The Agriculture Education Building at Long Creek Elementary School

The Agriculture Education Building at Huntersville Elementary School

This report was written on November 22, 1991

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Agriculture Education Building at Long Creek Elementary School is located at 9213 Beatties Ford Road in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The property known as the Agriculture Education Building at Huntersville Elementary School is located at 504 Gilead Road, Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Education Center, 701 East Second Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone: (704) 379-7000

Long Creek Elementary School Tax Parcel Number: 023-063-11
Huntersville Elementary School Tax Parcel Number: 017-121-13

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 Huntersville Elementary School Tax Parcel Number 017-121-13 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1653 at page 91. The most recent deed to the Long Creek Elementary School Tax Parcel Number 023-063-11 is not listed in the tax record.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Ms. Paula M. Stathakis.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Ms. Nora M. Black.

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 /or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the properties known as the Agriculture Education Buildings at Long Creek Elementary School and Huntersville Elementary School do possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Agriculture Education Buildings were constructed in 1938; 2) most early Mecklenburg County residents were engaged in agriculture as a livelihood; 3) the Agriculture Education Buildings housed vocation courses to provide a practical education about crops, livestock and home manufacture for young men of high school age; 4) the Agriculture Education Buildings are architecturally significant as examples of buildings funded by the Public Works Administration (PWA) as part of the “New Deal” era to spur economic recovery; 5) the buildings still house modern day students providing valuable classroom space; and 6) the Agriculture Education Buildings provide the last link on each campus to an earlier school system before school consolidation and grade separation by school in Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, workmanship materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Ms. Nora M. Black included in this report demonstrates that the Agriculture Education Buildings at Long Creek Elementary School and Huntersville Elementary 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.” Both of these buildings, however, are tax-exempt. The current appraised value of the Long Creek Agriculture Education Building (improvement only) is $58,380. The current appraised value of the Huntersville Agriculture Education Building (improvement only) is $84,280. The Long Creek Elementary School property is zoned RI 5. The Huntersville Elementary School property is zoned RS.

Date of Preparation of this Report: November 22, 1991

Prepared by:

Dr. Dan L. Morrill
in conjunction with
Ms. Nora M. Black
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
1225 South Caldwell Street, Box D
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Telephone: 704/376-9115

Agriculture Education Buildings: Huntersville Elementary School and Long Creek Elementary School

by
P.M. Stathakis

The Agricultural Education buildings (“Ag” buildings) at Huntersville and Long Creek Elementary Schools were both built in 1938. 1 The construction of these buildings was apparently funded by the Public Works Administration (PWA), a component of the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NIRA), one of the New Deal agencies created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the first “One Hundred Days” of his first presidential term.2 Plans for the building at Long Creek Elementary are available at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Physical Facility; the plans for the Huntersville building are lost.

The “Ag” Building at Long Creek Elementary is one of the oldest structures on campus. It is pre-dated only by the Boiler Room (1923) and the Gymnasium (1932). The “Ag” Building cost $11,000.00 to build. The Agriculture Education Building at Huntersville Elementary is the oldest extant building on its campus, a site which has been home to the Huntersville High School Academy, Huntersville High School and Huntersville Elementary School. Both of these “Ag” Buildings, now located at elementary schools, were originally part of high school campuses.

The high school for Huntersville moved from its original site to the North Mecklenburg High School campus in 1950. Up until that time, classes in agriculture and shop were taught in the old “Ag” Building by Arthur Meachum. Orland Gabriel taught agriculture and shop classes at Long Creek High School until 1951 when the high school was also moved to North Mecklenburg High School.

Vocational and Agricultural courses were introduced into the high school curriculum in the late 1920s. The students who took these courses were from rural families; many of them were from farm families. Former instructor Orland Gabriel believes that 85%-90% of the boys at Long Creek High School enrolled in his classes. These classes were optional; however, the consistently high enrollment suggests that these courses were not merely popular but necessary.4

In Agriculture classes, boys learned about field crops, and animal husbandry. Their education took advantage of the new technology available to farmers, particularly in horticulture and farm machinery. The students learned which variety of staple crop grew best in this region and what kind of mechanized equipment could help them farm efficiently. They also learned about the breeding, growth, and feeding of livestock. For the classroom segment of agriculture and shop classes, text book sets were available on field crops, animal industry, and shop projects.5

Part of the “Ag” students’ education took place outside of the classroom. The boys frequently went on field trips to neighboring farms to assist farmers with dehorning cattle, canonizing chickens, castrating cattle, swine, and sheep, and docking sheep. Cattle were dehorned to protect the herd and the farmer from being gored; the horns were removed with a large pair of pincers. Sheep had to have their tails shortened, or docked, for sanitary purposes. No anesthetics were used on the animals for these procedures; anesthesia was performed only by veterinarians, and the animals seemed to recover from these ordeals within thirty minutes. The students did have to catch the animals, and tie them up to prevent their escape and the likelihood of injury to those on the verge of removing various body parts from the captive livestock. Mrs. Orland Gabriel recalls that her husband often came home from these outings with his overalls and face covered with blood from a dehorning exercise.

In shop, boys learned to make such practical items as bookcases, corner cabinets, kitchen cabinets, and “whatnots” (small wall shelves used to display household items). Larger community-oriented projects included calf shelters for dairy farmers, and picnic tables. Most of the instruction in shop revolved around wood working, but the boys learned some metal work as well. Welding was a useful skill to know, and students often repaired items that required welding for area farmers or from their own homes in the school shops.

During the depression, the Long Creek “Ag” students ran a cannery as part of the curriculum for practical education and as a service to the surrounding community. The canning was not done in the “Ag” Building. Individuals who used the canning facilities at Long Creek High School paid a small fee to cover the expenses of cans and coal.8

The purpose of the vocation courses taught in the Ag buildings was to provide a practical education about crops, livestock, and home manufacture for young men who grew up in agricultural communities and who would probably inherit and work the family farm. The scientific management of domestic occupations was popular in the modern school curriculum, and such classes were not restricted to young men. The practical education for females, Home Economics, taught girls how to effectively run the household just as Agricultural and Industrial classes taught boys how to run a farm. Both of these curricula were aimed at self-sufficiency.9

The students involved in these classes not only learned skills that would help them as farmers; they also made regular contributions of their skills to the surrounding area. Their field trips, repair services, and large woodshop construction projects gave them practical experience, and at the same time assisted farmers who needed extra hands at critical times of the year to take care of livestock or crops. Agricultural education was offered in Mecklenburg County through the late 1970s.10

Both buildings have been in continuous use, even though Agriculture and Shop classes are no longer taught on these campuses. Huntersville Elementary uses the “Ag” Building as a Fine Arts Center. Long Creek uses its “Ag” Building for Academically Gifted classes. Both schools also use their “Ag” Buildings as centers for computer education, the practical curriculum of our times.

1 Records of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Bank Street Physical Facility. The plans were drawn in 1934 for the building at Long Creek. Interview with Charles Allison, 10-14-91.

2 The Public Works Administration was created to put people to work on public buildings and in flood control.

3 Interview with Bill Presson, Principal of Huntersville Elementary School and former Principal of Long Creek Elementary School.

4 Interview, Orland Gabriel. Mr. Gabriel was educated at North Carolina State University.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid. Less dramatic field exercises included pruning fruit trees and digging irrigation terraces.

7 Ibid.

8 Bill Presson and Orland Gabriel.

9 By the 1920s, education was compulsory for everyone seven to fourteen years old. Once an education was available to the masses, the traditional university preparatory curriculum (Greek, Latin, mathematics, literature, grammar, astronomy) was impractical for everyone. Education in how to manage a farm or household became an important and necessary element of the high school curriculum for those students who were not college bound. See: Edgar T. Thompson, Agricultural Mecklenburg and Industrial Charlotte: Social and Economic (Published by the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, 1926), p. 101,115.; Legette Blythe, “Flames Take Huntersville Education Landmark” Charlotte Observer February 24, 1929, p. 9.

10 Orland Gabriel. After Long Creek High School was consolidated into North Mecklenburg High School, the “Ag” students at North Mecklenburg organized “Ag Day”. This day was devoted mostly to displays of farm machinery, and students from surrounding schools came to participate. North Mecklenburg also sponsored Hog Killing Day on which a slaughtered hog was brought to school and a representatives from a local abattoir came to school to demonstrate how to butcher slaughtered animals.

Architectural Sketches: Agriculture Education Buildings Located at Long Creek Elementary School and Huntersville Elementary School

Prepared by:
Ms. Nora M. Black

The Agriculture Education Buildings, located at Long Creek Elementary School and Huntersville Elementary School, are similar in appearance as well as original function. Both buildings are constructed of brick and feature an upper story set over a raised daylight basement. The windows have square cornerblocks and sills of cast limestone. The exterior of each building is belted between the daylight basement and the first floor with a soldier course of brick. To provide ample light, all sides of both buildings are pierced with large window openings to hold single, double, or triple sets of 6 / 6 double hung wooden sash. Each building has a low  hipped roof covered with asphalt composition shingles. The front entries have small covered porches and double doors. Interiors of both Agriculture Education Buildings are constructed with two classrooms on the first floor and separate rest rooms for males and females on either side of the first floor entry foyer. The daylight basement of each building contains two classrooms, storage closets, and some physical plant space.

