This report was written on September 5, 1989

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church is located at 1605 Luther Street, Charlotte, NC.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property: The owner of the property is:

Mt. Zion Church of God Holiness
2634 Marlboro Ave.
Norfolk, VA 23504

Telephone: None listed

The occupant of the property is:

Mt. Zion Church of God Holiness
1605 Luther Street
Charlotte, NC 28204

Telephone: None listed

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map which depicts the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3869, page 854. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 125-115-24.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. William H. Huffman, Ph.D.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Joseph Schuchman.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: l) the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church, erected about 1896, has continuously served as a religious center for the Cherry community, a black residential district developed in the 1890s and early 1900s by John Springs Myers and Mary Rawlinson Myers; 2) the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church was organized by William Philo Phifer ( ? -1911), a leader in establishing black Lutheran churches in Charlotte and its environs; 3) the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church is the oldest structure still standing which has been used as a house of worship in the Cherry community; and 4) the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church is a compelling local example of a simple Gothic Revival style church structure.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Joseph Schuchman which is included in this report demonstrates that the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $9,630. The current appraised value of the .91 acres of land is $11,880. The property is presently exempted from the payment of Ad Valorem taxes. The property is zoned B1.

Date of preparation of this report: September 5, 1989

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
1225 S. Caldwell St.
Charlotte, NC 28203

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

For fifty years, the Mt. Zion Lutheran Church was an important part of Charlotte’s Cherry neighborhood, and its successor continues to serve the community from the same building. Built about 1896, Mt. Zion served its parishioners until 1946, when it merged with another Lutheran church, but its original building still calls worshipers to service on Sundays.

Although it is often assumed that the Cherry neighborhood was built as a housing area for servants of affluent Myers Park residents, it was in fact laid out as a “model Negro housing development” by John Springs Myers and Mary Rawlinson Myers in the 1890s and early 1900s. Its purpose was to provide good, low-cost housing for black laborers and craft workers well before construction began on Myers Park in 1912 as one of the city’s fashionable streetcar suburbs). Located about a mile from the center of town, Cherry (in the early days also called Cherryton or Cherrytown) is situated between The Elizabeth neighborhood on the north and Myers Park to the south.

The land that became Cherry and Myers Park was part of a 306-acre inheritance that John Springs Myers received in 1869 from his father. Over the next twenty years, Myers built his holdings to over one thousand acres in the area south of town. He built a country house on the Providence Road about two miles south of town, and began to entertain the idea that his land could someday be used for a residential area with park-like landscaping. An influential factor for the development of Cherry on part of this land was the Myers’ active membership in St. Peter’s Episcopal Church. The church had a strong record of ministry to blacks in the city that included the founding of churches, a school and a hospital. In addition, the Myers family itself was known for its interest in the welfare of the town’s black citizens (J. S. Myers’ father, NV. R. Myers, had donated the land for Johnson C. Smith University after the Civil War).² In 1891, Cherry began when Jack Myers recorded a plat with house lots along three new streets located halfway between the city center and his farm cottage. They were part of what is now Main, Cherry and Luther Streets, and the name “Cherry” apparently came from the cherry trees that used to grow on the surrounding hillsides. During the next thirty-odd years, Myers continued to add tree-lined streets with small house lots, churches, a park and a school to the Cherry development, and it was carried on after the mid-1920s by their children. It was quite successful in its purpose of providing good, low-cost rental or owner housing for the city’s black unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Lots were sold for fifty dollars on easy terms, and by 1925, 198 of the 305 Cherry households, about sixty-five percent, were resident-owned. The modern misconception about the neighborhood being a servants’ quarter arose after Myers Park was built starting in 1912, when indeed a number of servants of those families moved into Cherry.³

The story of Mt. Zion Lutheran Church in Cherry is closely connected to its founding pastor, William Philo Phifer ( ? – 1911). After the Civil War, a number of Protestant denominations took steps to establish churches among freed blacks and to train black preachers and teachers to staff them and the schools that were often part of the church. In 1868, the North Carolina Synod of the Lutheran Church licensed the first black Lutheran preacher in the state, Michael Coble of Alamance County, but he left to join the Methodist church in the 1870s. Four more blacks were ordained during the 1880s to serve congregations in Concord, Charlotte, Burlington and Lexington. Among these was William Philo Phifer, who is thought to have grown up on a Phifer plantation near Concord, NC. Possibly educated in Baltimore, he was first licensed by the Maryland Synod October 7,1888. The following year, he was received into the North Carolina Synod on August 28, which was followed by his ordination in Charlotte on April 20,1890.⁴

During the 1880s and early 90s, there was only one Lutheran Church in Charlotte belonging to the North Carolina Synod, St. Mark’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Tryon Street. Shortly after Phifer took up his work in Charlotte, ministry to black congregations in North Carolina was taken over by the Missionary Board of the Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, which was headquartered in St. Louis. Within three years of his ordination in Charlotte, Rev. Phifer had built a congregation of sufficient size that the Missionary Board bought property at “E” and 2nd Streets (now Alexander and 2nd, in the former black community of Brooklyn in Second Ward) in 1893, on which was built St. Paul’s Lutheran Church and school.⁵

Three years later, in January, 1896, Phifer organized Mt. Zion Lutheran Church in the new black community of Cherry, and in November of that year the Missionary Board of the Lutheran Synodical Conference bought a lot on Davidson Street (later changed to Luther Street) for fifty dollars from the Myers, and built the present church building.⁶ Since there were only thirty heads of household listed in Cherry by 1898, the church membership was small, and remained so throughout its subsequent years. As was usually the case, a small school was also conducted by the church.⁷ Mt. Lion was actually the second church in Cherry, the first being the Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, which bought the third lot sold in the neighborhood in 1892. It was located on Luther Street near Providence Road, and still operates today from a new building at Banter and Baldwin Streets.⁸

In October, 1900, Rev. Phifer appears to have organized another congregation, the St. Mark’s (Colored) Lutheran Church in the Brooklyn area of Second Ward. In a dispute with the Mission Board, Phifer left Mt. Zion to take over St. Mark’s, and the latter bought property for a new church building at Davidson and 3rd Streets with the backing of the North Carolina Synod in 1901. Phifer gave up this post in 1904, when he took up a pastorale in Baltimore, Maryland, where he served until his death in 1911.⁹

Mt. Zion continued to operate under the Mission Board until 1946, when it merged with the St. Paul’s Church to form St. Andrews, which was located on the site of the present downtown post offices. At that time the Mt. Zion building was sold to a descendent of the Myers, Mrs. Harriette C. Dwelle. After thirty years of ownership, Mrs. Dwelle sold it to the present owners, the Mt. Zion Church of God, Holiness, in 1976.¹¹

Since its construction around ninety years ago in the fledgling Cherry community, the Mt. Zion Church on Luther Street has been an intimate part of a unique Charlotte neighborhood, one that reflects the determination of both black and white leaders in the late nineteenth century to build a better world for its citizens.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Thomas Hanchett, Charlotte Neighborhood Survey, Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1984.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Richard Perry, “William Philo Phifer,” undated typescript, Office of Inclusive Ministry, North Carolina Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, Charlotte, NC; Christopher Drewes, Half a Century of Lutheranism Among Our Colored People. 1877-1927 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1927), p. 50; Robert Moore, Jr., “A Brief History of Black Lutherans in North Carolina,” undated typescript (c. 1975) in Lutheran Archives, Salisbury, NC, pp. 5-7.

⁵Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 116, p.122,18 Nov. 1896.

⁷ Hanchett, cited above; Interview with Laura Kirkpatrick, 1701 Luther Street, Charlotte, NC, 30 August 1985.

⁸ Hanchett, cited above.

⁹ See note 4.

¹⁰ Interview with Richard Perry, Office of Inclusive Ministry, North Carolina Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, Charlotte, NC, 21 August 1985.

¹¹ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1222, p.567, 11 Sept. 1946; Ibid., 3869, p.854, 6 Aug. 1976.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Joseph Schuchman

The Mt. Zion Lutheran Church (now the Mt. Zion Church of God Holiness) is a simple Gothic Revival structure which was built in 1896. The church is one of the oldest buildings in Cherry, an early black community, and one of the oldest surviving frame churches within the city of Charlotte. Although simply executed, the structure is clearly influenced by the Gothic motifs popular at the turn of the century.

Gothic architecture, characterized by the pointed arch and, to a lesser extent, the flying buttress, vaulting rib and moulding, first evidenced itself in the rebuilding of St. Denis Abbey Church in France in the early twelfth century. The style came to dominate medieval architecture, particularly religious building, from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries. The widespread use of the Gothic began to wane, partially in response to the popularity of the Renaissance style and also from the social and aesthetic effects of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. But by the mid-eighteenth century, the seeds of the Gothic Revival were being sown in England; the movement achieved widespread popularity in Europe and the United States throughout the mid to late nineteenth century and into the early decades of the present century. While the style was typically associated with ecclesiological architecture, Gothic Revival motifs were widely adapted to public buildings and even residential construction, from the humblest cottage to the grandest of mansions.¹

Charlotte’s First Presbyterian Church (begun ca. 1842) is Gothic Revival at its most high style. The popularity of the style endured for many years in the Queen City. Gothic motifs are strongly evident in three of the city’s finest late nineteenth century houses of worship, St. Peter’s Episcopal (1892) on North Tryon Street, St. Peter’s Roman Catholic(1893) on South Tryon Street and St. Mary’s Chapel (1893) on Kings Drive. In Dilworth, the sanctuary (ca. 1952) and flanking buildings of Covenant Presbyterian Church are arranged around a medieval-inspired courtyard. Gothic arches are even prominently displayed in many of the area’s more modern church structures. The style’s longstanding popularity was, in no small measure, due to its widespread adaptability. Even less substantial congregations could incorporate Gothic motifs into the most simple meeting place. Modest frame structures incorporating Gothic arched opening are to be found throughout black and white churches in both urban and rural areas of the Piedmont. ²

Mt. Zion Lutheran Church is a well-preserved example of a simply executed structure incorporating Gothic Revival motifs. The one story structure is of frame construction and rises to a gabled roof. Elevations are weatherboarded; plain cornerboards rise from the base. Fenestration on the rectangular main block is symmetrically arranged. Four/four sash, surmounted by a lances cap, are the primary glazing material. Exterior openings are framed by plain surrounds. A diminutive one-story entrance pavilion is centered on the front elevation and flanked on either side by a single lancet window. Physical evidence indicates that the gable-roofed pavilion is a later addition although it is known to have been in existence by 1929. Concrete stairs with wrought iron handrails lead to the double leaf six-panel entrance doors. Rectangular wood cut shingles cover the entrance gable.³

Side elevations are each three bays deep and were originally arranged identically. In 1976, the rear opening on the west side was converted into a side entrance; a six panel door was installed although an upper portion of the window sash and the lancet arch remain. The rear elevation is blind. A Gothic arched ventilator covering is centrally located on the front gable. A tripped belfry sits atop the ridge line above the entrance; Gothic arched ventilator covers are set within the front and side elevations. The church originally rested upon brick piers; the cement block underpinning was installed in 1976. Asphalt shingle is the primary roofing material.

The interior of the entrance pavilion is wood paneled; the original tongue and groove sheathing remains visible beneath. The rear wall of the vestibule is weatherboarded, indicating the exterior wall of the original structure. The roof is ceiled in tongue and groove sheathing. Ten panel double leaf doors lead from the tiny entrance vestibule into the small, simply detailed sanctuary. The original tongue and groove wainscot, which encircles the room, has been covered by wood paneling. Above the wainscot, the wall is sheathed in stucco, possibly a later addition. The original tongue and groove ceiling, which rises to the structure’s full height, has been hidden by the installation of a drop ceiling. Rhythmically placed window openings are set in simple two-part surrounds. The nave terminates at the raised pulpit, above which is placed a simple wood cross. To the right of the pulpit is a small pastor’s study, which is wood paneled. To the pulpit’s left are two restrooms, indicated by the words “Brothers” and Sisters” respectively. Both rooms are partially encircled by a tongue and groove wainscot and may have either been one room or served as part of the pulpit area.

