

Georgia assumed

the functionsofan expandingbuffer colony,continuingthe

Within

the

broad

scope oftheElizabethan plan for colonization ofthe

New

World

can be seena process

which adhered

to

form and

behavior overa period of

some

century

and

a half.Charles

Town

ispredicted in theplanning oftheElizabethansinthe1570s

and

1580s,

and

theactivitiesofCarolina

and

laterGeorgiaagainst theSpanishinFloridacan

be

foundexplicitlycalled for

inthe

scheme proposed

bythe

two

Richard Hakluyts.

While

Carolina playeditspartinthebroad

scheme

of

Englishplans,italso

demonstrated

itsindividual char-acteristics.Establishedasa Proprietary colony, the region

ofCarolina

had

specificpressures relatingtoitsvastness

and

the contiguityofitsnorthern

boundary

tothe

Che-sapeake.

The

Albemarle

sectionofCarolina,justsouth ofthe

boundary

withVirginia establishedbythe grantto the eight

Lords

Proprietors, resulted

from

expansion

from

the center

from

the centerofthe colony, thatis,

fromtheChesapeake.Thisoccurred independently

from

theinfillingallowedbythe bufferofCharles

Town.

Early

on

thepresence ofthissettlementinCarolina required

aseparate

government

because ofitsgreatdistance

from

Charles

Town

and

resultedinthe divisionofthecolony

into

North

and South

Carolina.

With

the coastal

zone

made

relativelysecurethrough

militarypressureagainst theSpanish

and

the

ongoing

subjugation of coastal native populations, this zone

between

the

Chesapeake/Albemarle and

Charles

Town

grew

in population

and

solidified theEnglish hold

on

thesouthernwing.

By

the 1750stheEnglish

had

afirm

hold

on

the entireseaboard ofthe areachosen by the Elizabethans.

They

had

occupied the center, then the

northern

and

southern flanks respectively,

and from

these positionsofstrength

had

populatedthe coastline

ofthetemperate

zone

of

North

America.

18th

Century

Comprehensive

Planning

It isat thispointthatthe

Moravians

enter theregion

ofCarolina.

A

ProtestantEpiscopacy withitsoriginsin

Bohemia

and

Moravia

ofcentral Europe, the Unitas

Fratrum

or

United

Brethren

had

alreadyattempted to

participatein Carolina. In 1734 a

group

of

Moravians

hadjoinedOglethorpe's settlement ofSavannahin newly-establishedGeorgia.

Drawn

thereby missionarygoals,

the

Moravians

soon

learnedthat

Georgia was

a

battle-field

between

theEnglishof

Georgia

and

Carolina

and

the Spanish ofcollapsing Florida.Stability

among

the

Indian groups

was

nonexistent

and

the fierce

ongoing

guerilla

war

involvingallparties

made

any meaningful establishment of peaceful outposts impossible.

The

Moravians

therefore

moved

to the north

and

estab-lishedtheir firstcontinental settlementsat

Bethlehem

and

elsewhereinPennsylvaniain1740.

The

leadershipofthe Unitas

Fratrum

was

made

up

of people

accustomed

to the function of planning as a

formal

component

oftheir activities.

Both North and

South

Carolina

had

ceasedto

be

Proprietary coloniesby

the 1740s,but

one

oftheLordsProprietors

had

heldout

a one-eighth share of Carolina with rights to sell the land.

Lord

Granville, thelastofthe

Lords

Proprietorsof

Carolina,

came

to hold the Granville Grant,basically thenorthernhalfof

North

Carolina.

Granville

came

to learnofthe Unitas

Fratrum

be-cause ofbusiness the

group

was

conducting before

par-liament in 1749. Learning oftheir

demonstrated

per-formance

inPennsylvania,Granville offered the saleof

100,000acresoflandintheGranvilletract.Granville's offer

meshed

withtheneeds

and

goalsoftheMoravians. Their

movement

tothe

New

World

had

been

prompted

byreligious persecution in

Europe,

and

they felt the

need

fora largecontiguoustractof landtofullyestablish theirdesired

way

oflife.

For

Granville the

development

ofsuchatract,bythistime onlyavailableinthewestern

sectionofCarolina, offeredthepossibilityof

opening

a

major

settlement

on

the frontierofthe colony.