Long Creek Agriculture Education Building

The twenty-two acre campus of the Long Creek Elementary School is located at 9213 Beatties Ford Road at the intersection of Midas Springs Road. The Long Creek Agriculture Education Building is located on the southeast corner of the campus; the east wall of the building is parallel with Beatties Ford Road. The front of the Long Creek Agriculture Education Building, which faces north, is five bays wide. The center bay is dominated by a small hipped roof porch supported by white wooden piers set on a porch balustrade of brick. The solid double doors are painted blue. A wooden half-ellipse above the doors and all the building’s trim are white. The fourteen concrete steps leading to the porch landing have a white pipe railing. On the upper story, there are four  windows; each is a 6/6 double hung wooden sash. The north facade of the daylight basement has two windows. One is a six-pane fixed sash; the other has an infill of wood with a center vent. A small brick room has been added at ground level on the west side of the entry porch. This one story addition houses a gas furnace. The access door is on the north side of the room; a vent pipe emerges from the roof and snakes around the Agriculture Education Building’s overhang.

The east and west sides of the building are roughly identical. Both sides are divided into three bays. The northern bay has a single window on each level; the other two bays have groups of three windows on each level. On the west side of the building, a single window air conditioning unit has been installed in the top half of a window in the center bay. On the east side, a window air conditioning unit has been installed in the rear or southernmost bay on each level. The main difference seen in the sides is ground level. On the eastern side of the building, ground level is two to three feet below the window sills; ground level on the western side is at the cast stone sills. The back (southern) facade of the building is dominated by two black metal fire escapes with white pipe railings. Each fire escape begins at a door on the upper level set in the center of two windows. Each door has a transom light above. Directly below the doors on the upper level are doors to the raised daylight basement classrooms. These doors also have transom lights and are flanked by a single window. The two doors of the lower level are set in a well with steps to reach ground level.

The interior of the upper level has the original hardwood floor in the foyer. Carpet covers the hardwood floors in the classrooms. A dropped ceiling has been installed to improve heating efficiency; the original ceiling is still in place above. Five-panel wooden doors open from the foyer into the classrooms. A narrow staircase leads from the first floor down to the raised daylight basement level. The basement level has modern heating vents installed along the exterior exposed brick walls. Round steel columns support the floor above.

The Long Creek Agriculture Education Building has 4116 square feet according to the tax card. It has no decorative lintels over any of the windows; instead, the varied-colored face brick continues in  running bond. The cast stone cornerblocks are placed outside the frames of the windows that they decorate. Each corner of the building has an engaged brick pilaster in running bond. The deeply recessed mortar joints lend shadow detail to the walls. The brick pilasters and the limestone cornerblocks are the only decoration for this utilitarian building.

Huntersville Agriculture Education Building

The thirty acre campus of the Huntersville Elementary School is located at 504 Gilead Road at the intersection of Sherwood Drive within the city limits of Huntersville. The Huntersville Agriculture Education Building is located on the east side of the campus; the front of the building faces Gilead Road. The front, which faces south, is three bays wide. The center bay is dominated by a large hipped roof porch supported by square white wooden columns with slanting sides; wide staircases flank the porch. The solid double doors are painted blue; the door surround has three sidelights with a lower wooden panel on each side. All the building’s trim is painted white. The concrete steps leading to the porch landing have a pipe railing painted white set behind the concrete coping of the brick balustrade. On the upper story, there are two groups of windows; each group consists of three 6 / 6 double hung wooden sash. The lower half of the windows has been painted white; this provides privacy for the rest rooms in which the windows are located. The south facade of the daylight basement has two windows. One is a six-pane fixed sash; the other has an infill of brick that does not match the rest of the building.

As with the Agriculture Education Building previously discussed, the east and west sides of the building are roughly identical. The southernmost bays on the first floor level have a single window. The upper level has two other bays with a group of three windows as well as a triple window area that has been covered with wood. The raised basement area has seven single 6/6 double hung sash on each side of the building. The exception is the southernmost window on the lower level of the west facade that has been replaced with a vent for the furnace room. The smokestack for the furnace exits the basement level near the vent and pierces the overhang of the building to rise above the roof.

The window and door arrangement of the back (northern) facade of the Huntersville Agriculture Education Building is asymmetrical. There is a single black metal fire escape exiting the western classroom on the first floor level; a metal awning extends over the landing. Two 6 / 6 double hung sash help provide light to the western classroom. The first floor level also has a group of three 6/6 double hung wooden sash providing light to the eastern classroom. Doors to the raised daylight basement classrooms are also covered with metal awnings. The westernmost door has a large awning that also covers an area beside the door that has an infill of new brick. Three small single windows are spaced unevenly between the two doors. The two doors of the lower level exit the basement at ground level. Air conditioning is provided to the classrooms by units located in windows on the north facade.

The interior of the Agriculture Education Building has a dropped ceiling to improve heating efficiency; the original ceiling is still in place above. Five-panel wooden doors are found on both levels of the buildings as well as flush doors for the storage closets. Windows and doors have surrounds of a single board trimmed with a narrow piece of molding. The entire southern end of the raised daylight basement level is separated from the classrooms by horizontal board walls to provide rooms for the physical plant and storage closets. The daylight basement level has interior walls of exposed brick and round steel columns that support the floor above.

The Huntersville Agriculture Education Building has 4032 square feet according to the tax card. The front door and all windows have lintels constructed of a soldier course of brick. The corner blocks of the openings are placed within the width of the door and window frames. The surface of the building is constructed of varied-colored face brick laid in running bond. Downspouts are placed randomly at corners of the building.

Conclusion

The Agriculture Education Buildings at Long Creek and Huntersville provide a solid architectural link to the era of the yeoman farmer in Mecklenburg County. The Neoclassical touches seen in these two utilitarian buildings show strong ideas of tradition expressed in educational facilities. Most of the original fabric is relatively unchanged and in very good condition; that may be a simple result of the need for space to house a growing student population. The importance of the two Agriculture Education Buildings, however, is reflected in the fact that they are still serving as functional, viable classrooms even after a revolution in Mecklenburg County — the revolution that swept citizens from cotton fields and hog killings to computers and bank mergers.

ADVENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH

This report was written November 2, 1987.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Old Advent Christian Church is located at 101 North McDowell St. in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

W. Thomas Ray
P. 0. Box 23487
Charlotte, N.C., 28212

Telephone: 704/545-1206

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 reference to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg Deed Book 5428, Page 48. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 080-098-14.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Ph.D.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Ms. Ruth Little.

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 Old Advent Christian Church does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Old Advent Christian Church, erected in 1919-1920, was built according to plans which had been prepared by Louis H. Asbury (1877-1975), an architect of local and regional significance, for the King’s Daughters Chapel at the Stonewall Jackson Training School near Concord; consequently, the Old Advent Christian Church affords a unique opportunity to examine the corpus of Asbury’s work; 2) the Old Advent Christian Church is the only church building which survives on McDowell Street, which once had many churches, some white and some black, along its route in First Ward and Second Ward; and 3) the Old Advent Christian Church contributes significantly to the retention of some historical feeling to the North McDowell St. streetscape.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Ms. Ruth Little which is included in this report demonstrates that the Old Advent Christian 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 $163,930. The current appraised value of the .119 acres of land is $54,500. The total appraised value of the property is $218,430. The property is zoned B2.

Date of Preparation of this Report: November 2, 1987

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
1225 S. Caldwell St. Box D
Charlotte, N.C., 28203  Telephone: 704/376-9115

Special Note

The historical essay and the architectural description included in this report were prepared in September, 1978, when the Old Advent Christian Church was first considered for prospective historic property designation. Since then, the building has experienced considerable change. First, it no longer stands alone. It has now been incorporated into an office condominium project. Also, the frame addition to the rear of the building has been demolished; the floor in the sanctuary has had a new level floor placed over it; the tracery has been removed from the windows; the stained glass infill paper has been removed; new windows have been placed in the building; the cupola at the front has been removed; the rear wall of the sanctuary now has a large opening which leads to a major new building behind; and new offices have been placed within the sanctuary. It is important to note, however, that these new offices have been done in a manner which allows the most distinctive interior features to remain — the high  wainscoting and the truss system.
Historical Overview

Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Ph.D.