The Mt. Zion Church is a monument to the Christian faith of the early Cherry residents and to the congregation’s present members, many of whom live outside the neighborhood but come together to worship their creator. In many ways, the church is also a monument to the existence and survival of Cherry itself.

 

---

NOTES

¹ P. Furneaux Jordan, A Concise History of Western Architecture. (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1959), pages 130, 280-281

² Information based upon work previously done by investigator in Union and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina.

³ Sanborn Insurance Company, Charlotte, 1929. (New York, Sanborn Insurance Company, 1929). On microfilm at main branch, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. The Cherry neighborhood was not included on any previous Sanborn Maps of Charlotte, so it was not possible to make a comparison between the 1929 building and earlier representations.

This report was written on May 4, 1983

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Old Mount Carmel Baptist Church is located at 408-416 Campus Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The present owner of the property is:

Mount Carmel Baptist Church
3201 Tuckaseegee Road
Charlotte, NC 28208

Telephone: (704) 394-3525

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map which depicts the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 4040 at page 404. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 069-011-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. William H. Huffman.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Thomas W. Hanchett, architectural historian.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Old Mount Carmel Baptist Church does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the oldest portion of the building, dedicated on May 8, 1921, was built according to plans prepared by Louis Asbury, an architect of local and regional importance; 2) the building served as the location of Mount Carmel Baptist Church from 1921 until 1977 and, therefore, was a cultural centerpiece of the Biddleville community for more than fifty years; 3) the oldest portion of the building is one of the finer local examples of the Victorian Gothic style.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Mr. Thomas W. Hanchett demonstrates that the Old Mount Carmel Baptist Church meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the .317 acres of land is $4,000. The current appraised value of the improvements is $112,240. The total current appraised value is $116,240. The property is zoned R6MF.

Date of Preparation of this Report: May 4, 1983

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
218 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Mount Carmel Baptist Church is integrally a part of the history of the Biddleville community, located about a mile and a half to the northwest of the Square in downtown Charlotte. Biddleville was, before its incorporation into the city, the village which grew up next to the present Johnson C. Smith University, and was named after the schools former title, Biddle Memorial Institute (1867-1876), later Biddle University (1876-1923). The school, which was started by the Presbyterian church after the Civil War to educate young black freedmen to become teachers and preachers in the South, was itself named in honor of Major Henry J. Biddle, a Union Army soldier who fell in battle in 1862, and whose widow, Mary D. Biddle of Philadelphia, PA, donated sufficient funds to give the institution a real start.

Biddle Institute’s first president, Dr. Stephen Mattoon (1815-1886), a native of New York State with an outstanding missionary record, served from 1870 to 1884, and in 1885-6. Under his able leadership, the school became firmly established as an educational institution of quality, and became one of the leading schools of its kind in the region, and eventually, in the nation. In addition to insuring the survival and growth of Biddle Institute, Reverend Mattoon was largely responsible for the establishment of the village itself. The original eight acres of land for the Institute was donated by Colonel William R. Meyers about 1869, and eventually a total of 95 acres of hilltop farmland were purchased from this famous Charlotte leader for the campus. The original Biddleville was mostly the result of Mattoon’s personal acquisition of land next to the school, which he resold to ex-slaves on very modest, affordable terms.

As the school grew in numbers, so did the Biddleville community with its residents, whose religious needs also expanded. In 1878, two years after Biddle University had been chartered by the state legislature with the authority to grant degrees, a small prayer group, which met in various member’s homes or under a large oak tree in the village on nice days, resolved to form a Missionary Baptist Church in Biddleville. The decision was undertaken at a meeting held at the home of Mrs. Amanda McClure, and included Cary Etheridge and his wife, W. M. Parks and Mrs. Parks, Mrs. Rachel Ross and Mrs. Winnie Phifer. Since nine members were required to start a new church, the group found it necessary to “borrow” two other Baptists, one of whom was William Davidson of the First Baptist Church of Charlotte. Mr. Davidson was the father of Reverend W. H. Davidson, who was to pastor the Mount Carmel Church for most of the first half of the twentieth century, and was also the great-uncle of the present interim president of Johnson C. Smith University, Mack L. Davidson, Jr.²

A site had also been found for the new church: an old shop, formerly a barroom, in the 600 block of Beatties Ford Road, which the owner allowed them to use free of charge. It was here, sometime during the year 1878, that Reverend Elder Eagle, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Charlotte, formally prefected the Mount Carmel Baptist Church. They continued to meet as a Sunday prayer group until about the end of the year, when, at a meeting presided over by Cary Etheridge, the decision was made to call a pastor. Thus the Reverend Albert Lewis, a student at Biddle University was called to officiate at worship services which could then include singing, reading of Scripture, prayer, a sermon, offering and benediction.³

Reverend Lewis led the Mount Carmel Baptist Church for twenty years, and during his tenure, he organized a board of deacons, a women’s missionary society, and a Sunday school. The deacon’s board was responsible for the material as well as the spiritual welfare of the church. In some of its earliest decisions, the following rules were adopted: All members were required to live in harmony with one another, and, “if any were found guilty of not speaking to another member, dancing, attending a dance (even without dancing), use of profanity, fornication, adultery, non-attendance of church services and non-attendance of three church meetings without satisfactory excuse, the right hand of fellowship was withdrawn.”⁴ The women’s missionary society, organized in 1883, raised money for the church and provided clothing for children who could not otherwise attend Sunday school. Worship service during this time was held on the second and fourth Sundays of the month, and on the first and third Sundays, prayer services were held with a deacon or missionary member in charge. At the latter meetings, money collected went for the upkeep of the church, but the offerings on preaching Sundays all went to pay the pastor.⁵

As the membership increased, it became increasingly desirable to locate in the church’s own quarters, and so in 1883, Cary Etheridge, acting as sole trustee of the church, purchased a one-hundred-foot square lot on Church ( now Campus) Street in Biddleville for $32.00. After six months labor, the congregation was able to move into the new frame building, which had cost about $250.00 to build. The pews and the pulpit furniture were made by the men of Mount Carmel, but the new building did not have a baptismal pool, and so a nearby creek branch was used for the purpose. Under the subsequent pastorale of Reverend Samuel S. Person (1902-1906), a student at Shaw University in Raleigh, the membership grew to seventy-eight. His other major accomplishment was to attempt to bring some harmony in the relations with the other two churches of Biddleville, the Gethsemene A.M.E. Zion and Biddleville Presbyterian churches through pulpit exchanges and social meetings. At the time, there was an intense rivalry among the three to keep their own members and recruit newcomers to the community in addition to doctrinal differences of opinion. The minister’s efforts apparently achieved some modest success which paved the way for further progress in the future. ⁸

It was during the fifty-year pastorale of Reverend William H. Davidson (1914-1964), however, that the church made giant strides in growth and programs. When he answered the call, while still a student at Friendship College in Rock Hill, South Carolina, the congregation numbered one hundred-twenty members, and, under his enthusiastic leadership, it began to grow rapidly.⁹ Near the end of World War I, in March, 1918, the church engaged a well-known local architect, Louis Asbury, to draw up plans for a new brick building.

Louis Asbury (1877-1975), in his fifty-some year career in Charlotte, starting in 1908, designed an impressive variety of structures in the city and surrounding area. He was a Charlotte native, the son of S. J. and Martha Moody Asbury, and helped his father build houses in Charlotte in the 1890s. After graduation from Trinity College (now Duke University), Asbury attended architecture school at MIT, and was first employed by two firms in New York City, Rossiter & Wright, then Cram, Goodhese and Ferguson. As Charlotte’s first professionally trained architect, Louis Asbury has hundreds of buildings to his credit: churches, schools, hotels, stores, institutions, and residences for many of the area’s prominent citizens. These include the old county courthouse (1926), the Charles P. Moody house on Providence Road (1913), Myers Park Methodist Church (1928), the Law Building (1926), and the Hawthorne Lane Methodist Church (1915).

According to the minutes of Mount Carmel, there was a meeting in October, 1918, of the congregation, where Reverend Davidson submitted his ideas for a new church to those assembled. He indicated that rather than having new plans for a building drawn at considerable expense, already existing plans could be purchased for seventy-five dollars, and the building could be constructed by day labor, instead of a contractor, on a “pay-as-you-build plan,” if they could eventually raise $5,000.00 for the work. His suggestions were immediately accepted, and on October 4, 1918, a building permit was taken out, which showed that a structure of three rooms, with a ground plan of 36 x 50 feet,was to be built according to a Louis Asbury design, and it was estimated to cost $2,500.00.¹²

In order to raise money for the enterprise, the members were divided into ten teams which were to make progress reports the following February, 1919. They held “mock weddings, fish fries, imaginary trips around the world, chicken dinners, “chittlin’ struts,” and other imaginative programs to generate funds. By the latter part of the year over $5,000.00 had been raised, and the groundbreaking took place. Construction of the church was carried out by men volunteers of the church, under the direction of Erastus Hairston, a deacon, while the women prepared meals for the workers.

While construction was under way, it became clear that more money would be needed to complete the project, and three trustees, Robert McClure, J. C. Watt and Wade Chambers volunteered to mortgage their homes to raise the needed funds. Arrangements were made to borrow eleven hundred dollars from a Mrs. O’Neil of Charlotte for a period of twelve months. When her attorney, a Peter Z. Young, discovered that the mortgaged property had a value of nine thousand dollars, he urged her to call in the note after six months, probably forcing preclosure. When this news became known, the pastor ordered construction to halt, and called a meeting of the congregation to plan a money-raising rally to last for sixty days. During that time, $1,953.50 was successfully collected, the mortgage was paid, and work resumed.

Soon another problem was encountered in putting up the new building: a shortage of bricks available for purchase. The pastor spent many days walking all over Charlotte from dawn to dusk searching for bricks with no success. Finally, a solution presented itself when the home of a wealthy resident of Myers Park burned beyond repair, and the bricks were bought for twelve dollars a thousand. Although they were bought with the intention of using them for filler, it was soon discovered, after cleaning, that they were pressed brick in good condition, and so were laid as the main structure. ¹³

Although it is a Presbyterian-related school, much money was raised for the construction of the church by President Henry L. McCrorey, Dr. Thomas Long and students at Biddle University. Mrs. Davidson, the pastor’s wife, told Mr. James R. Webb, Jr., that “…the glee club and band from Biddle will always have a warm spot in the hearts of the members of Carmel because of the impressive concerts rendered at our church which brought in hundreds of dollars.”¹⁴ Final completion of the church was financed through a $2,000.00, six-year loan from the First National Bank of Charlotte, which was paid three years early.

In April, 1921, the great effort put forth by many dedicated members and friends finally bore fruit; the building was finished. It was dedicated on Sunday, May 8, 1921, complete with new pews, pulpit furnishings and rugs, and the sermon on that day was given by Reverend B. K. Mason, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Charlotte. Just under three years later, in January, 1924, the church held a mortgage-burning ceremony, and their celebration was complete. The old frame building was sold to Reverend William Barbour, who used the materials to construct his own home.

In 1925, the surplus building materials from the original construction were used to build on two new rooms as a wing for a combination choir and classrooms at a cost of seventeen hundred dollars. In spite of the subsequent depression of the 1930s, the church membership continued to rise, and rallies were again held to raise money for a Sunday school annex in 1933. Their efforts were once again successful, and by the third Sunday in June, 1935, the new annex was dedicated. It contained an assembly room, two classrooms, and a basement divided into classrooms and a kitchen.