By

1752, theterms ofthesale

were

agreedto

and

the leadershipofthe UnitasFratrum

had

settheplansforthe tract.Bishop

August

GottliebSpangenberg,

known

as Brother

Joseph

totheMoravians,

was

selected to

make

the search.

He

was

experiencedinthe colonies,having

ledthe shortlivedcolonyin

Georgia

in1734,

and

having

established

Bethlehem

in 1740.

Spangenberg

came

to

North

Carolina with specific

instructionsaboutthe

form

ofthe

Moravian

tracttobe followed as

much

as possible.

He

was

to lay out the

100,000acresina square,twelve miles to theside,with

a navigableriverthroughthe center.

The

centerofthe tract

was

tobe suitableforan Orts

Gemein,

orcentral town, tobe surrounded byoutlyingsatellitetownswithin thetract.Politically,thetract

was

toconstitutea single

Moravian

parishwithin the structureof

North

Carolina.

Spangenberg, withfiveofhisBrethren,first

went

to Granville'slandofficeinEdenton,

on Albemarle

Sound,

where

he conferred withGranville's agent,SirFrancis

Corbin.

They

spenta

week

inEdenton,outfittingfora trekthroughtheforest,

where Spangenberg

recordedin hisjournal that theEnglishagent

was

"awalking ency-clopediaconcerning

North

Carolinaaffairs" after

spend-ing severalhours each day with him.Granville'sagent

advised

Spangenberg

togotothe

"Back

oftheColony," or westtotheBlue Mountains,

where

he

might

findland

suitableforthe tract.Joined by William Churton, the

landofficesurveyor,

and

several hunters

who

were

to also pullsurveying chainsfor

Churton and

to serve as guides,

Spangenberg began

hissearch.

Spangenberg

demonstrated pragmatic flexibility as

he

pursuedthe

accomplishment

ofthe

Moravian

plans.

He

immediatelyrealized thattheprospectsoflocating the tract

on

a navigable river in

North

Carolina

were

fiOBBS

PiRHH

SurveymapofWachovia from1766.

and was

notavailablefora project

on

the scaleofthe

Moravian

tract. Discarding this criterion

he

began

to

evaluatealternatives forthe tradenecessarytosustain a

major Moravian

settlement. His journal indicates an

earlyrecognitionthat thesettlement

would be

in the

westernpartofGranville'sGrant.

With

thisknowledge,

Spangenberg

established that thetract

would

be about

300

miles

from

Charles

Town

and

about

300

milestothe

Chesapeake. Earlyin his search

he

alsoevaluated the

Roanoke

and

Cape

Fear drainagesasavenues oftrade

from

the potential locationofthetract.

Spangenberg demonstrated

a planner's

mind

work-inginorderlyprocedure.

He

was

constantlyinforming himselfabouttheregion of Carolina with

which

he

was

tointegratehistract,attemptingto findthe best solution

from

the

means

athand.

He

wrote inanothercontext

thatthe basic principleofcolonization

was

to"havethe datafirst,

and

know

the nature ofathing:then

one

can sayitshouldbe

done

thus orthus."Spangenberg brought to his considerations

an

awareness that his goals re-quireda

meshing

with a process

which

was

alreadyin operation, theEnglishprocessofCarolina.

He

was

also

aware

thatthisprocess

was

incomplete

on

thefrontier,

and

that the flexibility ofthat context

would

provide

some

freedom, allowingthe Unitas

Fratrum

toestablish a certain

autonomy.

This

was

the

purpose

ofthe

new

Moravian

tract, the establishment of

an

equilibrium

between

establishedEnglish process

and

the particular

religiousrequirements ofthe Moravians.

That

balance requireda planner's mind, capable of addressing both

the expedienciesof short-range planning

and

the

solid-ityoffoundation requiredforlong-rangeplanning.

Earlyin 1753,

Spangenberg

selected a tract ofland

some

ten miles eastoftheYadkin,

which encompassed

almosttheentiredrainage of Carguels Creek,

now

known

as

Muddy

Creek.Interms ofinternalcharacteristicshe

selecteditforarich diversity,

mentioning

the countless springs

and

numerous

finecreeks,securinghiswaterfor

consumption and

forpower,sayingas

many

mills as

may

be

desiredcan

be

built.

The

tractcontainedrich

bottoms

and

uplands,with

good

pasturageforcattle, plenty of

stone

and

woodland

forconstruction material,all con-tained in terrain ofrelatively gentle relief.