Construction of the sanctuary of the Advent Christian Church commenced in August 1919 and terminated in October 1920. 1 The building was the first permanent home in Charlotte, N.C. of a congregation of this religious sect. 2 The Advent Christians are one of several denominations which emphasize the millennial and eschatological aspects of Christianity and which have their roots in the teachings of William Miller, a nineteenth-century resident of Dresden, NY. In 1831, Miller predicted that the Second Coming of Christ would occur in 1843-1844. He attracted converts from several Christian groups, who held pre-millennium conferences and sold their property in anticipation of the termination of the present world order and their entry into a resurrected life in heaven. Despite the inaccuracy of Miller’s forecast, the group persisted, later dividing into two major sects, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Advent Christians. The latter sect was established in 1861. 3

The initial congregation of Advent Christians in Charlotte began somewhat inauspiciously c. 1914, when six individuals inaugurated the holding of worship services. 4 The group subsequently purchased a structure on Parkwood Avenue in Villa Heights, a local suburb, as a temporary church. 5 On August 19, 1919, The Charlotte News reported that construction had begun “on the auditorium of a building that is to be erected for the congregation of the Advent Christian Church, at McDowell and East Trade streets. The auditorium is to be of granite,” the newspaper continued, “with dimensions of 30 feet by 50 feet, and to cost from $10,000 to $20,000.” 6 Dedicatory services were held in the newly-completed edifice on October 3, 1920, at 3 PM, “to which friends of city and county” were invited. 7 The sermon was delivered by a guest preacher, Rev. R. L. Isbell of Lenoir, NC, who took his text from Hagai 8:9, “And in this house will I give peace.” 8 The pastor of the church was Rev. J. A. Downs, who conducted a two-week series of evangelistic meetings which also began on October 3, 1920. 9

A building permit issued on August 18, 1919, by the City of Charlotte reveals that the architect of the Advent Christian Church was Louis H. Asbury. 10 Louis H. Asbury (1877-1975) was the son of S. J. and Martha Moody Asbury of Charlotte. In addition to being one of the first carriers of the Charlotte Observer, the young Asbury assisted his father, who was a builder of houses in Charlotte in the 1890s. 11 He subsequently matriculated at Trinity College, now Duke University, and graduated from that institution in 1900. Having acquired his professional training at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Asbury returned to Charlotte and established his architectural practice in 1908.12 In the succeeding decades, Louis H. Asbury assumed a position of prominence and leadership in the architectural profession. He was the first North Carolina member of the American Institute of Architects and played a leading role in organizing the North Carolina Chapter of the A.I.A.13 But his greatest contribution to the built environment of Charlotte were the many buildings which he fashioned over the years, beginning with the residence of R. M. Miller, Jr. on N. Tryon St. (1908).14 Among his more noteworthy designs were the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, the First National Bank Building, the Montaldo’s Building, the Law Building and several of the imposing edifices in Myers Park.15

Although Asbury recognized the predilection of affluent Charlotteans for  Neoclassical and Neo Colonial motifs, he personally preferred the Gothic style.16 Consequently, it is not surprising that he selected this form for his 1928 design of Myers Park Methodist Church, of which he was a member and in which his funeral was held in March 1975. 17 A similar propensity existed in his 1915 design of the Hawthorne Lane Methodist Church. An even earlier manifestation of his preference for the Gothic style, however, was the chapel which he designed in 1913 for the Stonewall Jackson Training School near Concord, N.C. 18 An inspection of the structure and especially of its setting explains why Asbury selected a rock rubble format for the composition of the chapel. Large stone outcroppings surround the building and form the edge of a deep gorge which borders the chapel on the rear or eastern side. The stone walls serve to reinforce the drama and power of these natural phenomena.

Louis H. Asbury frequently donated designs to Christian congregations19. On June 6, 1919, the Advent Christians in Charlotte received from Asbury the plans for the chapel which he had fashioned for the Stonewall Jackson Training School six years before, and these plans were followed in erecting the Advent Christian Church on N. McDowell St. 20 Although the design was less suited for an urban setting, it provided the fledgling congregation with a building of essential integrity and architectural purity. Unfortunately, the Advent Christians erected a somewhat insensitive addition to the rear of the structure sometime during the 1920s. It is important to remember, however, that this was not a wealthy congregation. 22 Indeed, the members lost their physical plant during the Depression of the 1930s. On February 10, 1930, the Advent Christian Church was acquired by the First National Bank of Charlotte, which in turn went bankrupt in August 1935. 23

The Advent Christians vacated the building in 1932. 24 The Church of God, another fundamentalist sect, occupied the structure in 1933, to be followed by the Central Church of Nazarene in 1934 and the First Pentecostal Church in 1935-6. 25 The building was vacant from 1937 through 1939. 26 On October 9, 1941, the Gospel Baptist Church purchased the church from the Loraine Corporation, the owner of the property since July 12, 1937. 27 The Gospel Baptist Church occupied the structure from 1940 until October 1947. 28 Among the religious leaders who conducted services there during the early and mid-1940’s was Billy Graham, who later would become a world-famous evangelist.29 Although Billy Graham appeared in other Charlotte churches during these years, 30 his presence in the Gospel Baptist Church occurred when he was less than thirty years of age and therefore, constitutes a compelling illustration of the extent of his ministry at that time. 31

On October 30, 1947, the Gospel Baptist Church sold the church on N. McDowell St. to the Redemptorist Fathers, a Roman Catholic order which had been established by St. Alphonsus Maria di Liguori at Scala, ltaly, in 1732 to conduct mission work among the poor. 32 The Charlotte Observer reported that this transaction represented a “very material expansion of the work of the Catholic church among Negroes in Charlotte.” The article went on to relate that new equipment would be installed in the building and that a “minor remodeling program” would be executed. 33 The Redemptorist Fathers fashioned an atmosphere which was more in keeping with the forms and rituals of Roman Catholicism. A cupola was placed on the roof of the building, and the windows in the sanctuary were given the appearance of stained glass. A second entrance was provided into the basement, and a one story building was erected to the right of the addition which had been constructed during the 1920s. 34 Rev. Timothy Sullivan and Rev. James Murphy, pastor and assistant pastor respectively of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help on Oaklawn Ave., assumed the responsibility of directing the activities of the now Catholic chapel on N. McDowell St. as well. 35

By the early 1970’s, Second Ward or Brooklyn had lost its residential component, thereby depriving the chapel of a substantial number of its parishioners. Moreover, First Ward had also been selected as a major urban renewal project. On April 1, 1973, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, N.C., rented the structure to the proprietors of the McDonald Art Gallery, who operated their business therein until May 1, 1978. 36 The City of Charlotte acquired the chapel on December 14, 1974. 37 The structure is currently unoccupied.
NOTES

1 Charlotte News (August l9, 1919) p. 16. Charlotte Observer (October 3, 1920), Sec. A., p. 5.

2 Charlotte Observer (October 4. 1920) p. 15.

3 F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingtson, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, London, New York, Toronto, 1974), p. 20, 1034, 1165. James Hastings, ed. ,  Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Charles Scribner’s & Sons, Now York, n.d.), vol. 2., p. 286.

4 Charlotte News (August 19, 1919), p. 16.

5 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 390, p. 524.

6 Charlotte News (August 19, 1919) p. 16.

7 Charlotte Observer (October 3, 1920), Sec. A., p. 5.

8 Charlotte Observer (October 4, 1920), p. 15.

9 Charlotte Observer (October 3. 1920), Sec. A., p. 5.

10 Records of the Charlotte Building Inspection Departments.

11 Charlotte Observer (July 18, 1896), p. 4.  Charlotte Observer (June 16, 1893), p.4.

12 Interview of Louis H. Asbury, Jr., by Dr. Dan L. Morrill (August 24, 1978). Hereafter cited as Interview.

13 Charlotte Observer (March 20, 1975) p. 8A.

14 Interview.

15 Charlotte Observer (March 20, 1975), p. 8A.

16 Interview.

17 Charlotte Observer (March 20, 1975), p. 8A.

18 Records of Louis H. Asbury in the Office of Louis H. Asbury Jr.

19 Interview.

20 Records of Louis H. Asbury in the Office of Louis H. Asbury, Jr.

21 For a photograph of the Advent Christian Church c. 1927 see Charlotte North Carolina: Diversified Industrial And Commercial Center (The Observer Printing House, Inc., July 1927). A copy of this photograph is included in this report.

22 The 1929 Sanborn Insurance Map of Charlotte, N.C. reveals that the addition was in place at this time.

23 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 761, p. 268. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 869, p. 334.

24 Charlotte City Directory (1932), p. 654.

25 Charlotte City Directory (1933) p. 665. Charlotte City Directory (1933-1934) p. 672. Charlotte City Directory (1935) p. 721. Charlotte City Directory (1936) p. 812.

26 Charlotte City Directory (1937) p. 860. Charlotte City Directory (1938) p. 831. Charlotte City Directory (1939) p. 805.

27 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 925, p. 22. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1061, p. 7.