As a result of subsequent membership drives, enrollment increased to 979 by 1947, and another drive was set in motion for an education building. Relying on their previously successful pay-as-you-build method, the church was able to put up a building of thirteen classrooms, a clerk’s office, library and basement, at a cost of about $25,000, without going into debt. It was completed in 1948.

Thirty years later, however, the community and the church had grown to the point where even larger facilities were justified, and, on April 3, 1977, under the direction of the present pastor, Dr. Leon Riddick, Mount Carmel Baptist moved to a much larger, previously constructed church complex at 3201 Tuckaseegee Road, with an auditorium that seats 825, and a chapel with close to 200 places. The church had come a long way since its original seven prayer-group members in Biddleville in 1878. Presently, the old building is leased to another church denomination but still owned by Mount Carmel.

As the first brick structure in the Biddleville community²¹ (aside from the Johnson C. Smith campus), situated squarely in the heart of the surrounding wood frame buildings, Mount Carmel stands as a monument to the joys, sorrows and struggles of the community of which it is so much a part. Its success represents a triumph over the many obstacles facing the residents of the post-Civil War village, and is a symbol of their determination to grow spiritually, socially and economically.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Arthur A. George, 100 Years, 1867-1967: Salient Factors in the Growth and Development of Johnson C. Smith University (Charlotte: Johnson C. Smith University, 1968); Jack Claiborne, Jack Claiborne’s Charlotte (Charlotte: Charlotte Publishing, 1974), pp.50-52; “The New South Neighborhoods: Biddleville,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1981.

² James R. Webb, Jr., “A History of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church of Charlotte, North Carolina,” unpublished Bachelor of Divinity Thesis, Johnson C. Smith University, 1951, pp. 3-6; Centennial Souvenir Journal Mount Carmel Through the Years. 1878-1978 “Charlotte: Mount Carmel Baptist Church, 1978), p.7.

³ Webb, pp. 5-6, Journal, p.7.

⁴ Webb, p.7.

⁵ Ibid., pp.8-9.

⁶ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 39, p.536, 29 December 1883.

⁷ Webb, pp.7-8.

⁸ Ibid., pp.l4-21; Journal, p.8.

⁹ Webb, p.34; Journal, p.8.

¹⁰ Louis Asbury’s Job List, Louis Asbury Papers #4237, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Job Number 284, 16 March 1918.

¹¹ Ibid.; and information on file at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

¹² Webb, p.36; Journal, p.9; City of Charlotte Building Permit No. 2532, 14 October 1918.

¹³ Webb, pp.36-39.

¹⁴ Ibid., p.40.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp.40-41.

¹⁶ Ibid., p.4

¹⁷ Ibid., p.4

¹⁸ Ibid., pp.44-45.

¹⁹ Journal, p.l0.

²⁰ Interview with Ione Jones, Charlotte, NC, 1982.

²¹ Journal, p.9.

²² December 1982.

 

Architectural Description  

Thomas W. Hanchett

The red brick Old Mount Carmel Baptist Church is an example of Victorian Gothic architecture. It was erected 1918-1921 from plans by Louis Asbury, one of Charlotte’s foremost early architects. It has been added to several time over the decades as its congregation has increased, but these additions have left the original sanctuary largely intact, inside and out.

The earliest section of the church is the sanctuary, a gable-roofed block five bays deep. The roof is tall and steep-pitched in the Gothic tradition. A pair of triangular vents penetrate the sides. The roof has very shallow eaves along the sides of the building, while at the ends the walls rise above the roofline to form parapet gables.

The front of the church is dominated by a tower at one corner. The tower is visible for some distance up and down the street, marking Old Mount Carmel’s unusual mid-block location. The tower is two stories tall with a crenellated top, corbelled cornice, and brick buttressed sides, all hallmarks of the Victorian Gothic style. At the second story there is a long pointed-arched opening on each side, filled with wooden louvering. At the first story of the tower are small, paired, rectangular windows with wooden tracery. These window units are similar to those used in Asbury’s Advent Christian Church built on McDowell Street near downtown Charlotte at the same time, and may have been stock lumberyard items. Next to the tower is a recessed front porch in a brick arched opening. A pair of large doors, one at the left, the other at the right, lead into the church vestibules.

The north side of the sanctuary continues the Gothic mode. Brick buttresses divide the facade into five bays. Each bay has a big Gothic pointed arch. The arches are laid up of two courses of brick darker than the body of the building, for decorative effect. Each opening holds a pair of pointed-arched windows with simple tracery.

Inside the high-ceilinged sanctuary, Asbury left part of the roof framing exposed in the Gothic manner. Beams with curved struts span the space, aided by slender tie-beams. Electric lights in Art Deco style milk-glass enclosers, possibly dating from the 1940s, hang from the centers of the tie-beams. The ceiling is of double-beaded tongue-and-groove boards, and similar woodwork is used for a wainscot around the room.

The congregation enters this space at the east end, through the two vestibules. At the west end is the raised altar and choir platform, with a small bandstand off to one side. Doors from the sanctuary lead to two small ante-chambers, one on each side of the platform. Originally one was the pastor’s study, with a fireplace and handsome mantel, and the other was perhaps a choir room. With the growth of the building, these rooms are now used as hallways between the sanctuary and the new wings, and as staging areas during services.

The original building received substantial additions in 1925, 1935, and 1947. They reflect the growth of the congregation as the suburbs of Western Heights, Washington Heights, McCrorey Heights, and others were built on the former farmland surrounding the original Biddleville village.

The first addition came only four years after completion of the original structure. The church was extended two bays southward to include office rooms and additional sanctuary space. The new seating area has a sloping floor with pews set perpendicularly to those on the main floor. Under the wing is a full basement containing a kitchen and fellowship hall. Current Mt. Carmel treasurer and thirty-five year member William Simmons remembers “lots of good meals in this place.” The exterior brickwork and windows of the wing blend perfectly with the original church. A new, larger pastor’s study was probably the next addition in 1935. It is tacked on to the north side of the sanctuary near the rear and opens off the old pastor’s study inside. 1947 saw the church’s largest addition, a two story classroom wing behind the sanctuary. From the outside it is an awkward-looking brick box with a shallow parapet-gable roof. Inside, classrooms, a library, business office, and a pair of bathrooms flank a central stair hall. As in the other additions, there is no trim beyond a chair rail in most rooms. The most interesting feature of the classroom annex is a second floor trap-door that opens to reveal stairs down to the baptism “pool” located behind the altar. In early days baptisms were held outdoors in a nearby creek. Mr. Simmons remembers that they were later held in a tank below the pulpit. The present tank is located so that all members of the congregation in the sanctuary have a good view of the ceremony.

 

This report was written on October 3, 1979

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Morrocroft is located at 2525 Richardson Drive in Charlotte, NC.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:

The present owner of the property is:
James J. Harris & Angelia M. Hazels
Box 220427
Charlotte, NC 28222

Telephone: (704) 366-0925

3. Representative photographs of the property: Representative photographs of the property are included in this report.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map which depicts the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Will Book 7, page 552. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 177-078-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Morrocroft was completed in 1927 as the home of Governor Cameron Morrison (1869-1953) and his second wife, Sara Eckerd Watts Morrson.¹ A native of Richmond County, North Carolina, Morrison was an adroit and flamboyant politician. His initial forays into the public arena occurred in the 1890’s, when as a young attorney he headed the Red Shirt movement in Richmond County, a collection of citizens dedicated to the principles of white supremacy as a prerequisite for the progressive development of North Carolina. The only elective office which Morrison held during these years was as Mayor of Rockingham, NC, in 1893.²

Morrison moved his law practice to Charlotte, NC, in 1905. The Charlotte Observer described him as a young man of ability who possessed a clear, musical voice. On December 6, 1905, Morrison married Lottie May Tomlinson of Durham, NC, who was to be the mother of an only child, Aphelia Lawrence Morrison. Mrs. Morrison died in Presbyterian Hospital on November 12, 1919. A graduate of the Women’s College of Baltimore, MD, and Peace Institute in Raleigh, NC, Mrs. Morrison had been active in local civic affairs. During World War I, she had served as captain of a Red Cross canteen team at Camp Greene, a large military training facility in Charlotte.⁴ In 1920, Morrison opposed O. Max Gardner, Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, in the Democratic primary for Governor. A principal ally of Morrison’s in this campaign was Senator Furnifold Simmons. Morrison was victorious, and in January, 1921, he became the Governor of North Carolina.⁵ In an address which he delivered on January 28, 1921, Governor Morrison emanated the progressive and assertive spirit which was to characterize his administration:

 

“We do not want to move and have our being as a crippled, weak and halting State, but we want to stand up like a mighty giant of progress and go forward in the upbuilding of our State and the glorification of our God.”⁶

It was customary for the chief executives of North Carolina to make bold promises at the outset of their terms, but Cameron Morrison did a better than average job in fulfilling his pledge to the people. He is remembered best as the “Good Roads Governor.” To bring North Carolina “out of the mud,” Morrison secured funds for a massive road building program. His objective was to construct paved highways to every county seat in the state. Governor Morrison also labored to upgrade the educational system throughout North Carolina. Allocations to the public institutions of higher learning were increased substantially during his administration. For example, fourteen buildings were erected on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill between 1921 and 1925, the years during which he served as Governor. Moreover, Morrison committed financial resources to the establishment of excellent primary and secondary schools at the local level. Another of Morrison’s major accomplishments was the improvement of medical facilities, especially those involved in the treatment of the mentally and emotionally infirm.⁷

That Governor Morrison placed education high on a list of priorities is not surprising. It is reasonable to infer that two considerations prompted him to do so. First, as a child in Richmond County, he had experienced the consequence of an inadequate public school system. Indeed, the school at Rockingham was open for only two months each year. Consequently, Morrison was compelled to obtain instruction from private teachers, from M. C. McCaskill at Orbs Springs, NC, and from William Carroll at Rockingham. Moreover, financial considerations prevented his matriculation at the University of North Carolina. He received his legal training in the office of Robert P. Dick in Greensboro, NC. Second, Morrison regarded himself as a student and admirer of Thomas Jefferson. “Democracy rests upon the principle of exact and equal justice to all, and regardless of class or station in life,” he proclaimed in a speech in New York City in 1924.⁹

In keeping with his Jeffersonian proclivities, Morrison believed that the existence of an educated citizenry was indispensable to the survival of the American republic. Indeed, he believed that those black citizens who could demonstrate their ability to grasp and appreciate public issues should be permitted to exercise the full rights of citizenship. Illustrative of Governor Morrison’s position on this matter was the fact that he channeled substantial resources to the improvement of the black colleges of North Carolina.¹⁰ Also noteworthy is the fact that the poll tax was unpolled during his administration.¹¹ Governor Morrison’s personal life changed abruptly on April 2, 1924, when he journeyed to Durham, NC, and married Sara Eckerd Watts, millionairess and widow of George W. Regatta. A native of Syracuse, N.Y., and a trained nurse, she had married Watts, a noted financier and philanthropist, on October 25, 1917.¹² Following the termination of Morrison’s tenure as Governor, the Morrisons moved to Charlotte and undertook the establishment of Morrocroft, an elegant residence and experiment farm of approximately three thousand acres just outside of the city. Completed in 1927, the house and attendant outbuildings were designed by Harrie Thomas Lindeberg, a prominent New York architect who specialized in the delineation of baronial country houses. Governor Morrison became known locally as the “Esquire of Morrocroft.”^l4

Consistent with the New South philosophy which undergirded his system of values, Morrison labored to make his estate a model farm which would reflect the most advanced principles of scientific agriculture and thereby encourage the farmers of North Carolina to do likewise. He raised chickens, turkeys, hogs, and established one of the finest herds of Jersey cattle in the United States. Morrocroft also possessed large fields of grain, vegetables, and fruits.^l5 The significance of his agricultural pursuits notwithstanding, Morrison continued to participate actively in the affairs of the Democratic Party. On December 13, 1930, Governor O. Max Gardner surprised many political pundits by appointing Morrison to the United States Senate to serve out the term of Senator Lee S. Overman, who had recently died.¹⁶ In 1932, however, Morrison was unsuccessful in his campaign against Robert R. Reynolds, an Asheville attorney.¹⁷ Reynolds used his opponent’s wealth as an effective political and oratorical weapon, accusing Governor Morrison of eating caviar and using a gold spittoon.¹⁸ In 1942, the voters of the Tenth Congressional District elected Morrison to the House of Representatives. He did not run for reelection. Instead, he campaigned in 1944 to return to the United States Senate. Again, he was unsuccessful, this time losing to Clyde R. Hoey of Shelby, NC.¹⁹ Governor Morrison did not run for public office again. His involvement in politics did not abate, however. He headed the North Carolina delegation to the National Convention of the Democratic Party in Chicago in 1952. His speech urging the delegates to preserve party unity appeared on national television.²⁰ That Governor Morrison practiced what he preached was affirmed by the fact that he supported enthusiastically the candidacy of Adlai Stevenson for the Presidency. Indeed, the last political speech of his career, presented in Freedom Park in Charlotte, echoed his devotion to the Democratic Party which he had advocated as a young attorney in Richmond County in the 1890’s.