While

the tract

was

not

an

exact square,it

was

laidout

on

a basic rectilinearform,sixteenmiles

on

thenorth-southaxisby

twelve miles

on

the east-westaxis.

Spangenberg

named

thetract

Der

Wachau

afteranestatein

Germany

belong-ing to

Count

Nicholas

Von

Zinzendorf,

an

important

leaderofthe UnitasFratrum inEurope.

In terms ofthe broader regional context, Spangen-bergnotedthatthetractlay

on

the

upper

roadto Penn-sylvania, atthattime

no

more

thanatrailintothearea. It

was

about 150miles

from

alanding

on

the

Cape

Fear

to

which

aroad

was

to

be

built

and

about

350

milesto

Eden

ton.

When

the locationof

Der

Wachau

is

examined

relativetoCarolina,itis

found

tobe

on

theheads ofthe drainagesof theYadkin,the

Cape

Fear

and

theRoanoke,

closetotheheads ofthe

Santee/Catawba

and

theNeuse/

Haw

systems

and

on

the

Great

Philadelphia

Wagon

Road

atthe base ofthe

Appalachian

chain.

From

the perspectiveofaninteriorlocationincolonial Carolina, thetractsitsata well-positioned

hub

ofradiatinglines connectingittoa vastregion

and

importantcentersof trade.

Implementation

oftheplan for the

Moravian

tract

was

begun

the

same

yearit

was

laidout,withthe estab-lishmentofthefirstsettlement,Bethabara,byagroupof SingleBrotherssent

down

the

Great

Wagon Road

from Bethlehem, Pennsylvaniaforthatpurpose. Findingthe

Wagon Road

too

narrow

for theirPennsylvania

wagon

pro-gressedthey

found

impassablesections

and

frequently

had

tocuta

new

roadway. Arrivingat

Der

Wachau

they established themselves at an

abandoned

cabin

which

had

been

builtbyatrapper

named

Wagner.

Although

not located in the center ofthe tract as

required by the plan, Bethabara

became

the defacto central

town

ofthetract,

and was

immediatelyacenter

on

the frontier wilderness ofwestern Carolina.

The

presence ofa doctor, aminister

and

a

number

of

crafts-men

inthe partyofSingleBrothersbrought peoplein

from

as far as a

hundred

miles

away

to find aid

and

services.

Bethabara,

meaning

"House

ofPassage",

was

known

by the

Moravians

to

be

a

temporary

location,yet the

town grew

in

numbers

of structures, population

and

importance. Additional

Moravians

came

south

from

Pennsylvania after theestablishment ofthe

town and

soon

thepopulation

was

made

up

offamiliessharing the

communal economy

ofthe frontier settlement.

The

unrest ofthe

French

and

Indian

war and

the

subsequent

Cherokee

war

made

of

Bethabaraa

peaceful

stronghold

on

thefrontier, fortifiedbya palisade

and

a well-filled larder.

On

many

occasions neighbors

from

the surrounding countryside either fled entirely

from

the frontierorsoughtrefugeinthefortatBethabara.In themidst ofthese alarms,

when

thesurroundingfrontier settlements sought refuge, the UnitasFratrum put in placeitsfirst

planned

town.

In1759,inaperiod

when many

refugees

had

fledinto

Bethabara,

Bishop

Spangenberg

arrived

from

Bethle-hem

toselectthesiteforthe

town

designedtofurtherthe process of

Der Wachau.

Selecting a site three miles

northwest of

Bethabara

and

directlyacross theGreat

Wagon

Road, Spangenberg

orderedtheestablishment of Bethania,

meaning

"House

oftheLord."

Laid out bythenewlyarrived Prussian trained sur-veyorPhillip

Reuter

forsurvival ina hostile environ-ment,hisplanforBethania

drew

on

amedieval

German

form

ofclusteredhouses

and

residential lotssurrounded byagriculturaloutlots.This

was

inresponsetoanearly

Spangenberg dictum

that the initial

Moravian

settle-ments on

the frontier

were

to beclusteredfor

mutual

support

and

safety

due

to the Indian unrest

which

he

accurately predicted.

The

occupants ofthe

new

village, established

and

erectedwithin

months

ofthesite selec-tion,

were

made

up

ofeight families

from

theBethabara Congregation

and

eight familiesexpressing a desire to

joinwith the

Moravians

selected

from

those

who

had

fledinto

Bethabara from

the Indians.