28 Charlotte City Directory (1940), p. 843. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1281, p. 29.

29 Letter from T. W. Wilson, associate of Billy Graham, to Dr. Dan L. Morrill (August 3, 1978).

30 Charlotte Observer (March 2, 1946), Sec. 1, p. 8.

31 The earliest articles in the vertical files on Dr. Graham in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library date from 1950. Also worth noting is the fact that Dr. Graham did not conduct a major crusade until 1949.

32 Cross & Livingston, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1165.

33 Charlotte Observer (October 31, 1947), p. 10B.

34 It is possible that the second entrance to the basement and the addition were erected by the Gospel Baptist Church. An aerial survey reveals that both wore in place in 1949.

35 Charlotte News (October 31, 1947), p. 10A.

36 Interview of Mr. McDonald by Dr. Dan L. Morrill (August 25, 1978).

37 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3729, p. 146.
Architectural Description

by Ruth Little-Stokes
July 22, 1978

Advent Church, located at the northwest corner of East Trade and McDowell Streets in uptown Charlotte is a small, simple Gothic Revival church built in 1919-1920. The rough granite walls, steep slate roof, tiny gabled entrance porch and the rustic humility of the architectural design create a distinctive accent in the predominant commercial fabric of the area.

The east gable end of the rectangular three bay wide, four bay deep structure forms the main facade, facing McDowell Street. Along the facade frontage is a low retaining walls constructed of the same random laid granite as the church itself. In the center, low concrete steps with curved granite side walls lead up to the entrance porch. The center entrance porch echoes the shape of the main facade, and is constructed of the same stone, with a gable slate roof with overhanging eaves with exposed rafter and joist ends. The front wall terminates on either side as a single shouldered buttress. In the center is a wide rectangular opening with a stone flat arch and high in each side wall is a rectangular flat-arched opening. The floor is concrete, the ceiling narrow tongue and groove wood sheathing. An early electric light fixture, perhaps original is suspended from the soffit of the apex of the porch roof, just above the entrance. The design, consisting of four brass spindles hanging from a circular brass canopy, is apparently a reproduction of an oil burning lamp which would have been used during the medieval period which inspired the design of the building. The lamp has lost its globe. A double door, each leaf constructed of narrow tongue and groove sheathing, with a brass thumb latch and a simple molded wooden surround, leads into the church.

In the front gable end above the entrance porch is a circular wooden window with radiating muntins. The window has lost its glazing. Above it is a narrow rectangular wooden louvered ventilator. Flanking the porch are narrow rectangular windows with molded wooden surrounds and flat stone arches. Wooden tracery creates a Gothic pointed arch effect on the single pane of frosted glass in each window. On the roof ridge just behind the main facade is a small belfry, a later addition covered with asbestos shingles, with a wood louvered ventilator. In each face, a  hipped composition  shingle roof and a cross.

The side elevations are articulated by a wide stone water table and double shouldered buttresses which separate the bays. The gable end walls extend above the roofline as low parapets. The fine gray slate roof with exposed rafter ends is a strong visual element. Each bay has a set of three windows, each window identical to those in the main facade. Each side elevation also has a rectangular basement window below ground level, surrounded by a brick well. Several smaller ventilation openings also service the basement. The original basement entrance, a paneled wooden door in the south elevation beneath the rear bay, is reached by a flight of concrete steps. Beneath the window in the eastern bay of the north elevation is an added gabled basement entrance constructed of concrete block. A tall granite interior end chimney projects from the northwest corner of the building.

A hipped frame section, almost as wide as the main blocks abuts the rear elevation. The section has walls covered with asbestos shingles, (probably covering the original weatherboard), one-over-one wooden sash with plain surrounds and molded caps, and a gray slate roof with exposed rafter ends. This is either original or an early addition, as it is present on the 1929 Sanborn Insurance Map of Charlotte which shows the building in outline. Abutting this frame section on the north is a gabled addition, probably constructed in the late 1940s, with concrete block walls, six-over-six wooden sash, and a composition shingled roof.

The interior of the main block consists of a small vestibule and a sanctuary. Both areas are finished with narrow tongue-and-groove wooden floors (now overlaid with linoleum in some areas), a high wainscot of narrow tongue-and-groove sheathing, molded chair rails, plaster walls, and molded wooden door and window surrounds. All windows have a simulated stained glass effect created by thick patterned paper sandwiched between the exterior frosted glass and interior clear glass panes. The paper is probably not original. The vestibule has a double raised panel door leading into the sanctuary. The floor slopes gently to a platform which covers the rear bay of the church. Three steps, semicircular in plan, lead to the recessed apse, finished like the other spaces, with a segmentally arched open with a flat-paneled soffit and jambs. A small door leads from the north apse wall into the rear section. The only early light fixture remaining on the interior is an electric wall fixture on the south jamb of the apse arch. In the rear wall of the sanctuary, flanking the apse, are two doors, each with horizontal panels like the other interior doors.

The most architecturally significant feature of the interior is the truss roof. The ceiling has sloping sides and a flat top, and each of the three roof trusses follows this shape. At the angles between the sides and top are wooden spandrels, giving each truss a smoothly arched soffit. Each truss has additional frame cross bracing and is supported by heavy molded wood corbels. Narrow tongue and-grove wooden sheathing covers the roof.

The rear frame section is divided into two rooms, and has apparently been altered over the years.

The Addison Apartments

Dr. William H. Huffman, Dr. Dan L. Morrill, and Sherry J. Joines
June 1, 1994
Updated September 8, 1997

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Addison Apartments is located at 831 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

Morehead Properties, Incorporated
1043 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28204

Tax Parcel Number: 125-173-22

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 Tax Parcel Number 125-173-22 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 8359 Page 0843.

6. A brief historic 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 a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Dr. William H. Huffman.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation as set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:
a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Addison Apartments does possess special significance for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) The Addison Apartments building was built and owned by prominent local builder J. A. Jones in 1926. 2) It is one of the few elegant high-rise apartment buildings built in Charlotte in the early twentieth century. 3) It was designed by local architect Willard G. Rogers, who designed a number of important buildings in the city.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural descriptions included in this report demonstrate that the Addison Apartments building 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 a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the land and buildings is $5,721,710.00. The size of Tax Parcel 125173-22 is 1.360 acres.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 1 June 1994, updated August 27, 1997.

Prepared by: Dr. William H. Huffman
Updated by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill and Sherry J. Joines
Charlotte – Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
2100 Randolph Road
Charlotte, NC 28207
Historical Overview

Dr. William H. Huffman
May, 1994

The Addison Apartments building represent distinct cultural and architectural styles of pre-World-War II twentieth-century Charlotte that have largely passed from the scene. Built in 1926 on fashionable East Morehead Street in Dilworth, it is also important because of its association with the original builder and owner, J. A. Jones, and local Charlotte architect Willard G. Rogers. The Addison Apartments building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in August, 1990.1

From humble beginnings on a farm near Asheboro, James Addison Jones (1869-1950) came to Charlotte in 1889 as a 19-year-old brick mason and eventually formed a construction company bearing his name that has built many local and state landmarks and is now known worldwide. In 1890, the hard-working and ambitious young man married a local girl of eighteen, Mary Jane (Minnie) Hopper, with whom he had twelve children. Thrice-widowed, Jones married a fourth time in 1942, prior to which he had two more children with his second wife and another with his third. By 1894, Jones had formed his own construction company and began to win increasingly important contracts for commercial, governmental and residential buildings in and around Charlotte. Some of his major contracts prior to the 1920s include the Cole Manufacturing Plant, Charlotte, 1905; Hoskins Mill, Charlotte, 1905; library of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1907; Efird’s Department Store, Charlotte, 1907 (demolished). Charlotte YMCA, 1908 (demolished); Independence Building, Charlotte, 1908-1909 (North Carolina’s first steel frame skyscraper, demolished); Belk’s Department Store, Charlotte, 1910 (demolished); Bishop Kilgo House, Charlotte, 1914-1915; Masonic Temple, Charlotte, 1914 (demolished); and the Ivey’s Department Store, Charlotte, 1914.2

In 1920, the J. A. Jones Construction Company became a corporation, with J. A. Jones, president and sons Raymond A. and Edwin L. vice-president and secretary-treasurer, respectively. This team continued to build some of Charlotte’s and the state’s most impressive buildings during the boom times of the Twenties. They include: some fifteen buildings at what is now the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; the Forsyth County Courthouse; the Professional Building, Charlotte, 1922-1923; the N. C. Baptist Hospital, Winston-Salem, 1922; Hotel Charlotte, 1924 (demolished); Charlotte City Hall, 1925; Carolina Theater, Charlotte, 1927 (partially demolished); Charlotte Observer Building, 1927 (demolished); Nebel Mill, Charlotte, 1928; The Power Building, Charlotte, 1928; and the Wilder Building, 1926, Charlotte (demolished).3 During World War II, the company built the  atomic bomb plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and many other military and government camps. It also constructed a shipyard and began to build ships as well, managing to launch 212 freighters in just two years. After the war, the company sought contracts in many different countries overseas and became one of the nation’s largest construction companies. James Addison Jones died in 1950, but the legacy of his buildings and construction company will long outlive him.4