 

“Of course there have been actions taken by Democratic Administrations of which I have not wholly approved. Of course, there have been, and still are, individuals within the Democratic Party whom I would much rather have seen elsewhere. But we must never let anything swerve us from the only honorable course, and that is the true loyalty to the Democratic Party, now, as in the past, and forever.”^2l

Governor Cameron Morrison died on August 21, 1953, of a heart attack at the age of eighty-three. His death occurred in Quebec, Canada, while on a trip with his grandson, James J. Harris, Jr. Mrs. Morrison predeceased her husband, having expired in 1950.²² Mrs. Morrison was a talented and exceptional human being. She was a member of Second Presbyterian Church.²³ “Mrs. Morrison fights the devil through the Presbyterian church, and I try to give him a few good licks through the Democratic Party,” Governor Morrison once remarked.²⁴ Mrs. Morrison served on the Board of the Charlotte YWCA and the Stonewall Jackson Training School. Moreover, she was generous in her support of Queens College in Charlotte, where Morrison Hall was named in her honor.²⁵ Mrs. Morrison bequeathed Morrocroft to her step-daughter, Angelia Lawrence Morrison Harris, and to her step-daughter’s husband, James J. Harris.²⁶ Mr. Harris, an insurance executive, was born in Athens, GA, on May 13, 1907. He and Mrs. Harris were married on October 6, 1934. Over the years, Mr. and Mr. Harris have disposed of the majority of Morrocroft Estate. The house now constitutes the centerpiece of a tract of 16.5 acres.²⁷

 

---

NOTES

¹ The Charlotte News (September 14, 1979), p. 3C. The Charlotte Observer (April 3, 1924), p. 1.

² Beth G. Crabtree, North Carolina Governors 1885-1968 (State Department of Archive and History, Raleigh, 2nd printing rev.) pp. 120-121. Hereafter cited as Crabtree. The Charlotte Observer (March 3, 1920), p. 13.

³ The Charlotte Observer (February 27, 1905), p. 5.

⁴ The Charlotte Observer (November 13, 1919), p. 2.

⁵ Cameron Morrison, An address delivered by the Honorable Frank P. Graham to a Joint Session of the North Carolina General Assembly, March 31, 1955. Hereafter cited as Graham.

⁶ William H. Richardson & D. L. Corbitt, comp. & ed., Public Papers And Letters Of Cameron Morrison. Governor of North Carolina. l92l-1925 (Edwards & Broughton Co., Raleigh, 1927), pp. 17-18.

⁷ Crabtree. Graham. William S. Powell, North Carolina: A Bicentennial History (W. W. Norton & Co., New York, for the American Association of State and Local History, 1977), p. 184, 193, 196.

⁸ Graham. The Charlotte Observer (March 3, 1920), p. 13.

⁹ Graham. “Morrison, Cameron Family,” a folder in the vertica1 files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. Hereafter cited as Family.

¹⁰ Crabtree.

¹¹ Graham.

¹² The Charlotte Observer (April 3, 1924), p. 1.

¹³ “Morrocroft, An Architectural Description” (August 18, 1979) by Carolina Mesrobian for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

¹⁴ Family.

¹⁵ Graham.

¹⁶ Family.

¹⁷ The Charlotte News (August 21, 1953), p. 10A.

¹⁸ Orison, Cameron. Old Clippings, a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg-Public Library.

¹⁹ The Charlotte Observer (August 21, 1953), p. 1.

²⁰ The Charlotte News (August 21, 1953), p. ICE.

²¹ Ibid.

²² The Charlotte Observer (August 21, 1953), p. 1.

²³ Family.

²⁴ Ibid. Governor Morrison characterized his own career in the following manner: “The Lord has just used a knotty-headed old Scotchman who uses his fists, instead of the standard kind of statesman.” The Charlotte News (August 21, 1953), p. 10b.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Mecklenburg County Will Book 7, page 552. 27. History of North Carolina, Volume III, Family and Personal History (Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc.)

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Carolina Mesrobian, architectural historian.

8. Documentation of way and in what ways the em Perth meets the criteria set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-399.4:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: Special historic significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and North Carolina. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations 1) Morrocroft was the home of Cameron Morrison, Governor of North Carolina from 1921 until 1925, 2) the house and attendant outbuildings were designed by Harris Thomas Lindeberg, and 3) the house formed the centerpiece of an experimental farm.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials. feeling and/or association: The Commission judges that the architectural description included herein demonstrated that the property known as Morrocroft meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current tax appraisal on the 16.5 acres of land is $330,000. The current tax appraisal on the improvements is $311,030. The most recent tax bill on the property was $10,737.25.

 

---

Bibliography

The Charlotte News.

The Charlotte Observer.

Beth G. Crabtree, North Carolina Governors 1585-1968 (State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Frank P. Graham, “Cameron Morrison, An Address by the Honorable Frank P. Graham.” “Morrison, Cameron Family,” a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

“Morrison Cameron: Old Clippings” a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public library.

William S. Powell, North Carolina. A Bicentennial History (W. W. Norton & Co., New York, for The American Association of State and Local History, 1977).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

William H. Richardson & D. B. Corbett, comp. & ed., Public Papers And Letters of Cameron Morrison, Governor of North Carolina, 1921-1925 Edwards & Broughton Co., Raleigh, 1927).

 

Date of preparation of this report: October 3, 1979

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
139 Middleton Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28207

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description  

Morrocroft was designed by the New York architect Harrie Thomas Lindeberg (1881? – 1959) for former North Carolina governor Cameron Morrison (served 1921 – 1925) in 1927. Lindeberg, who published a book on his domestic architecture in 1940, designed a number of baronial country houses in the United States for such clients as the Doubleday, Pillsbury, Dupont and Vanderbilt families. Clients in North Carolina included Martin L. Cannon of Charlotte, Mrs. L. J. Morehead of Salem, the Asheville Country Club, and several residents of Biltmore Forest.¹

Lindeberg’s prevalent modes of domestic architecture were the Colonial and Tudor country manor house styles. Morrocroft (a combination of the family surname Morrison and the Scottish word for house)² was built in the Tudor style. The asymmetry, picturesque massing, rhythmic spacing of mullioned, multi-paned grouped windows, and numerous multi-stack chimneys rising from steeply pitched gable roofs are tangible manifestations of the credo on domestic architecture compiled by Lindeberg and his senior partner, Lewis Colt Albro, in 1912.³ Harmony between house and environment was also of the utmost importance to Lindeberg’s total concept of design for Morrocroft, set on the rise of a gradually sloping tract of land, at one time surveyed at 3000 acres of farmland. Portions of the estate were developed from the 1950’s on for residential communities, Cotswold , Sharon Road, and Southpark Shopping Centers and an industrial park on Fairview Road. Although the house is surrounded at present by approximately 15 acres, much of the carefully planned landscaping is still intact.

The present grounds contain the main house and service court, garage, a brick garden house to the south of the house, the brick floor of a summerhouse located to the northwest of the house and a large frame grounds facility. According to the resident caretaker, Mr. Harkey, the latter building was moved to its present site northwest of the house in the early 1970s. The entrance to the grounds from Richardson Drive is bounded by brick walls carrying large decorative lead turkeys with full spread tails. These birds originally faced Sharon Road and were moved as civilization encroached on the estate. The drive, as illustrated in a 1927 house and partial grounds plan, divides into two paths, one leading to a walled service court attached to the right side of the house and a free standing garage standing to the north of the main complex; the other terminating in an oval drive in front of the main entrance, the front being oriented to the northeast.

Landscaping consists of a large number of English boxwood of several sizes and varieties. Small boxwood line the drives and a garden wall extending from the right side of the house, while the front of the house is lined with formal massings of large boxwood. A flagstone terrace leads from the southeast facade to a boxwood and brick lined lawn which terminates in a shallow-basined fountain with four spouts. What appears to have been a rose garden with brick paths radiating from a central nucleus lies due south of the house. The terraced rear (southwest) looks over a vast expanse of lawn to Sharon Road. Symmetrical, curved boxwood hedges line the grassy path and steps leading to the terrace and the main entrance of this facade. A shallow-basined pool with one spout formally defines each side of the lower entrance path. The northwest side of the house faces a dogwood forest. A wide variety of veteran trees shade the house and gardens. Trees include the magnolia, yellow poplar, American holly, ginkgo, Carolina hickory, black locust, white ash, flowering fruits and white willow and live oak.

Exterior, The Manor House (excluding the Service Court)

Morrocroft is characterized by a main two story block (two and-one half stories on the rear facade) with rambling one and one half story side wings which extend either parallel or at a right angle to the main block. Breaks in the wall surfaces which create solids and voids, diverse roof lines and projections from the central block such as the front entrance bay, an oriel window, and a one story office complete with its own roof and chimney provide asymmetrical and picturesque qualities. The house is comprised of narrow ochre and earth colored bricks said to have been made in Holland.⁵ Bondwork is a random, running type, stretchers being the more prevalent, with occasional headers. The steep, gable roofs which provide a vertical accent to the house have terracotta shingles. Heavy metal gutters with ornamental down spout clasps surround the house. The sprawling, horizontal massing of Morrocroft is further balanced by seven brick chimneys, six of which define the end walls of the wings, the seventh being centrally located in the main wing. The majority of the chimneys has three octagonal brick stacks with corbeled caps. Two chimneys on the service yard side have three clay pot stacks. Fenestration, while diverse in size and placement, is made homogeneous by the use of subtlety-tinted English leaded glass. Large sandstone or wooden mullions divide the windows into a number of lights; each light is divided into a number of small, diamond or rectangular shared panes by numerous cames. The glazing is thin and irregular, qualities which help diffract the colors of the stained glass windows and are basically of French, wall-faced pedimented dormer, or the standard Grouped casement type. Frames are either of sandstone or wood painted brown.

Front Facade (northeast)

The front facade may be divided into several sections: the two story main block comprised of five bays; a one and one half story, two bay wing projecting at a right angle from the northwest side of the main block; a one story two bay wide by one bay deep office which projects from the right angle formed by the wings; and a one and one half story, three bay wing continuing from the main section to the southeast.

The front entrance of Morrocroft (facing to the northeast) is articulated by a two story, gabled bay projecting from the central wing of the house. Walls are slightly battered. The vestibule is entered by a central doorless opening with a wide sandstone frame and sandstone Tudor arch with flared sides. Wrought iron and glass lantern with supporting bracket hangs over the entrance. The second story is pierced by a four light, leaded casement window, each light containing diamond shaped panes formed by cames. The southeast side of the entrance porch contains a similar window with two lights centrally placed on the first story and a small casement window on the second story near where the vestibule and main wing intersect. The interior of the vestibule is faced with large well-dressed sandstone blocks, has a wooden ceiling with exposed beams from which a lantern is suspended, and a slate floor. The northwest interior side contains a shallow niche with lintel. The door, with outer screen, is of wrought iron and glass and bears a stylized peacock framed by a leafy spiral vine pattern. Frame is of metal which forms a cable pattern; sill is of bronze.

A long wrought iron bell handle is located on the left side of the interior entranceway. The bay to the southeast of the projecting porch is pierced by a ground story sandstone frame window with four lights and transom while the second story contains a window with three lights. The southeast wing of Morrocroft is set back from the front wall of the main block, allowing room for a French window with transom on the first story, a window with two lights on the second story and a small casement window on the third story, all having sandstone mullions and surrounds. The bay northwest of the entrance projects slightly from the main block and is articulated by an oriel window situated between the first and second stories. A frieze running above the window’s twelve lights with diamond shaded panes bears grapevines whose fruit is being enjoyed by birds and animals. Below the glazing a larger four panel frieze contains harvest scenes and the daily activities of the country folk. These panels are enhanced by a molding of twisted cable and three rosettes. Below and to the right of the oriel window is a decorative diamond shaped grille bearing a squirrel surrounded by leafy vines and set into brick cut into a diaper pattern. The northwest side of this projecting bay is pierced by a casement window with two lights on the ground story.

The remaining bays in the main block consist of a bay pierced by a four light casement window with transom on the ground story and a three light window on the second story; a double light casement window is located on both stories of the end bay. The one and one half story wing which is at a right angle to the main block is marked by a narrow single casement window and a double light casement window on the first story, each with wood surrounds. A three light, wall face dormer window with wood surrounds and soldier course is centrally located above the first story fenestration. A high, wide garden wall extends from this wing; the brick is thin but is of a slightly darker color than the brick used for the house. Two brick steps lead to a centrally placed archway capped by a decorative brick keystone. The wood door has four panels and a wrought iron unglazed fan light with tracery. Low brick borders define the boxwood beds in front of the wall. A single story office with a steeply sloping gable roof and an end wall chimney projects from the intersection of the main block and the side wing. Its entrance facade, which faces southeast, contains a three panel frame door with upper glazed lights and a three light casement window with wood surrounds. The one and one half story wing on the southeast side of the main sections of the house is symmetrically articulated, it having three evenly spaced French windows with stationary transoms, interior screens and sandstone surrounds. Two double light, brick faced dormer windows with wood surrounds and soldier course are situated above the first and third ground story bays.

Southeast (Terrace and Garden) Facade

Two glazed floor length windows with sandstone frames, overhead wall lanterns, and exterior screen doors comprise the first story. The second story is pierced by two single casement windows with sandstone surrounds. An end-wall chimney with three brick stacks courses through the central section of this facade.

Southwest (Rear) Facade, facing Sharon Rd.

This facade may be divided into three sections. The main block’s (four bays) and southeast wing’s (three bays) bay and fenestration arrangement correspond roughly to that of the front facade. A one and one half story northwest wing contains two bays. The southeast wing of this facade contains three French windows with fixed transom, sandstone frames and interior screen doors. The attic floor is articulated by a double light dormer window with wood surrounds on the first and third bays. These flank a tiny wood frame casement window located directly under the eaves. The southeastern most bay of the main block contains a first story four light casement window with transom and a three light casement window with double transom on the second floor. frames and mullions are sandstone. This bay projects from the common wall line of the main block to include a first story French window with transom and a second story double light casement window on its northwest side. A French window with transom and narrow glazed side doors with transoms and inner screen doors corresponds in placement to the entrance bay on the front facade. The adjoining bay contains a first story five light casement window with transom. A bracketed lantern extends from the wall between these bays. Metal rollers placed at intervals between the first and second story indicate an awning covered the terrace in this section at one time.

The second story portion over these two bays is sheathed in shingle siding and is pierced by a two light casement window, and a narrow casement window situated near the projection of a bay on the northwest end of the main block. The attic story of the shingle-sided section contains three evenly spaced true dormer windows. Wood surrounds and mullions characterize the fenestration of the second and attic stories. A six-sectioned ground story bay window with transom comprises the final bay of the main block. This bay projects slightly from the main block. Fenestration has sandstone frame and mullions. The northwest one and one half story wing of Morrocroft is set back from the main block. The right angle formed by the intersection of these sections contains a side entrance porch formed by one free standing and two engaged wooden piers with brick pier bases. Pegged wooden braces extend from these piers to support a second story balcony with turned balusters and three piers with perched, wood stylized vultures. The entrance from this porch is located on the northwest end of the main block of the house and consists of a wooden door with six panels and an exterior screen door. A two light casement window is located on the second story, directly over the entrance, while a smaller two light casement window defines the third story. Both have sandstone mullions and surrounds. The wing northwest of the main block of the house contains a pedimented door set into the roof leading onto the second story balcony. The lower half of the door with exterior screen door is frame, the upper portion being glazed. The remaining bays in this wing are pierced by a three light casement window and a four light casement window on the ground story and two pedimented dormer windows with two and three lights respectively. Fenestration in these bays has wood surrounds and mullions. The northwest end of this wing is one bay deep and contains a first story double light casement window which has been boarded over and a narrow casement window on the second story. A wide end wall chimney with three clay pots also articulates this end.

Service Wing Complex

A rectangular walled service court forms the extreme northwest side of the manor house and may be entered from the grounds both on the northeast (driveway) side and through a small pedestrian arched entrance (with exaggerated brick keystone) on its northwest side. The interior of the court contains a central paved area. The southeast side (rear side of the front brick garden wall) contains a shingle roof carport which is not original to the house. The 1927 plan of the residence allocated this area to a drying yard. Steps to a large full basement are located on the northeast end of the service building. The building complex itself is composed of the rear facade of the wing which extends at a right angle from the main block, a servants’ hall which projects from the joining of the two wings at their northwest side, and an added laundry facility extension which completes the southwest side of the court. The right angle one and one half story wing (southeast side of the court) contains three bays. The first is pierced by a ground story four light casement window and an attic three light dormer window, both with wood surrounds and mullions. This bay was originally designated as a laundry room as shown by the plan. A rectangular screened porch comprises the area in front of the second and third bays, filling in the area formed by the junction of the southeast and southwest sides of the court. A screen door, facing northwest, leads into the porch. The house proper is entered by a three panel, upper glazed door in the second bay of this wing. A double light casement window comprises the third bay of this window. A small four light casement attic window is located above this area. The southwest one story facade of the court consists of two bays: an entrance door end a double light casement window.

Wood frames are employed consistently. This section of the court (southwest) was extended at a later date to include a nine bay laundry facility which has a lower, shingle gable roof. The laundry section is built of wood painted dark brown to match the trim of the main house and is half timbered with wood insets (to simulate true half timber construction) on the lower section. Seven of the bays are pierced by casement windows; two contain entrances. The third and seventh bays contain a tri-paneled frame door with upper glazed section and an exterior screen door. These entrances are reached by two brick steps and side rails and have bracketed gabled overdoors with simulated half timbered pediments. Windows have double lights with the exception of the sixth bay which is articulated by a three light casement window. Wood mullions are painted brown. The northwest, exterior end wall of the court has been altered to contain a small casement window with brick header to illuminate the laundry room. The southwest exterior side of the court consists of the rear of the laundry and the servants’ hall. The rear of the laundry contains a louvered vent; a three light casement window comprises the rear bay of this servants’ hall.

Interior of the Manor House

The exterior of Morrocroft, as would befit a manor house, is stately and imposing. Its interior, while fitted with dignified and rich detailing, possesses a human-scale quality which survives the house a true domestic character. Lindeberg purposefully sought to include the domestic element in the design of his large country houses. In the introduction to Lindeberg’s and Albro’s publication, Domestic Architecture, the large dwelling and the cottage are compared: “Even the large house in the country should not merely be a place for the reception of visitors; it should be a dwelling for a family, and it should express the domestic feeling, as surely and straightforwardly as the cottage.”⁶ The first floor of the residence contains an entrance hall, living room, sun-room, library, stairhall, powder room, and dining room. The kitchen complete with pantry and cold room, a servants’ hall, laundry, and office are also located on this floor. No staircases lead to a second story comprised of six bedrooms with baths, a boudoir, linen room, and pressing room. There is an extraordinary amount of closet and shelf space or this floor. A staircase leads from the second floor hall to a third story located in the central block of the house. It contains a bedroom with bath and two large cedar lined storage rooms.

First Floor

A large rectangular hall may be entered both from the front vestibule and the rear terrace side of the house. The most singular feature of this room is the front entrance wall, two thirds of which is paneled in Norwegian pine; the upper portion is plaster as are the other walls and ceiling. The door is trimmed with pine, has cable trim surround, and is framed by fluted pilasters carrying an entablature with broken pediment. The frieze is decorated by a central, fluted keystone flanked by carved swans; the pediment is enriched with a shell pattern and leaf and tongue. A pine mantel fireplace with rectangular opening and a carved over mantel with carved volutes and a broken pediment is located in the northwest wall. The frieze is comprised of cross-banded sheaths of wheat and a central swag. The dentil work and triglyphs and metope decorate the cornice. The shouldered architrave is framed with bead and reel borders, while the inner surround and hearth are of black-green marble. The interior of the fireplace is terracotta molded into the shape of shamrocks. The hall’s plaster cornice bears a floral decoration. The baseboard is pine. Wide oak pegged boards comprise the floor.

A large, rectangular living room may be entered from two six panel doors in the southeast wall of the hall. Door hardware consists of polished steel box locks engraved with a floral motif, melon shaped knob (pull on opposite side of door), and a long key and chain. A white marble mantel is centrally located in the southeast wall of this room. Its rectangular opening is framed by pilasters with garlands and acanthus decorated capitals. The center tablet of the frieze is in fairly high relief and is decorated with an allegorical depiction of Cupid bound. A nymph holding Cupid’s bow and two figures running toward them with garlands complete this panel. It is flanked by foliated scrolls and small panels bearing love birds. The hearth is of black slate, while the interior of the fireplace is comprised of thin bricks set in a herring bone pattern with thick bands of mortar. The room has a deep cornice which includes a band of acanthus leaves and high relief daisy heads, cable pattern with rosettes, and molding of leaf and tongue. The paneled walls are wood painted to resemble plasterwork; baseboard has a stylized foliated border. The oak floor is parquet. A French window with stationary transom and sandstone surrounds in the living room’s southeast wall opens into a rectangular sun-room. The 1927 plan shows part of this area was to be used as a flower room; in actuality the room was never realized. The most distinctive feature of the sunroom is the large, multi-tinted glass, leaded trench windows which instill the room with a soft, muted light. A white and earthy red marble fireplace, in projecting chimney breast is located in the center of the southeast wall. The frieze is comprised of a central oval tablet of white marble trimmed in red marble which bears the head of Bacchus flanked with horns of plenty. Enriched ovolo (egg and dart), and stylized leafy borders and wheat ear drops also decorate the frieze. The hearth is black slate; the interior of the fireplace is incised black metal. The sunroom’s cornice contains decorative brackets with soffits bearings rosettes and a molding of enriched ovolo. The floor is of wide pegged oak planks.

The hall with spiral staircase is entered from the northwest side of the entrance hall. A slender, polished steel rail with delicate ornamented balusters set into the sides of the wood steps leads to the second floor hall. The stairwell is illuminated by a large, tinted-and-diamond panel oriel window which is flanked by heating grilles bearing highly decorative ironwork. The cornice in the first floor hall bears the cable motif. The floor is pegged plank. The Norwegian pine paneled library leads from the southwest wall of the stairhall. Walls are lined with cable trimmed bookcases and lower storage areas (over door shelves as well). The southwest wall contains a large window with transom, and sandstone mullions and frame. Window screens, as found throughout the house, can be hidden in the frames. A pine mantel, which is similar to the mantel in the entrance hall, is located in the southeast wall. The mantel has a rectangular opening with a black-green marble surround, shouldered architrave, carved foliated frieze and cornice, and a simple overmantel panel. Hearth is of marble slab, while the interior of the fireplace is constructed in the brick herring-bone pattern. The library’s cornice work consists of pronounced dentil work, and enriched ovolo. Plank floor is pegged. The rectangular dining room with southwest wall bay window is reached from the northwest wall of the stairhall. Walls are paneled wood painted to simulate plasterwork, as found in the living room. The wall finish consists of gold leaf enriched ovolo, enriched cyma reversa, and foliated cornice, a gold leaf chair rail with a leafy border bearing rosettes, and gold leaf panel trim with the cable motif. The floor is parquet. Hardware on the six panel doors is similar to the living room doors. A white marble mantel with rectangular opening and ochre and tan marble surround framed by pilasters bearing a ribbon and garland decoration is located in the northwest wall. The frieze bears a center tablet in relief with a scene of putti letting a bird escape from a box; this is flanked by swans, putti with birds, and a lower, fluted border. The paneled overmantel with ovolo and floral cold leaf trims has a broken pediment which terminates in volutes flanking a decorative shell; both are painted in gold leaf. The kitchen complex spans a substantial area of the first floor and includes a “large pantry and cold room.” The kitchen and pantry counter tops are red, while floors are fashioned in black and white linoleum squares. Remodeling would appear to date from the 1960s.

A one room office may be entered from either hall or an exterior door; the 1927 plan does not show the opening in the office’s northwest wall, although it appears original to the house. The door hardware consists of metal plates in the shape of a frontier man with coonskin cap, musket and powder horn, and a cabled handle. The paneled wall cabinets and simple wood cornice and baseboard line the office. The floor is pegged plank. The northeast wall contains a fireplace flanked by open shelves and under cabinets. The simple wood mantel has a rectangular opening, dentil work trim, a black slate hearth and trick herring, bone pattern interior.

Second Floor

The southeast section of this floor contains the master bedrooms and a boudoir which locks offer the formal gardens. The boudoir was converted into an “ideal dressing room” by the Morrisons’ daughter, Mrs. James J. Harris.⁷ The only feature that the 1927 plan does not show is the large, double folding door bath alcove located in the northwest wall. The tub and alcove walls are sheathed in pink marble with gray veining. A small chandelier hangs overhead. Smaller window alcoves in the southwest and northeast walls contain respectively a pink, gray-veined marble sink with ornamental gold sea creature fixtures and a mirrored dressing table held by stylized floral brackets. Wall cabinets, shelves, and closets line the walls. A projecting gray marble mantel with white veining and curved opening comprises the center of the southeast wall. Pilasters are cable fluted with upper cartouche, while the center of the frieze bears a decorative shell. The hearth is gray and white marble with a white marble inset.

A hall from the boudoir leads into what was originally Mrs. Morrison’s bedroom. This room overlooks the spacious lawn on the southwest side of the house. Its dominant feature is a white marble fireplace with rectangular opening, bead and reel surround, and pilasters with terms on high pedestals. The frieze contains a center relief panel with seated allegorical figures. This tablet is flanked by fluting and end love birds. Other decorative molding includes acanthus and beading. The hearth is black slate, and the fireplace interior is black incised metal. What was originally Mrs. Morrison’s bedroom is located at the front of the house. Its floor has been left uncarpeted and consists of small hardwood boards. This flooring is probably standard to the second floor. The bathroom with parquet veneer floor lies directly over the front vestibule. Its white marble sink with metal and Lucite fixtures is employed in the remaining bathrooms on this floor.

A hall which runs the length of the northwest half of Morrocroft links the remaining four bedrooms, linen room and pressing room. Plaster cornice work in the cart of the hall reached directly from the spiral staircase is elaborate and consists of a border of various flowers such as the rose and fleur de lis. This molding is sandwiched by the cable motif. Trim continues on the ceiling which bears a foliated scroll pattern. Noteworthy features in the remaining bedrooms include marble or wooden fireplaces The bedroom which faces the spiral staircase landing has a southeast wall pine mantel with rectangular opening and black slate surround. Pilasters are decorated with wheat ear drops and upper acanthus consoles; the frieze bears a central carved shell flanked by foliated scrolls and bead and reel. The cornice work has the egg, and dart and stylized leaf motifs. The hearth is black slate, while the fireplace interior is composed of tricks laid in the herring bone pattern. The bedroom, located beside a staircase leading to the third floor, contains a northwest mantel of white marble panel of the gray and green marble panel inserts. She center, white marble panel of the frieze is decorated with crossed flaming torches and twisted ribbon; the frieze ends bears the same motif on a smaller scale. The hearth is black slate. The fireplace interior is brick laid in the herring bone pattern.

The northwest wings of this story are reached by a two step down break in the main hallway at the point where the third floor staircase rises; the hall ceiling becomes lower. This section of the house may also be reached from the ground floor by a single flight back staircase. The pine balustrade on the second floor consists of turned balusters, simple handrail and turned acorn posts. The west corner bedroom has a northwest wall mantel of variegated gray, red, and white marble with rectangular opening, pilasters with cabled fluting, and frieze adorned with interlocked circles. The same type marble comprises the hearth. The northeast corner bedroom has a mantel in the northeast wall, which consists of a similar multi-colored marble and shape as the above mantel. Pilasters bear wheat ear drops, while the central panel of the frieze contains a stylized flower. The hearth is white marble, bordered by gray, red; white veined marble panels. Ceilings shapes and heights in the manor house are varied. While the first floor has traditional flat ceiling, the second floor master bedroom, boudoir, and the northeast end bedroom have plaster barrel vault ceilings. A section of the second floor hall is also barrel vaulted. Ceiling heights in the main rooms and hall or the first floor are 10’9”; kitchen and office ceilings are 9′ and 8’7″ respectively. Second floor ceiling heights are: boudoir, 9’2″; master bedroom, 12’6″; central southeast side bedroom, 9’2″; remaining three bedrooms and linen room, all 9′, and pressing room, 8’11”. Bathroom ceiling heights are 8’11”, while the halls range from 9’8″ to 8’6″ to 7’10”.

Third Floor

Admittance to the third floor could not be obtained from the owners for this report.

Utility Buildings

Garage
A one and one half story brick garage with steep gable located on the grounds to the north of the house. A central, one story bay with gable roof projects at a right angle from the southeast side of the main block. The brick, terracotta shingles and gutters are similar to the manor house: the structure appears to have been built at the same time as the house. The land rises to the southeast.

The garage door side of the building (northwest) contains three bays. The wide middle bay on the ground story is comprised of a set of hinged doors flanked by two side doors; the smaller end bays also contain hinged doors. Each section of the doors has three wood panels painted brown with an upper glazed portion. Three evenly spaced double light dormer windows and a small dormer window located between the second and third bays characterize the attic story. Window frames and mullions are wood painted brown.

The northeast facade is marked by an exterior single flight brick staircase with brick side. A three panel, upper glazed door is located in an opening in the side of the stairs on ground level. The remaining bay on this story has a double light casement window. A small flight of stairs with metal rail leads to a basement door. The attic story contains a centrally-located door flanked on each side by a casement window. The main block roof on the rear (southeast) facade slopes and flares to a point 4’9″ from the ground level. A single stack chimney with corbel cap is located in the main block to the right of the projecting bay. The right end bay of the main block (under the chimney) is pierced by a round level double light casement basement window. The left end bay of this block contains a small ground level casement window placed near the junction of the main block and projecting bay. The central, projecting bay contains a low set, six light casement window with wood mullions and surround. The southwest, one and one half story facade has two bays. The left bay is pierced by a four light casement window on the ground floor and an attic double light casement window. A double light casement window is situated near ground level in the right bay.

Summerhouse

The red brick raised floor of a summerhouse is located on the northwest side of the manor house. Small metal post holes are found at intervals alone the edge of the cruciform shared floor. According to the caretaker the structure had a terracotta roof supported by wooden posts and was screened. Large awnings could be rolled down for shelter from the sun or inclement weather.

Gardenhouse

A single bay, square sided brick garden house with composition shingle, hip roof stands on the grounds due south of the main house. The brick, although similar to that of the manor house, is not identical and is laid in running (stretcher) bond. The brickwork, symmetrical design and detailing indicate the structure is not original to the property. The entrance facade (north) contains a centrally-placed archway with four panel wood door. The east facade contains an arched window which has been boarded over. A three light window with stationary center light and side casements pierces the south wall, while the west wall is blank. The red brick interior has a ceiling with exposed beams which radiate to a circular boss.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Harrie T. Lindeberg, Domestic Architecture of H. T. Lindeberg, with an Introduction by Royal Cortissoz, New York: William Helburn, Inc., 1940. See the list of clients, pp. 305-310, Morrocroft is illustrated on page 71.

² Barbara McAden, “Family’s English Manor Gains Lighter Look”, The Charlotte Observer, September 29, 1963, Section D, p. 1.

³ L, C. Albro and H. B. Lindeberg, Domestic Architecture, Cambridge, MA: University Press, for private distribution by the authors, 1912, Introduction, Albro and Lindeberg were partners from 1906 to 1914. See the acknowledgement in Lindeberg Domestic Architecture.

⁴ Lindeberg, p. 70.

⁵ Camden.

⁶ Albro and Lindeberg, Introduction.

⁷ McAden, p.1.

 

This report was written on 23 October 1992

1. Name and location of property: The property known as the Morgan School in the Cherry community is located at 500 South Torrence Street in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner. The owner of the property is:

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Education Center, 701 East Second Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 379-7000

Morgan School Tax Parcel Number: 125-225-02

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains maps which depict the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to the Morgan School, Tax Parcel Number 125-225-02 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1590 on page 347.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Frances P. Alexander.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Frances P. Alexander.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and culture importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Morgan School does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) Morgan School was constructed in 1925 and opened in 1927; 2) the school is an important institutional landmark in the African-American community of Cherry and is one of the few such historical landmarks to remain in the neighborhood; 3) the school is associated with the history of education for African-Americans; and 4) Morgan School is the work of an important regional architect, Louis H. Asbury, one of the first professional architects in Charlotte and a founding member of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Frances P. Alexander included in this report demonstrates that the Morgan School meet this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated historic landmark. However, this building is tax-exempt. The current appraised value of Morgan School is $359,650 (improvement only). The Morgan School property is zoned R22MF.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 23 October 1992

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill & Frances P. Alexander
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
East Trade Street
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

The Morgan School was constructed in 1925 to serve as an elementary school for the African-American community of Cherry. Located in the center of the neighborhood, the school is sited on a corner lot across from Morgan Park, around which the commercial and institutional activities of the community are oriented. Morgan School serves as an architectural and institutional focal point of this model planned community.

The Cherry neighborhood was created by local planter, John Springs Myers, on a portion of his 1,000 acre cotton plantation, then located southeast of Charlotte. The Myers plantation later formed the nucleus of the white streetcar suburb of Myers Park. Predating the affluent, neighboring subdivision by twenty years, the Cherry community was platted in 1891 as a separate town outside the city limits of Charlotte. Myers’s motivation in establishing Cherry was, at least in part, benevolent, and his family had long been instrumental in local philanthropy for blacks. The inclusion of institutional, recreational, and commercial facilities as well as landscaping in the plan for Cherry reflected then current ideas of proper community development, but such features were rarely found in working class, black neighborhoods. One of the most unusual aspects of this planned community was the provision of relatively inexpensive lots for sale in addition to rental property. By the time Morgan School was constructed in the mid-1920s, more than 60% of the Cherry residents owned their homes.¹ This degree of home ownership is particularly noteworthy considering that the occupational composition of Cherry typified the urban working class.² The inhabitants of Cherry were largely unskilled or semi-skilled urban workers, and few, if any, could have been classified as middle class. Cherry thus offered the working class an alternative to the small, crowded alley dwellings of the center city.

Along with the construction of rental housing and the platting of lots for sale, the Myers family planned churches, schools, a neighborhood park, and tree-lined streets for Cherry. It is not known when the park was created, but Morgan Park was one of five parks administered by the City Parks and Recreation Commission at its establishment in 1927, and Morgan Park was the first city park to serve an African-American neighborhoods. By World War I, the street system of Cherry had been fully developed with Luther, Baxter, and Main streets extending east to Providence Road, and after the war, the Myers family provided land for the construction of a school near the center of the community as well as another tract for a playground adjacent to the park. John Springs Myers died in 1925, the year the contract was let for Morgan School, and the administration of the community passed to Myers’s children. Myers’ son, Rawlinson Myers, apparently supervised much of the early development of the area.⁴ From circa 1914 to the 1950s, the only alteration to the neighborhood boundaries occurred when Queens Road was constructed on the east side of the community. Otherwise, there were no additional streets or amenities added under the administration of the Myers children.

By the 1950s, Cherry was no longer isolated on the edge of the city, but rather had become one of the center city neighborhoods. Development pressures increased, particularly after road construction projects began to infringe on the boundaries of Cherry, and the opening of Charlottetown Mall in 1958 created commercial development pressure. Built in the 1940s, Independence Boulevard, the first expressway in the city, cut through the northern edge of Cherry, and Kings Drive, built along the western border, served as a link between Myers Park and the new expressway. Brevard Myers and John Dwelle, grandsons of J.S. Myers, began to consolidate their holdings in Cherry during the 1950s, and home ownership dropped to 17% by the 1970.⁵ By the postwar period, many residents were elderly, and a number of their children and grandchildren had migrated to northern cities. Although Myers and Dwelle had plans for at least partial redevelopment of Cherry, Myers successfully campaigned against the wholesale clearance of the community under urban renewal plans which eliminated the neighborhoods of Greenville, Brooklyn, and First and Third Wards. Spared because its housing was some of the least substandard in the city, Cherry was one of the few black neighborhoods to remain after the urban renewal era. By the late 1960s, Cherry residents began to organize to assume more control over their neighborhood. The Cherry Community Organization was formed and bought out the holdings of J.S. Myers’s grandsons, Brevard Myers and John Dwelle. The organization continues to buy properties from the city for rehabilitation and collects rents on the remaining city-owned properties. In 1985, the first new construction in Cherry was begun since Brevard Myers stopped building rental property in 1960. Although surrounding redevelopment and construction has compromised the margins of Cherry, the historic core of the community where the Morgan School is located remains intact.

The Morgan School, named after a member of the Myers family, serves as one of the institutional landmarks of this unique African-American neighborhood. The two story, red brick building was one of six schools built in the Charlotte area in 1925 and 1926 in consultation with Columbia University professors, Dr. Strayer and Dr. Engelhardt. Engelhardt and Strayer served as consultants in the planning stage of the project, apparently determining the functional requirements of the new facility.⁶ There is clear evidence, however, that local architect, Louis H. Asbury, Sr., was directly responsible for design of the school although the school system has no architectural plans for the facility.⁷ Entry Number 604 in the job book of Asbury’s firm dated March 14, 1925, notes a contract to construct a grammar school, the “Cherrytown School”⁸. In addition, Asbury designed other Charlotte schools during the interwar period, including Wilmore Elementary and probably the Plaza-Midwood School.⁹

A Charlotte native, Louis H. Asbury (1877-1975), received his professional training in architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after graduating from Trinity College (now Duke University) in 1900. Before establishing his Charlotte practice in 1908, Asbury was associated with the nationally known firm of Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson, in either its New York or Boston office. Asbury, who was later joined by his son, Louis H. Asbury, Jr., had an extensive local and regional practice until his retirement in 1956. A founding member of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Asbury, along with other early professional architects in the state, introduced a degree of sophistication and professionalism to Charlotte buildings. Favoring the Neoclassical and Gothic Revival styles popular both nationally and among his conservative clientele, Asbury’s designs covered a range of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, including Myers Park Methodist Church, the former Mecklenburg County Courthouse, the Mayfair Hotel (now the Dunhill Hotel), and the Doctors’ Building. His work illustrates a new urbanity in the architecture of Charlotte, corresponding with the new importance of the city as a regional center for the textile and banking industries. His practice spanned two important periods of economic prosperity for the city during the post-World War I and post-World War II eras, and his buildings serve as reminders of these periods of urban development when Charlotte emerged as the largest city in the Carolinas.

Morgan School may have replaced an earlier wooden frame school, and the school may have been built as part of the statewide school construction campaigns which occurred during the 1920s as a result of grade separation and school consolidation. Measuring 180 feet x 120 feet, the lot on which the Morgan School was built was purchased from Mr. John Myers with funds from the bond election of 1924. The new school had ten classrooms, a principal’s office, and a nurse’s office. The cost of construction was $36,309.00. The first principal of Morgan was Mrs. E.R. Anderson, who was transferred from Biddleville School to the new facility in Cherry.¹¹ From its opening in 1927 until its closing in 1968, Morgan School was one of the smallest elementary schools in the city. Children who lived closer to the Myers Street School in Brooklyn were assigned to Morgan in order to fill classrooms ¹². The school was closed because of its limited space, but since the late 1960s, the facility has served several specialized services within the public school system. Currently, the school serves emotionally and behaviorally handicapped students.

 

---

NOTES

¹ “Cherry’s Struggle Creates Uproar,” Charlotte Observer, 22 July 1990, 10A.

² It has been assumed that many Cherry inhabitants served as household staff to the affluent neighboring Myers Park. While this arrangement may have evolved over time to some degree, domestic service was never the predominant occupation of Cherry residents. In addition, Cherry predates Myers Park by twenty years and the creation of a neighborhood of servants was not a motivation of the Myers family in establishing Cherry. Thomas Hanchett, Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City, 1850-1930 (Charlotte: Urban Institute of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1986), 11-13.

³ Hanchett, Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods, 11-15.

⁴ Hanchett, Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods, 11-17.

⁵ Hanchett, Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods, 11-20.

⁶ Interview by Marcia Hart with Thomas Hanchett, 21 October 1992.

⁷ The school system apparently does not have information on the school dating prior to 1971 (Marcia Hart interview with Oweeta Shands, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, 30 September 1992).

⁸ Job Book of Louis H. Asbury, Sr., from an interview with Marcia Hart, and the 1925 date of the log entry corresponds with the known construction period for Morgan School.

⁹ Interview with Marcia Hart, 20 October 1992.

¹⁰ “Louis Asbury: Builder of a City,” Charlotte Observer, 24 March 1975, 16; Julie Farnsworth, “Reflections of an Architect and His Work,” Fayetteville Observer, 21 February 1982, C-1.

¹¹ Interview with Marcia Hart, 20 October 1992.

¹² Hanchett, Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods, 11-15, Footnote No. 8.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Description

The Morgan School is located within the Cherry neighborhood, which is bounded roughly by Kings Drive to the west, a branch of Sugar Creek to the south, Queens Road to the east, and Independence Boulevard to the north. Facing east, the school is situated on a corner lot, measuring 180 feet x 200 feet, in the center of Cherry. Across the street from the school is Morgan Park, which occupies an entire city block. The school is surrounded by a grass yard on all sides, and directly to the rear is the Myers Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church. A service drive is located on the north side of the property.

Exterior

The school is a two story, red brick (laid in stretcher bond) building, with a rectangular plan, and a later cafeteria addition projecting from the northwest corner of the original building. The main building has a symmetrical facade, consisting of a central block flanked by projecting pavilions. The central entrance has a slight ogee arch with restrained, stepped, decorative, stone surrounds. The recessed, wooden, double doors are replacements, and the arched transom has been infilled. There are three concrete steps leading to the main entrance. The building has a molded stone cornice which delineates the stepped parapets of the three masses. Decorative concrete panels are located within the parapets. Molded terra cotta coping caps the parapets. A belt course of brick soldiers and headers forms a water table above the brick foundation. There are a variety of single, paired, and triple windows although no windows are located on the projecting pavilions. Decorative panels formed of brick headers, soldiers, and stretchers with concrete corner blocks visually break the solid walls of the pavilions. Most windows are nine-over-nine light, double hung, wooden sash. The window openings have brick flat arches, and the sills are also brick.

There are brick round-arched entrances located on the first floors of the side elevations (north and south). On the south elevation, this entrance leads to a recessed porch from which the stairwell rises. On the north, the round-arch entrance and door is flush with the exterior wall, but leads to a matching porch and stairwell. The doors on both elevations are modern replacements, and the transoms have been infilled with wooden panels. These openings are constructed of brick arches with concrete corner blocks and keystones. Concrete steps flanked by brick and concrete retaining walls lead to the concrete porches at these side entrances. On the south side, there is a small brick and concrete retaining wall, approximately 2 feet tall, which extends from the steps along the walkway to the sidewalk. Above these side entrances, are square opening to the stairwell. These openings have brick flat arches and concrete sills. Decorative brick and concrete panels, identical to those on the facade, are found on the side elevations. A single service door leading to the basement is located at the west corner of the south elevation, reached by a short concrete staircase. A brick retaining wall, capped by concrete, runs from this corner of the building to the sidewalk. The rear (west) elevation of the main building contains a series of symmetrically placed single and double windows, and because of the slope of the land, the basement level accommodates full-size, nine-over-nine light, double hung sash windows below the brick water table. At either end of this elevation, there are windows which break the alignment of the classroom windows. One set of these flanking windows opens to the boys’ and girls’ restrooms. These windows are eight-over-twelve light, double hung sash with brick flat arches. The other set of single windows provides light to the stairwell landing between the first and second floors. These windows are twelve-over-twelve light, double hung sash capped by a multiple-light fanlight. A concrete keystone and concrete corner blocks delineate the fanlight.

A one story, brick (laid in American bond) cafeteria building, with rectangular plan, has been added at the northwest corner of the main school building. A short, projecting, brick corridor connects the cafeteria with the main building. The door to the corridor from the main building appears original and may have led outside prior to this addition. Double doors on the east elevation of the projecting corridor lead from the outside allows direct access to the cafeteria. The doors have fixed lights in the upper halves as well as a fixed light transom. The corridor also has a single, steel sash window south of the exterior door. The cafeteria addition has a flat roof with parapet delineated by a brick stringcourse. The parapet is lined with concrete coping. There are banks of large, steel sash, factory windows, with brick sills, on all elevations of the addition. On the south elevation of the cafeteria building, there two double doors reached by concrete steps. One of the paired doors leads to the cafeteria dining room, and the other allows access to the kitchen. Iron pipe railings line the steps. Each door has six fixed lights in the upper half as well as a fixed light transom. The rear (west) elevation of the cafeteria addition has a brick and concrete loading dock, roughly three feet above grade. The dock is covered by a flat, composition roof supported by slender iron posts and railing. On the north side of this service dock is a screened storage area. The service dock is connected to the kitchen by a double door with the same fixed lights in the upper halves.

Interior

The first floor interior has a truncated T-shaped plan. A short hall leads from the main entrance to a long (north-south) hall along which the four classrooms are located. Restrooms, located at either end of the hall next to the side exits, serve the entire building. A principal’s office and nurse’s (now secretary’s) office flank the short entrance hall. A storage room and a staff bathroom are located along the east wall of the long hall. The first floor halls have the original hardwood floors (carpet was recently removed), plaster walls, and simple molded, wooden door surrounds, baseboards, and wall moldings. The hall doors to the offices and classrooms are original and have six-light windows in the upper halves and panelled lower halves. Within the rooms, there are solid, three-panelled doors, all with original three-light transoms. Some of the transoms are still operable. Steam radiators also remain intact. A dropped acoustical tile ceiling, with inset lighting, has been added in the halls. In both the secretary’s and principal’s office, the original plaster walls, wooden moldings, and three-panelled closet doors are intact. The only notable alteration is these two offices is the carpet, which apparently covered the hall floors until its recent removal. It is thus assumed that the original hardwood floors in these offices remain. A small staff bathroom is located between the secretary’s office and the hall and can be reached by either side. The bathroom has its original porcelain sink and toilet, marble baseboard, and three-panelled doors.

On the first floor, the classroom which has undergone the most modification is located in the southeast corner. The room has been subdivided by drywall partition walls into a conference room from which five small staff offices are reached. The floors are linoleum, and the doors to the offices are of recent vintage. A dropped acoustical tile ceiling with inset lighting has also been added. In the conference room, there is an inset cupboard, with panelled doors and molded surrounds, remaining on the north wall. The original windows are intact within the various offices. The student restrooms are located on the west side at either end of the hall. The walls and floors are ceramic tile, which appears to be post-World War II. The metal partitions between units may be original, and the posts of the partitions are capped with decorative elements. Also along the west side of the building are two classrooms. The southwestern room has been remodeled somewhat, with the partitioning of three rooms along the north wall, and the addition of a linoleum floor and acoustical tile ceiling. Modern wooden doors provide access to these three rooms. The interior room nearest the window, however, incorporates the former cloak room, and the shelves and hooks are extant. In addition, the original moldings, plaster walls, inset cupboards, and windows remain intact on the west, south, and east walls of the room. The other first floor classrooms, located in the northeast and northwest corners, have had some alteration, but the original character of the rooms is retained. In both rooms, the wooden moldings, plaster walls, large windows, built-in bulletin boards and blackboards, and cloak rooms remain. As in all first floor classrooms, both have had linoleum floors added, and in the northeast classroom, the two three-panelled doors to the cloak rooms have been replaced. In this room, a sink and counter unit has also been added along the west wall although the unit appears largely freestanding and probably would have required little destruction to physical fabric. In the northwestern room, there has been little alteration except for the acoustical tile ceiling and the linoleum floors.

Replacement double doors at either end lead to the recessed entrance porches and stairwells. On the west side of these porches, replacement double doors lead to the enclosed stairwells. The round-arch transoms above the stairwell doors have all been infilled with brick. The stairwells have concrete floors and stairs, brick walls, and solid, concrete-encased stair railings. At the landing between floors, the stairwells also contain single, twelve-over-twelve light, wooden sash windows.

Double doors lead from the stairwell to the second floor porches which provide access to the second floor hall. Within this space, there is a large, square opening. The second floor has a single north-south hall from which classrooms radiate. The classrooms all have their original plaster walls, plaster walls, wooden baseboards and moldings, and three-panelled doors leading to cloakrooms. The classroom in the northeastern corner also has a ceiling of wood-composition tile, which appears to have been added after World War II. The classroom in the northwest corner has the same original and altered features, but in addition, the doors to the cloak room are replacements. The rooms in the center of the west side and the southwest corner were inaccessible, but it is likely that they retain the same original features. The room in the southeast corner has the original plaster walls and wooden moldings and doors found in the other rooms. In addition, an inset cupboard with panelled wooden doors is located in the northwest corner of this room, and although not completely visible, it is probably identical to the one found in the remodeled conference room on the first floor. A linoleum floor and dropped acoustical tile ceiling are the only alterations in this room. The middle room on the east side is the library. This room has a linoleum floor and a wood-composition tile ceiling. In place of a cloak room, the library has three storage closets, and the door to one of these has been removed. Beneath and between the windows are original, built-in bookcases.

The stairwells also lead to a basement floor. There are two adjoining classrooms in the basement. These classrooms have concrete floors, plaster walls, and molded wooden door and window surrounds. Dropped acoustical tile ceilings, with suspended fluorescent lighting, have been added to these classrooms as well.

There is an exterior entrance on the north elevation to a separate boiler room and coal storage area, which are inaccessible from the classrooms. These service areas have brick walls and concrete floors. The coal chute has been brick-infilled, but the segmental-arched doorway between the two rooms contains a wooden, slatted frame to regulate the flow of coal to the boiler.

From the stairwell on the north side, an original door leads to a short hallway to the 1948 cafeteria addition. The door, with its multiple lights in the upper half and panelled lower half, predates this addition. The hall has concrete block walls and a concrete floor. The cafeteria has a large, open dining room divided from the kitchen facilities by a partition wall. The walls are concrete block, and there is a linoleum floor. The ceiling is covered in wood-composition tiles. Within the dining area, there is a slightly raised wooden dais situated along the interior partition wall. On the south side, there are double doors leading outside. The kitchen facilities are located along the west side. The kitchen has brick tile floors, plaster walls, and an acoustical tile ceiling with inset lighting. The counters and storage units do not appear original. On the north side, there is a small serving room with a pass-through opening to the dining room. Along the south wall are several storage closets with two-panelled doors. A restroom, which appears original, is located in the southwest corner of the kitchen. On the west wall are double doors leading to the service dock.

Conclusion

The design of the Morgan School typifies early twentieth century school construction. The formality and symmetry of its design reflect Beaux Arts classicism and the use of restrained Revival detailing around the entrance was a common decorative feature. The location of the school on a corner lot in the center of the community also illustrates early twentieth century ideas of urban planning and model community development. Most original fabric is intact and in good condition with the exception of exterior door replacement and transom infill. Interior alterations, such as the addition of dropped acoustic tile ceilings, would have required little destruction to historic fabric although the original ceiling is not visible. The plan is unchanged, and the school continues to serve its original function although less specifically tied to its immediate community.

 

---

Bibliography

“A.S.I.D. Announces Preservation Project,” North Carolina Preservation 34, no. 8 (1982): 2.

“Cherry Community,” Files of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Cherry Folks to Buy Out Landlords,” Charlotte News, 20 December 1977, B-1. Vertical Files, Carolina Room, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

“Cherry’s Struggle Creates Uproar,” Charlotte Observer, 22 July 1990, 10A. Vertical Files, Carolina Room, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

Farnsworth, Julie. “Reflections of an Architect and His Work,” Fayetteville Observer, 21 February 1982, C-1.

Hanchett, Thomas W. Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City, 1850-1930. Charlotte: Urban Institute of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1986.

Harding, Harry P. The Charlotte City Schools. Charlotte: typescript by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, 1966.

Interview with Marcia Hart, 21 October 1992.

Interview with Richard Cansler, Principal, Morgan School, 21 October, 1992.

“Louis Asbury: Builder of a City,” Charlotte Observer, 24 March 1975, 16.

“Louis H. Asbury, Retired Architect,” Charlotte News, 19 March 1975.

“Louis H. Asbury, Sr., 97 Architect of the Courthouse,” Charlotte Observer, 20 March 1975, 8A.

“Morgan School.” Files of the Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Pressures From Within, Without Threatening Cherry’s Survival,” Charlotte Observer, 28 January 1990, 1, 6. Vertical Files, Carolina Room, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

Randolph, Elizabeth, S., ed. An African-American Album. Charlotte: Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, 1992.

Survey and Research Report on United States Mint – Charlotte Branch by Paula M. Stathakis Note:  The original location of what is now known as the Mint Museum was 403 West Trade Street, Charlotte, N.C. The oldest building of the Mint Museum complex, the Strickland Building, was originally a branch of the United States Mint. This building became endangered in 1931 when Mecklenburg County decided to expand the adjacent Main Post Office. Charlotte architect Martin Evans Boyer Jr. tried to save the structure through a series of designs which would have accommodated the expansion of the Post Office while allowing the Mint to remain on its original site. Boyer corresponded regularly with his friend Herschel V. Johnson, then Chief of the Mexican Division of the U.S. State Department. Johnson provided Boyer with contacts in the departments of the Federal Government to whom to submit his plans to allow both the expansion of the Post Office and the preservation of the Mint. Boyer had the support of a number of prominent citizens, including Senator Cameron Morrison, Stuart W. Cramer, E. E. Jones (Vice-President of Independence Trust Company), and one of the most influential architects in the South, Earle Sumner Draper. 1 Boyer’s efforts to preserve the Mint Building on site were unsuccessful. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to Charlotte Mayor Charles Lambeth stated that his department had received several letters in favor of plans to accommodate the Post Office expansion with the preservation of the Mint. However, the Treasury had decided that there was no alternative but to demolish the Mint in order to enlarge the Post Office. His letter suggested that if anyone wanted to arrange for the Mint to be moved to another site at no expense to the government, the Treasury Department would have no objection. The Assistant Secretary advised that any plan to move the structure be carried out quickly. 2 In 1933 the Mint was dismantled for a sum of $950 and moved to a site in the Eastover neighborhood donated by E. C. Griffith. 3 The structure was used as a Museum and held its inaugural exhibit in 1936. Much of the early activity of the Museum staff was devoted to acquiring art for display. There is evidence that the grounds around the building were developed and maintained by the dedicated efforts of Mrs. Phil MacMahon, who chaired the Grounds Committee, and Mrs. E. P. Coles, who was in charge of the Green Gardens. 4 The grounds were not formally landscaped until 1955. Landscape architect Stuart Ortloff of the firm of Ortloff-Raymore of Huntington, New York was commissioned by the Charlotte Garden Club to do the work. The Club, organized in 1924, first became affiliated with the Mint Museum in 1954, and the relationship continues. 5 Ortloff’s plan included brick walkways surrounding an open lawn. The walks were lined with pink and white Japanese flowering cherry trees, then rows of evergreen magnolias. A row of Norway maples buffered the lawn from two side streets. In front of the building were planted two Burford hollies on each side of the front steps. Extending from the English hollies on each side were laurels, camellias, and broad-leafed Japanese hollies. English ivy and azaleas were planted close to the walls of the entire front facade. 6 Benches made of teak and iron, imported from England, completed the plan. Notes 1 Martin Evans Boyer Jr. Papers, Special Collections, UNCC, Box 1. 2Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., a booklet entitled “Inaugural Exhibition of the Mint Museum of Art, October 1, 1936-January 1, 1937.” 5 Phil Blusher, “Garden Club Roots Run Deep,” Member News (of the Mint Museum of Art), Nov.-Dec. 1989, no pagination. 6 A copy of Ortloff’s plan was generously provided by Benjamin Pearce, current president of the Charlotte Garden Club. This blueprint is attached.  The original location of what is now known as the Mint Museum was 403 West Trade Street, Charlotte, N.C.