Both

Bethabara

and

Bethania continued successfully into the 1760s,

when

in1766Bethabara

was

directedtoget

on

withthe siting

and

construction ofthe Orts

Gemein,

theplanned

central

town

of

Der Wachau.

Although

there

was

some

initial resistance

on

the

part of Bethabara'sresidents to

moving

thereligious,

administrative

and

craftfacilitiestoa

new

location,the

requirements oftheplanforthetract

were

accededto.

Reuter,thesurveyor

and

foresterofthetract,selected a sitenearthecenterofthebasicallyrectangular

body

of

land

and

the central

town was

builtbyBethabara

and

Bethania. Construction

was begun

in 1766

and

Salem

was

formallyoccupiedin1772.

Bethabara's population

was

cutinhalf

and

the

town

was

radically

changed

in function.

For

20years it

had

been

the administrative centerofthe

Moravian

tract.It suddenly

became

a small agriculturalvillage near its neighbor, Bethania. Bethabara

might

be

thought ofas

somewhat

analogoustoatrailer set

up

on

a

modern

con-structionsitetocontainthe

map

tables,files,

communi-cations,

equipment and

suppliesofthe projectat

hand

whilethesiteis

under

construction.

For

aperiod oftime

thattraileristhe centerofactivity.Then,suddenly,it is

no

longer needed, it is

packed

up and

it disappears.

Although

Bethabara continuedtohave

an

active

con-gregation, thevillagefortuitously locatedatthesiteof

Wagner's

cabinis

now

anarchaeologicalsite.

At

aboutthe

same

timethatthe central

town

of

Salem

was

occupied three

Country

Congregations

came

into

beingatthesouthern

end

ofthetract:Friedberg,

Fried-land

and Hope.

Made

up

ofpeople migratingto

Der

Wachau

because ofadesiretoparticipateinthe

Moravian

experiencein

North

Carolina,

none

ofthe three

had

a formal

town

organization,althougheach

had

adefined

town

lot.

By

thetime oftheformaloccupation of

Salem

in1772, the frontier

had

moved

well

beyond

the

Moravian

tract.

The

threatofIndian attack

was remote and

thesurrounding

population,

now

substantial,

had been

flowing

down

the

Great

Wagon

Road

inthousands,sustainedbythe

pres-ence ofthe

Moravian

towns of Bethabara

and

Bethania.

Spangenberg had

saidin1752thatatfirsthis

Moravi-ans

must

liveclose to

one

anotherinclustered settle-ment, but

when

thearea

became more

settled,asitmust,

thenit

would

bepossibleforthe inhabitantsofthetract to live

on

individual farms. Residence

on

individual farmlots

was

the

form

of settlementinFriedberg,

Fried-land

and

Hope,

occupied at the

end

of the colonial

period.This

was

much

closerinpattern tothe

surround-ing

North

Carolinapatternof settlement thanthe

ear-lier

Moravian

settlementsofBethabara, Bethania

and

Salem.

From

the layingout ofthetract in1753untilthenear

end

ofthe colonial period,

Der

Wachau

isanillustration ofsuccessfuladherencetoplanninggoals.

Coming

into thewildernessofCarolinawithaconceptinmind,in less than 25yearsthe

Moravians

broughttheconcept into reality,a

body

of land withapreplannedinternal struc-ture

and

apreplannedrelationshipwiththecontaining

The

relationshipofthetracttothebroadercontextof Carolina

was

one

ofgreatimportance.

The

Moravian

tractof

Der Wachau,

called

Wachovia

bythe English,

was

a

most

important

anchor

forthepre-Revolutionary maturation ofCarolina. It

was

this tract of

Wachovia

which

sustained the frontierof northwesternCarolina

duringthe Indian wars ofdie1750s

and

1760s

and which

provideda

major

center

on

theGreat

Wagon

Road

to sustain the early

immigrant

populationspouring

down

that thoroughfare. It is interesting to recall that its presence

was

initiated by the last of English Lords

ProprietorsofCarolina,even

though

Granville

may

not have

been

fullyfunctional as a

Lord

Proprietoratthe time.

The

Englishpartiallyaccededtothe

Moravian

desire for their

own

Parrishbyestablishing

Dobb's

Parrish

co-terminus with Wachovia.

The

Moravians, however,

were

never given full political control of their affairs

and

received

some

direction

from

the courthouse estab-lished atSalisbury.

The

tract

was

neverdivided inthe

formation of

new

counties

on

thefrontier,althoughthis

was once proposed

but putoffthrough complaint ofthe

Moravians.

In 1849 the

new

county of Forsyth

was

created, a

county

which

is in effect

an expanded

Wachovia.

The

desire to have

Salem

function as the county seat

was

objectedto by the Moravians, but with their

acquies-cence the secularcounty seat of

Winston was

grafted

onto

the

Salem

Town

Lot and

in 1913the

hyphenated

name

of

Winston-Salem was

adopted.

Conclusions

The

examination of Carolina

and

itselementsreveals thatplansputinplacebycolonialsettlersarenotdry

and

distanteventsofantiquity.

Rather

they are the basisfor

ongoing

processes

which

extendstrongly intothe

pres-ent.

The

intentionsofpast planners havea durability

which

transcends generations

and

successive

govern-ments. This durabilityisparticularly evident

when

the plans carrythe culturalweight ofcarefullyformulated Elizabethan conceptsforthesettlementofacontinent,

or the establishment of a

Moravian

settlement or a

North

Carolinacounty.Thisisexemplifiedbytheregion ofCarolina.

Winston-Salem

israpidlygrowingintothe

physiography of

Wachovia

both supported

and

con-strainedbythe

Muddy

Creek

drainagebasinchosen by

Bishop Spangenburg

in1753.

Faced

withthisexpansion,

outlyinghistoric

communities

findthe rapid

change

of 20th century

growth

a threat totheirlong-termstability.

Recognizing that Forsyth

County

is the

Wachovia

Tract expanded, study ofthetract

and

itselementshas

provided inputfortheplanningprocess

which

has

pro-duced

substantiveresults. Initial plans foranorthwest

Beltwayaround Winston-Salem throughForsyth

County

proposed

acorridordirectlythroughthevillageof

Be-thania.

The

route asoriginallyconceived intruded

di-rectlyintothecore ofthe 1759

Town

lotatthe foot of

God's

Acre

Hill.

God's

Acre

isthe

Moravian

name

fora

graveyard,an importantfocal pointforeach

Moravian

congregation.

In 1991, theBethania National RegisterDistrictwas

increased

from

50 acres (establishedin 1975based

on

standingstructuresalong

Main

Street) to500acresto

encompass

thesignificantagriculturallands, forestsand

colonialroad system

which surrounded

the settlement.

An

immediate

benefitofthisexpansionintheplanning

process

was

theeliminationof proposalsforany Beltway

corridor

which

would

intrude

on

the Bethania

Town

Lot.

Awareness

ofBethania's significancecontinuesto

increase

and

the National Park Service is currently

preparing a

nomination

toelevate Bethania to

Land-mark

status based

on

the the 1991 National Register

amendment

and boundary

expansion.

Similarly,but

on

a differentscale,aproposalto

widen

and

paveahistoriclanewithinthevillageofBethania

was

deemed

a threat to the

roadway

aswellasadjacent historic

and

archaeologicalsites.Negotiation with dis-trict

and

state

Department

ofTransportationengineers

and

environmentalofficialsresulted inthe lanebeing

paved

initsexistingdimensions with asurfacing of tan

peagravel.

As

a result, the lane

was

stabilized witha sensitiveappearancethatdidnotnegativelyimpactthe characterofthehistoric village.

Both

proposals

would

have

been

detrimental had

they

been

carriedthroughas originallyplanned without awareness ofBethania's past

and

the relationshipofthe existing

community

to thatpast.

As

professionals

work-ingat the turn ofthe 21st century, it is importantto recognize

and

understand that deliberate

and

explicit pastplanninghas

been

anintegralpartoftherealityof

Carolina in

company

with

deep

seated implicit tradi-tions. Current planningcannot takeplace

on

a clean slate

and

the presence of powerful plans

and

goals originatinginpastgenerations

must be

acknowledged.

Awareness

ofhistory

and

cultureisnotmerelyanicety

inplanning,itisbasic tounderstandingthe

community.

Ifthe futureisto

be

plannedfor,thenthatplanning

must

incorporate the past

and

the planning

which

deliber-ately

shaped

ourpast

and

ourpresent.

Carolina,withitsrelativelyshortperiod ofexistence

rootedincolonial

and

post-colonial settlement,offers

much

informationabout extendedeffectsofplans, suc-cessful

and

otherwise.

Those

interested in the