In 1922, the J. A. Jones Construction Company bought two 100’x 300′ lots at the comer of East Morehead and McDowell Streets from the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company in Dilworth with the clear intention of developing them.5 Dilworth was Charlotte’s first suburb and was the creation of New South entrepreneur Edward Dilworth Latta (1851-1925). Latta was a Princeton educated native of South Carolina who, after achieving success in Charlotte with a clothing store (1876) and the Charlotte Trouser Company (1883), formed the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (often referred to as the 4 Cs) to develop the city’s first suburb in 1890. Originally laid out in grid fashion, the main boulevards such as East Boulevard and East Morehead Street as well as some side streets boasted grand homes, while the remainder were more modest middle-class houses, and, at the southern edge, mill houses for the Atherton Mill (1892-1893) on South Boulevard. Special inducements were devised to lure people to the new suburb: a new electric trolley line from the Square (opened 1891); a first-rate park, complete with a concert and dance hall, racetracks, a pavilion, greenhouses and a large boating lake; and installment buying for lots. With the Atherton Mill and seven other factories that were put up along the western side of South Boulevard in 1894 and 1895, Dilworth’s success was assured. The first phase of development ended about 1912, when Latta Park was reduced to its present size, and work began on the new section designed by the Olmsted Brothers, “the most prestigious landscape architecture and city planning firm in the United States.”

Development in the second phase, with its curved streets that followed the contours of the landscape, continued apace through the boom times of the 1920s. It was in part of this new section that J. A. Jones chose to build the Addison Apartments.6 When Jones completed his plans for the lots, he formed the Addison Realty Company with his two sons Edwin and Raymond, and transferred title to the new company to develop it for an apartment building.7 For the design, they chose local architect Willard G. Rogers (1863-1947).8 Rogers, a native of Cincinnati, Ohio, came to Charlotte with his wife Eva Troy Rogers about 1900, and worked for Stuart W. Cramer, who had an engineering and contracting firm in Charlotte that built and supplied cotton mill machinery for textile plants in the Piedmont region. In 1906, Rogers left Cramer to go into private practice in partnership with C. C. Hook (1869-1938), one of Charlotte’s leading architects. The two practiced together until about 1916, when each went out on his own. Rogers continued his solo practice until 1942, when, at the age of 79, he moved to Atlanta. Although there is little information about his background and career in Charlotte, it is known that he designed the Wilder Building (referred to above) the Masonic Temple (with Hook) and a number of residences in the city.9

Visiting the site frequently to see personally that the job went well, J. A. Jones began construction of the Addison Apartments in March, 1926, and completed the building in the fall in time to allow tenants to occupy their new apartments in October and November. The fine new building boasted hot and cold running water, steam heat, a radio attachment for each room, a dining room, room service and a beauty parlor. Behind the building, where the present parking lot is located, Jones built a row of garages for each tenant’s car as well as a gas station and car wash. This latest version of fine urban living was promoted as “The South’s Finest” in a newspaper ad taken out by Jones’ construction company.10 Sometime in the late 1940s, controlling interest in Addison Realty was sold to Gen. Paul R. Younts, who held it until his death in 1971.11 The following year, the apartments were purchased by Management Enterprises, Inc, who, a month later, passed title to a development partnership, Addison Plaza Associates; they wanted to turn the building into a retirement hotel.  12

In March, 1973, it was again sold, this time to International Investors, Inc., headed by insurance executive Emest L. Harris. Harris’ group attempted to turn the apartments into condominiums.13 Finally, in July, 1974, the Housing Authority of the City of Charlotte bought the building for low-income housing for the elderly. 14 When the Housing Authority moved the last tenants out and put it up for sale in 1990, the search was on once again for a suitable owner who might renovate the building, and some were concerned that it might be lost. It is presently under contract to Historic Preservation Partners, LLC of Williamsburg, Virginia, which is under the direction of developer Paul L. Wilson. Historic Preservation Partners intends to restore the building for use as a fine hotel and restaurant. Once again the Addison Apartments building will take its place as a proud beacon of good living on East Morehead Street.

Special Note:

Happily, the Addison Apartments building was purchased by Morehead Properties, Inc., and was upfitted for office use in 1996 – 1997.
Notes

1Certificate of entry in the National Register of Historic Places dated 23 August 1990.

2Beth Laney Smith and Karen Trogdon Kluever, Jones Construction Centennial: Looking Back-Moving Forward (Charlotte: Laney-Smith, Inc., 1989), passim.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Mecklenburg County Deed Book 485, page 397, 2 October 1922.

6Dan L. Morrill, “Edward Dilworth Latta and the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (1890-1925): Builders of a New South City,” The North Carolina Historical Review, 62 (July, 1985), 293-316.

7Mecklenburg County Record of Corporations, Book 9, p. 381, Certificate of Incorporation 27425, 9 February 1926.

8City of Charlotte Building Permit No. 6748, 19 March 1926.

9Information compiled by William H. Huffman.

10 Richard Mattson and Suzanne Pickens, National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Addison Apartments, 9 March 1990;  Charlotte Observer, July 14, 1990, editorial by Jack Claiborne, “This Time and Place;” Sanborn Insurance Company Map of Charlotte, 1929, p. 26.

11 Charlotte Observer , March 15, 1973, p. 4B.

12Mecklenburg County Deed Books 3483, p. 549 and Book 3512, p. 21; Charlotte News, October 13, 1972, p. ?

13Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3545. p. 61; Charlotte Observer, March 15, 1973, p. 1B.

14Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3 690, p. 3 13; Charlotte Observer, June 12, 1973.

Architectural Description

Dr. William H. Huffman
May, 1994

The Addison Apartments building is located on the north comer of the intersection of East Morehead and South McDowell Streets in Charlotte, N. C., about 0.8 miles due south of the Square at Trade and Tryon Streets, and faces southwest. East Morehead Street at that point slopes gently from northwest to southeast, and on both sides is completely developed with low-rise commercial and office buildings, many new and some conversions from a few old houses, and churches. Built in 1926 by the J. A. Jones Construction Company and designed by Charlotte architect Willard G. Rogers, the Addison is an outstanding and rare Neoclassical Revival landmark. Its rarity comes from its survival on East Morehead Street, which used to be lined with fine homes and a few neighborhood stores and restaurants, almost all of which, with just a few exceptions, are gone. It is also rare as a surviving 1920s high-rise apartment building for the affluent middle-class (the only other in the city is the Poplar Apartments in 4th Ward, which has five stories and was built with 39 suites in 1929). Last of all, its claim to rarity comes as a surviving Neoclassical Revival steel frame skyscraper of pre-1930s Charlotte, all the rest of which were commercial buildings along Trade and Tryon Streets: Independence Building, 1909 (demolished); Professional Building, 1923; Hotel Charlotte, 1924 (demolished); Johnston Building, 1924; First National Bank, 1926 (demolished); and the Wilder Building, also designed by Rogers, 1926 (demolished).

The Addison Apartments building is a steel-frame structure nine stories tall, nine bays wide and three bays deep with a base that measures 155 feet by 51 feet, an sits on a double lot that measures 200 feet along East Morehead Street and 300 feet along South McDowell. A parking lot takes up about one-half of the rear of the property, which is paved with asphalt and is at a lower grade than the building portion of the lot. The bottom story of the building is partially below ground in the front of the building, but above ground on the sides and in the back. The front elevation presents the viewer with a symmetrical, but variegated facade. Resting on a concrete foundation, the first floor and basement levels are faced with a smooth cast stone veneer that is topped by an entablature and cornice, which is detailed with dentils along the side two bays and front side bay.

The second story and up is faced with brick curtain walls laid in running bond, and the two end and center bays project forward from the others to add variety. Originally buff color, the brick was painted in recent years and is now white. Variety is further enhanced by brick quoins along the center and two end bays and a front side bay, which is repeated in the rear elevation and rear side bay. The front elevation also features triple, double and single windows of different sizes, all having cast stone sills (except for the brick sills for the small bathroom windows) and one-over-one double-hung sash. Flanking the two sets of double windows in the center bay are smooth stone pilasters topped by engaged Corinthian capitals. Embellishments at the crown of the building include cornices topped by stepped parapets, ornamented cast stone paneled balconies, and cast stone trim with dentils.

Befitting the style, the main entry portico is the most elaborate part of the building. Six steps lead up to the two-story porch that spans the width of the center bay. At the four corners of the porch are square, tapered vernacular Doric columns with recessed panels topped by Doric capitals. Flanking the front entry just inside the two front square columns are two round Tuscan columns on plain bases also capped by Doric capitals. The columns support an entablature with a frieze in which “Addison Apartments” is carved, above which is a cornice with dentils. Above the cornice is a balcony which has cast stone bases supporting three urns in the front corners, with a metal railing between them. Another urn is engaged in the center of the facade just above the porch balcony as part of a decorative pediment. The double front entry doors are flanked by four pilasters, two of which frame the doors and two frame the side lights. Both the  transom and  side lights have leaded glass with a pattern of intersecting ellipses. Square ceramic tiles cover the floor of the porch. The McDowell Street elevation has an entrance directly to the basement level which is protected by a small canopy suspended from two chains attached to the wall. The rear elevation facing the parking lot has no decoration, since it was only used as the service side of the building.

Two major rear projections house the service elevators and stairways, and a smaller one is for the furnace flue. Through the front entrance on East Morehead, one passes into the lobby and looks ahead to a small waiting room. The lobby area is the fanciest and best decorated in the building. Polished marble covers the walls, and a highly decorative cornice with egg and dart molding circles the area. Large openings with windows are found to the left and right. The waiting room is also covered with marble veneer, and has a cornice of molded plaster, as does the hallway on this floor. A small office is found to the southeast off the waiting room. The main hall in each of the floors runs with the width of the building (northeast-southwest), and a short hall runs perpendicular to it in the third bay from each end that leads to the elevators and rear stairs. The original elevator doors, rear stairs and wrought-iron floor indicators are still intact.

From the first floor hall a broad, open stairway of polished marble veneer leads down to the basement level, which contains what was the dining room (and most recently was a recreation room); a laundry room; office space; unfinished storage areas; and a sub-basement containing the furnace. Originally, the apartments appear to have been laid out in either a two- or three-room plan. The two-room plan had a combined living room-bedroom with a small bath, and the larger had an additional room but the same basic layout. Most of the apartments retain their original plain and simple construction. The floors are hardwood and appear to be intact (although many are carpeted), and the rooms have simple baseboards and crown moldings.

All the original wood doors appear to be one panel with simple surrounds and glass doorknobs. The original bathrooms have checkerboard-pattern small black-and-white floor tiles, and the walls are mostly covered with large white tiles. Each bathroom had a sink, bathtub and shower, toilet with a small window over it, and white ceramic water knobs. In the ensuing years, a number of the apartments have been altered by the addition of kitchen facilities and/or changes in room sizes.
Addendum:
Architectural Description

August 1997
Dr. Dan L. Morrill and Sherry J. Joines

Recent renovations have made significant changes to the Addison Apartments building. Some of these have been quite positive as they enhance the historic features of the building. The new paint scheme, for instance, uses two tones of cream to set off the cast stone base and trim from the brick veneer walls. Gilding highlights the Neoclassical decorative elements such as the garlands, medallions, and urns.

Other changes are less desirable since they change the historic character of the building. The new rear elevation is an example of this sort of change. An addition to the rear of the building projects beyond the original elevator towers. It has ornament inspired by that of the historic building, but of a more abstract nature. Thin molding turns and curves into a triangular pediment design at the top of the new addition. Gilded swags are found under each floor’s triple windows in the center bay of the new addition and a gilded medallion graces the “pediment”. The new addition serves as a rear entry from the new parking deck. The deck is only two levels and is not really visible from the front of the building although it alters the original rear service area. Personal carports for the residents occupied the building’s rear lot historically. The addition’s entry mimics the front entry portico in form, but is glassed in. The decorative elements are more abstract as well. The addition creates a stepped rear elevation that has a far more finished appearance than the original rear facade’s two elevator towers and small furnace shaft.

The surfaces of the rear elevation were historically left unadorned because of the utilitarian nature of this area. The new addition alters this character, but the original portions are distinguishable since they did not receive newly applied ornament. On the front facade of the building, the inscribed “Addison Apartments” in the cornice of the entry portico is no longer visible. The new entry doors and sidelights have mirrored glass. The taller doors did not allow space for the original transom. And the upper story windows in the central bay of the facade are no longer paired, but are wide, single light over single light. In fact, the windows of the entire building have been replaced with one over one units divided by wide, flat muntins. The muntins are rather Post-Modern in their styling, giving the building a more contemporary feel.

The side of the building facing McDowell Street evidences changes in the street grade, perhaps due to the addition of the rear parking deck. Also, the side door entering the basement level had a small canopy (with cornice and dentils matching the main portico) supported by chains from the building. This canopy has now disappeared, making the door quite unnoticeable. Finally, the entire interior of the building was renovated leaving almost nothing of its historic appearance. While some of the changes to the Addison Apartments altered its historic character, the basic form, setback, and front facade were retained and even enhanced. Judging from the circa 1938 photograph featured on the title page of this report and the more recent photograph included below, the Addison Apartments building continues to dominate the landscape at the intersection of East Morehead and McDowell.

Thad Adams House

This report was written on July 6, 1987.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Thad A. Adams House is located at 604 Clement Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

Mr. John W. Hazel & Wife, Elizabeth P. Hazel
604 Clement Ave.
Charlotte, N.C., 28204

Telephone: 704/333-0676

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 reference to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg Deed Book 4327, Page 17. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 127-015-01.

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 Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Ph.D.

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 Thad A. Adams House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Thad A. Adams House, erected in 1908, was the home of Thaddeus Awasaw Adams (1877-1958), a prominent lawyer in Charlotte for nearly fifty years and a president of the Mecklenburg Bar Association; 2) the Thad A. Adams House is one the oldest surviving “period houses” in the Clement Avenue section of the  Elizabeth neighborhood, one of Charlotte’s earliest and most prestigious  streetcar suburbs; and 3) the Thad A. Adams House is situated at an especially strategic location in terms of the Clement Avenue streetscape, which is the most intact historic streetscapes in this section of the Elizabeth neighborhood (the house is on a corner lot with huge oak trees).

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Dr. Dan L. Morrill which is included in this report demonstrates that the Thad A. Adams House 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 $58,990. The current appraised value of the 111 by 205 foot lot is $11,000. The total appraised value of the property is $69,990. The property is zoned R6.

Date of Preparation of this Report: July 6, 1987

Prepared by:
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
2100 Randolph Road
Charlotte, N.C., 28207

Telephone: 704/376-9115
A Historical Sketch of the Thad A. Adams House

by Dr. William H. Huffman
May, 1985

The Thad A. Adams house was built in 1908 in the Elizabeth neighborhood, one of the first  streetcar suburbs to the east of central Charlotte. Elizabeth is actually an amalgam of several development projects which began with the blocks around Elizabeth Avenue in 1897, and ended with Rosemont in the 1920’s. 604 Clement was part of a seven-acre tract bought by prominent Charlotte attorney and North Carolina Supreme Court justice Heriot Clarkson, who built his own house at what is now Eighth Street and Clement Avenue. Clarkson’s property was purchased in 1903 from the Oakhurst Land Co. (organized by financier and textile magnate B. D. Heath in 1900), which flanked him on the north, and from the Highland Park Company’s Elizabeth Heights on the south (a 1904 development by the Highland Park Company, headed by Peter Marshall Brown).2 The development of this suburban area was made possible by two things — a fast-growing Charlotte economy and the advent of the electric streetcar. Because of its location as a central distribution point for New South industrialization which boomed from the l880’s to the 1920s in the Piedmont Carolinas, Charlotte experienced explosive growth during that period. The first electric streetcar or trolley line was installed by Edward Dilworth Latta in 1891 for his Dilworth subdivision, the city’s first, and was subsequently expanded in all directions from the center of the city.3

Clarkson, whose property included parts of what is now Clement, Bay, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Streets, began to subdivide his holdings, and a number of his lots were sold to other Charlotte attorneys. One of the first lots sold was to Thaddeus Awasaw Adams (1877-1958), who was a member of the bar, in 1908.4 A native of Nash County, N.C., Adams received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina in 1902, and his law degree from the same institution in 1903. After he graduated, he traveled for the Presbyterian Standard, during which time he chose Charlotte as a place to live. His first job here was teaching in the Mecklenburg schools, and in 1906, he began a nearly fifty -year career in the practice of law in the city. A one-time president of the Mecklenburg Bar Association, for a time Adams also held law classes in his home at night.5 In July, 1908, Thad Adams bought what is now the northeastern corner of Clement and Ninth Street for a house lot, and in November of that same year he was wed to Emma Dawson Ford ( 1 876- 1963), a native of Charlotte County, Virginia.6 She had received her higher education at the Southern Female Institute in Petersburg, Virginia, and taught school in Virginia and eastern North Carolina for several years before her marriage to Thad Adams.7 Although there is no direct documentary evidence, it seems likely that the newlyweds moved into their new house shortly after their marriage.

Over the next five and a half decades, the Adamses lived, worked, played and raised their three children in the suburban house. Although it was relatively close to the center of town, in the early days the house was still out in the country. Attorney Adams went to work in the mornings by catching the trolley that ran down Seventh Street. During the 1920’s, the Adamses kept a cow, chickens and pigs, and Mrs. Adams, who was “quite a gardener,” maintained a large grape arbor, fruit trees and other plantings in the back of the house. Thad Adams, Jr. recalls that he had to take the cow to a field at the very end of Seventh Street every day to graze. He also fondly remembers the sound of the rain failing on the tin roof over the sleeping rooms in the back of the house.8 Over the years, the neighborhood filled in around the Adams residence with many individually-designed and distinctive houses built by Charlotte’s business and professional leaders. Although the architect of the Adams house is not known, it remains, one the earliest and best houses in that part of the Elizabeth neighborhood.
1 Information compiled by Thomas Hanchett, Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

2 Deed Book 179, p 62, 7 May 1903; Ibid., p. 104, 7 May 1903.

3 “Dilworth,” brochure, Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

4 Deed Book 236, P. 464, 14 July, 1906; Ibid., p. 498.

5 Charlotte Observer, April 16, 1958, p. 16B.

6 Ibid. see note 4.

7 Charlotte Observer, February 7, 1963, p. 6A.

8 Interview with Thad A. Adams, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., 28 May 1985.
Architectural Description Of The Thad A. Adams House 604 Clement Avenue Charlotte, North Carolina

Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Professor of History
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
July 6, 1987

The Thad A. Adams House, a one and one-half story, German or drop-sided, frame dwelling with brick foundation, erected in 1908 for Thaddeus Awasaw Adams (1877-1958), a prominent lawyer, and for his wife, Emma Dawson Ford Adams (1876-1963), belongs to a broad and diverse category of so-called “period houses” which were erected in the affluent suburbs of early twentieth-century North Carolina.1 Situated on a corner parcel at Clement Avenue and East Ninth Street in a grid section of the Elizabeth neighborhood of Charlotte, the house, which sprawls across the width of its tree-shaded lot, is inspired in part by the decorative vocabulary of Colonial Revivalism, although less slavishly so than in the Colonial Revival style edifices built later in this century.2 Colonial Revivalism, which emphasizes classical ornamentation, geometric massing and, at least in North Carolina, simplicity of detail in comparison with the more adventuresome specimens of this motif found in the major cities of the North and Midwest, was probably the most popular example of historic eclecticism which emerged in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in the United States, including the South. This widespread acclaim was in no small part due to the fact that Colonial Revivalism provided compelling images which enabled wealthy suburbanites to satisfy their “search for order” and their desire to live in an “idyllic escape from the overcrowding, crime, and ethnic strife identified with the city.”3

The most striking architectural detail of the exterior of the Thad A. Adams House, and the element which draws its primary inspiration from Colonial Revivalism, is a large central dormer, which surmounts the bell-cast  gambrel roof — a feature which gestures toward the Dutch Colonial style. Located at the front of the upstairs hallway, the dormer has returns and a handsome, elongated Palladian window, with  fanlight and a wooden  keystone at the apex of the arch. Small, flanking triangular dormers with fanlights serve to reinforce the essential symmetry of the front facade, as do the central entranceway with sidelights of diamond shaped leaded glass, the central pedimented projection of the shed roof atop the wraparound front porch (the right or south side of which has been enclosed), and the cement sidewalk and replacement cement steps which lead up to the front porch.4 The predominant window type is 1/1 sash; but two quarter circle windows, a design element reminiscent of the Victorian era, adorn each gambrel end of the house.

In keeping with the conservative tastes of North Carolina suburbanites of the early 1900’s, the Thad A. Adams House is not ornate or lavish. Indeed, its ornamentation is quite restrained. The porch columns, which were initially connected by a balustrade, belong to the  Doric Order; and the window frames, cornerboards, frieze, fascia, and soffit are all very plain.5 One encounters similar decorative restraint upon entering the house. Except for a mantel with egg and dart moulding in the front right room, window seats in the front right room and in the original downstairs bedroom, a staircase with a modest but pleasant Colonial Revival balustrade, rising in a single run of nineteen steps, an arched passageway into the downstairs center hall, and, especially, the dining room, which contains  wainscoting with a plate slot, the remnants of a china closet, and an exquisite mantel with overmantel, mirror, and a hearth composed of glazed green tile, the Thad A. Adams House has interior features, such as crown mouldings and baseboards, which are generally quite meager.

The dirt partial basement has a coal storage area which is no longer used (the outside coal chute door is on the right gambrel end of the house); a pit for the original furnace; a water closet, no doubt intended for servants; and a series of trenches filled with sand. The current owner surmises that these trenches were once used as components of a root cellar. No original outbuildings survive. A building which is used for raising birds was constructed in the back yard in 1980 by the current owner.6 Substantial ground disturbance has occurred on the site over the years, thereby virtually eliminating the potential archeological significance of the property.

The Thad A. Adams House has experienced substantial alterations over the years. A one-story projection extends from the rear of the left gambrel end; the wraparound portion of the front porch has been enclosed; the front porch balustrade and the original steps leading to the front porch no longer exist; a center metal balustrade has been added to the front steps; and major changes have occurred at the rear of the house, when apartments were added, most probably in the 1930’s. Specifically, the rear porch was enclosed, and the rear portion of the roof was raised to permit the addition of several rooms. On balance, however, the Thad A. Adams House retains its essential integrity and makes an important contribution to the historic ambiance of the Clement Avenue streetscape.7
1 For a detailed analysis of the architecture of North Carolina early twentieth century suburbs, see Catherine W. Bishir and Lawrence S. Early, Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs in North Carolina: Essays on History, Architecture and Planning (Raleigh: Archeology and Historic Preservation Section, Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 1985), hereinafter cited as Suburbs. For an explanation of the term “period house”, see John Poppeliers, S. Allen Chambers, and Nancy B. Schwartz, “What Style Is It? Part Four.” Historic Preservation (January-March, 1977), pp. 14-23. Thaddeus Awasaw Adams was known locally as “Thad A. Adams”, hence the name which this report assigns to the house. All directions in this manuscript, such as “right side” or “left side”, take as their reference point the front of the house as one faces it from the front sidewalk.

2 The Colonial Revival style arose in the 1880’s and is attributed to the architectural firm McKim, Mead and White (Charles Follen McKim, W. R. Mead, Stanford White). For additional information, see Marcus Whiffen, American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1969), pp.159-165. In Charlotte, the Colonial Revival style, called initially the “true classical style”, was introduced in 1894, by Charles Christian Hook (1869-1938), the first architect who resided in Charlotte throughout his career. Charlotte Observer, September 19, 1894. This writer believes that C. C. Hook might well have been the architect for the Thad A. Adams House, but no direct evidence has been found to prove this belief. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission has substantial information on the architecture and history of the Elizabeth neighborhood. They include: Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte And Its Neighborhoods. The Growth of a New South City, 1850-1930” (An unpublished manuscript in the files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission), Chapter 6. Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte And Its Neighborhoods. The Growth of a New South City” (A draft copy of an unpublished manuscript in the files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission), Chapter 6. “Elizabeth. The New South Neighborhoods” (Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1985). “Historic Walking Tour Elizabeth” (Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 1986).

3 Bishir, “Introduction”, Suburbs. David R. Goldfield, “North Carolina’s Early Twentieth-Century Suburbs and the Urbanizing South”, Suburbs, p. 9. Margaret Supplee Smith, “The American Idyll in North Carolina’s First Suburbs: Landscape and Architecture”, Suburbs, p. 23.

4 Interview of John W. Hazel by Dr. Dan L. Morrill (July 2, 1987), hereinafter cited as Interview.

5 Interview.

6 Interview.

7 The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission has recently secured the designation of two houses as “historic property” which are across Clement Avenue from the Thad A. Adams House. They are the Walter L. Alexander House and the  John Baxter Alexander House. For detailed histories of these houses, see the appropriate Survey and Research Reports which the Commission has deposited in the Carolinas Room of the Main Branch of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

THE ALEXANDER SLAVE CEMETERY
This report was written on June 5, 1989

Marker at the Alexander Slave Cemetery.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Alexander Slave Cemetery is located to the south side of Mallard Creek Church Road just west of its intersection with Highway US 29, in the Mallard Creek Community of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

Crescent Land & Timber Co.
P. O. Box 30817
Charlotte, N.C. 28230

Telephone: (704) 373-3012

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 5880, Page 849. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 047-191-07.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Paula M. Stathakis.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.

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 Alexander Slave Cemetery does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Alexander Slave Cemetery is the most extensive, best preserved, and most imposing slave burial site in Mecklenburg County; and 2) the Alexander Slave Cemetery retains its essential setting.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mary Beth Gatza which is included in this report demonstrates that the Alexander Slave Cemetery 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 10.040 acres of land is $50,200. The total appraised value of the property is $50,200. The property is zoned R15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 5, 1989

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

Special Note: Crescent Land & Timber Co. was not the owner of the Alexander Slave Cemetery when the historical essay by Ms. Paula Stathakis was prepared.
Historical Overview

Paula M. Stathakis
April, 1988

This cemetery is located on property which was originally part of the plantation purchased by William Tasse Alexander I in the early nineteenth century. 1 This plantation grew in size from 100 acres to 935 acres during Alexander’s lifetime. Like many plantation owners of his time, Alexander used slave labor to maintain a profitable economic enterprise. According to United States Census records of the Slave population in Mecklenburg County, Alexander owned 33 slaves in 1860.2 Because of the nature of the census records, and the inaccessibility of more accurate family records, it is not possible to know exactly how many slaves were buried in this cemetery. Estimates have ranged as high as 50 persons, and from the available data, it is not liberal to assume that there may be 25-30 persons interred there. 3

An on-site inspection of this cemetery was not permitted by the owner of the property; however, recent photographs of the area taken by Charlotte Observer photographer Tom Franklin indicate that the cemetery is falling quickly into disrepair. 4 Only two headstones have been placed in this cemetery, and the most legible one has been broken by a fallen tree. The owner of this property, Mrs. Lewis Fisher, said in a telephone conversation in March 15, 1988, that the cemetery is located in a glade and is covered with periwinkle in the summer. She believes that there are 30 graves in the cemetery, although only two grave markers have been erected. 5 One tombstone marks the resting place of a slave named Violet, who must have enjoyed a close relationship with the family to merit a memorial. Violet and another slave, Solomon are mentioned in Alexander’s will. It was Alexander’s wish that Violet and Solomon remain on the plantation to care for his widow. 6

One descendant of slaves buried in this cemetery, Alton Caldwell, recalled that he was told by his great grandparents that Alexander was a kind slave owner, and that he fostered close-knit slave-non-slave relationships. According to Caldwell, Alexander bought shoes for his slaves, allowed them to travel off of the plantation, and did not discourage marriage to slaves on other plantations. Another gesture of the generosity of Alexander the slaveowner, was to provide a space for the formal burial of his slaves. 7 Although relationships with slaves varied from owner to owner, life on the Alexander plantation appears, on the surface, to have been reasonable by the slaves’ standards. Slave population schedules of the United States Census for 1850 and 1860 do not indicate any fugitive slaves from the Alexander plantation, nor do these schedules indicate that Alexander freed any of his slaves during this period. 8

The extant knowledge of this cemetery is sparse. Certainties include its location, the condition of the site, and the identities of a few of the slaves buried there (i.e. Violet and the Caldwell ancestors). Very little information exists about slave cemeteries generally. The most important and respected works on slavery and the ante-bellum south barely address this subject, and the information they do contain is meager. 9

The universals known about the burial customs of slaves are that the dead were usually buried at night, and the ceremony of the funeral and the act of burial were not performed on the same day. Slaves were buried at night because labor on the plantation took precedence over the interment. The funeral service was often held after the burial, on a date approved by the plantation owner. The slaves also preferred to hold the funeral service at a later date, and the delay of this rite allowed others to attend. The funeral was an elaborate service, and was full of much pageantry. Slave funeral customs were strongly linked to African customs. The purpose of the funeral was to assist the dead in their voyage “home”, and a large part of this assistance was provided through funeral revelry. Graves were often decorated with crockery or the last article used by the deceased. 10

Tombstones for slaves are rare, and the two grave markers at the Alexander cemetery are the exception rather than the rule. J. G. Clinkscales, a South Carolinian who grew up on an ante-bellum plantation, wrote about a particular slave, Unc’ Essick, in his memoirs. Unc’ Essick was a faithful and well liked slave according to Clinkscales’s account. However, when Unc’ Essick, the “faithful slave, the patient teacher, the colored gentleman” drowned, he was buried in an unmarked grave. 11 Apparently, not all slaves were fortunate enough to receive a proper burial. Jacob Strayer, an emancipated slave who also grew up in South Carolina recalled that sometimes unruly slaves were killed in the fields by cruel overseers who would bury them where they fell. 12 This too must have been exceptional. However, the existence of a formal slave cemetery, on property specially set aside for the proper burial of the dead is also an exception.

The Alexander slave cemetery is a valuable resource to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg community. It is also an especially significant part of the black history of this area. At present it lies on private property, but the site is not actively protected from anything except trespassers. The photographs taken by Charlotte Observer photographer Tom Franklin, January 26, 1988, show the site under a covering of fallen leaves. It Is also quite clear from these photographs that the site is very poorly maintained. Individuals who have visited the cemetery (on separate occasions), Charlotte Observer reporter Steve Snow and Alton Caldwell, describe the site as overgrown and poorly kept. There are many fallen trees in the area, one of them ruined the most legible marker, the one previously mentioned. Snow, who visited the site in January 1988, noticed that logging was done recently in the area. 13 A site of this significance requires and deserves more care than the present owner is able to give it. In a region of the country where the natives are obsessed with their ancestry and their heritage, it seems incongruous that this burial place of the kindred ancestors of the black community is not recognized for its proper historical significance.
END NOTES

1 Dan L. Morrill, Historic Properties Commission Report on the W T Alexander House, July 5, 1976. The first segment(l00 acres)of what would result in a 935 acre plantation was purchased by William Tasse Alexander I in 1819 on the “headwaters of Mallard Creek”.

2 Eighth Census of the United States: Slave Schedule, Vol. 3, 1860 North Carolina, Mecklenburg County.

3 D. L. Morrill, Historic Properties Commission Report;  Seventh Census of the United States, Second Series: Slave Population, 1850. North Carolina, Mecklenburg County; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Slave Schedule, Mecklenburg County.

4 Photographs, property of the Charlotte Observer taken by staff photographer Tom Franklin, January 26, 1988.

5 Interview with Mrs. Lewis Fisher, owner of property, Lynchburg, Virginia, March 15, 1988.

6 D. L. Morrill, Historic Properties Commission Report.

7 Interview with Alton Caldwell, descendant of Alexander Plantation slaves, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 16, 1988.

8 Seventh Census of the United States: Slave Population, 1850, Mecklenburg County; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Slave Schedule, Mecklenburg County. The rest of Mecklenburg County enjoyed similar distinctions of calm and order. D. L. Morrill, Historic Properties Commission Report. According to this report, Alexander did specify in his will, dated June 28, 1859, that three slaves were to receive their freedom upon his death.

9 See: John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community. Plantation Life in The Ante-Bellum South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, 5th ed.,(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980); Eugene D. Genovese, The World the Slaveholders Made, (New York: Vintage Books, 1971); Joyner, Charles, Down By The Riverside. A South Carolina Slave Community, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984); Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution. Slavers in the Ante-Bellum South, (New York: Vintage Books, 1956).

10 Information for this paragraph taken from Joyner, Down By The Riverside, and Blassingame, The Slave Community.

11 J. G. Clinkscales, On The Old Plantation. Reminisces of his Childhood,(New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969, originally published: South Carolina: Bland and White, 1916), p. 36.

12 Jacob Strayer, My Life in the South, (Salem: Salem Observer Book and Job print, 1885), p. 58.

13 Interview with Steve Snow, Reporter, Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 4, 1988.
SOURCES

Interviews

Caldwell, Alton. Descendant of Alexander Plantation Slaves, Charlotte, North Carolina. Interview, April 16, 1988.

Fisher, Mrs. Lewis. Owner of cemetery site, 2704 Hurdle Hill Road, Lynchburg, Virginia. Interview, March 15, 1988.

Snow, Steve. Reporter, Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, North Carolina. Interview, April 4, 1988.

Newspapers

“A Driving Tour of Black Charlotte.” Charlotte Observer, 31 January 1988, Mecklenburg Neighbors.

Government Documents

Seventh Census of the United States, 2nd Series: Slave Population. June 30, 1850. North Carolina, Vol. 5 Mecklenburg County.

Eighth Census of the United States: Slave Schedule, 1860. North Carolina, Vol. 3, Mecklenburg County.

Secondary Sources

Bassett, John Spencer. Slavery in the State of North Carolina. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1899.

Blassingame, John W. The Slave Community. Plantation Life in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Clinkscales, J. G. On The Old Plantation. Reminisces of his Childhood. New York: Negro University Press, 1969.
(Originally published: South Carolina: Bland and White, 1916.)

Franklin, John Hope. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. 5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980.

Genovese, Eugene D. The World the Slaveholders Made. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

Hilliard, Samuel Bowers. Atlas of Ante-Bellum Southern Agriculture. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984.

Joyner, Charles. Down By The Riverside. A South Carolina Slave Community. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984.

Rose, Jerome C. ed. Gone To A Better Land. A Biohistory of a Rural Black Cemetery in the Post-Reconstruction South. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series Number 25, 1985.

Singleton, Teresa A. ed. The Archeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985.

Stampp, Kenneth. The Peculiar Institution. Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Books, 1956.

Strayer, Jacob. My Life in the South. Salem: Salem Observer Book and Job Print, 1885.

White, John and Wilbert, