often able to equal if not to excel their English peers. 

 The persistence of the pottery for at least 20 and 

 perhaps more than 34 years was owing in part, no 

 doubt, to Governor Gooch's apologetic treatment of 

 it in his reports to the Lords of the Board of Trade 

 and to his leniency toward colonial manufacturers in 

 general. Basically, however, it was a response to 

 public need and to a growing independence and a 

 socio-economic situation distinct from the mother 

 country's. The Virginians had a will and direction 

 which impelled them beyond the restrictions imposed 

 upon them to grow tobacco and do little else. The 

 "poor potter" is significant because he exemplified 

 the impulse to break these restrictions and to move 

 the colony toward a craft-oriented economy. Because 

 his wares were skillfully made and sometimes were 

 scarcely distinguishable from those of his English com- 

 petitors, he was able to hold his position economically 

 and at the same time to become personally wealthy 

 and influential. The scope of his enterprise — more 

 clearly demonstrated in the archeological section of 

 this presentation — should lead to a reappraisal of 

 Governor Gooch's attitudes toward the endeavors of 

 the colonists. His reports to the Board of Trade are 



shown to have been dissimulations instead of state- 

 ments of fact. They evidence a daring and suggest a 

 wisdom and a degree of pragmatism on the part of the 

 Governor that might well have been continued by 

 the Crown and its authorities. This entire episode 

 illustrates a remarkably fluid phase of Virginia's his- 

 tory in which the opportunity for an energetic man 

 to rise from obscurity to wealth and position foretold 

 a pattern that became legendary in American societv. 



Governor Gooch undoubtedly sensed these internal 

 pressures, as much psychological as economic, to 

 seek the rewards of industry and enterprise. That 

 the pottery later ceased to function and Virginia's 

 manufactures in general failed to develop may reflect 

 the differences in attitudes between Governor Gooch 

 and his successors and the stubborn impositions by 

 the Crown that eventually led to the American 

 Revolution. 



There seems little doubt that the "poor potter," 

 William Rogers, and the maker of the pottery so 

 liberally dispersed around Yorktown and elsewhere in 

 Virginia are one and the same. Further archeo- 

 logical investigation and discovery of a kiln or kiln 

 dump should provide the evidence needed for proof. 



APPENDIXES 



I: Other Virginians by the Name of 

 William Rogers 



In order to feel absolutely certain that the William 

 Rogers of Yorktown was the "poor potter" so often 

 mentioned by Governor Gooch, a check was made 

 through the records of all 17th- and 18th-century 

 Virginians named William Rogers to see if any others 

 might possibly have been associated with the York- 

 town pottery. 



The earliest William Rogers found was listed as one 

 of a group of 60 persons transported and assigned to 

 Richard Cooke in Henrico Countv/' 1 In 1639 a 



51 "Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents," prepared by W. G. 

 Si an \kd. Virginia Magazine of History & Biography (hereinafter 

 designated VHM) (1899), vol. 5, p. 186. 



"Mr. William Rogers" was viewer of the tobacco crop 

 in Upper Norfolk. 52 In 1718 a William Rogers died 

 in Richmond County. 53 It is quite evident that none 

 of these was the "poor potter." 



In 1704 a William Rogers owned 200 acres in 

 Accomack County on the Eastern Shore, 54 and in 1731 

 a will of William Rogers was recorded there. 55 



In Surry County several men of this name are noted. 



sa "Viewers of Tobacco Crop, 1639," VHM (1898), vol. 5, 

 p. 121. 



53 VironiKi Willi and Administrations 1632-1800, comp. Clayton 

 Torrence (Richmond, Wm. Byrd Press, Inc., n.d.), pp. 364—365. 



■ r,< English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records, comp. Louis des 

 Coquets, Jr. (Princeton, N.J. : Privately printed, 1958), p. 128. 



" Virginia Wills and Administrations, loc. cit. (footnote 53). 



86 



BULLETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



