History vs History

I've been around the block twice , now, and finally figured out why this town feels so different from Nashville.

It's history is intact.

Not that Nashville's a slouch when it comes to preservation (okay, well, maybe it is) but there's so much less to preserve.

Ironic, that. Because Nashville is the older city--by a good 50 years or more. But there's not much left of the 19th century. A few historic homes, mostly antebellum mansions and farms, but very little on the city streets themselves. Muscatine's hill, on the other hand, has many homes that date to the 19th century, many of them well-preserved and lived in.

So, what happened in Nashville?

My guess is a little ruckus called the Civil War. Nashville was the first state capital to fall to union troops, and the last large-scale battle of the war's western front. By the time Appomattox rolled around, who knows what shape the city was in? We know the south was ravaged by the war, so maybe few people had money to build. People probably eked out their lives in whatever home they had until it was falling around their ears. By the time things stabalized and some wealth recouped, any homes being built were constructed on a more modest scale. Most seem to date from the first quarter of the 20th century and into the 1930s.

On the other hand, Nashville's population nearly quadrupled in size between the end of the war and 1900, which would indicate a definite level of prosperity. So, go figure.

In any case, no battles were fought in Muscatine, unless you consider the battle of industry. That war enriched the city, which, in its heyday, produced nearly 40% of the world's pearl buttons.
The beautiful homes in the historic district with their gingerbread trim, turrets, and wraparound porches are evidence of that.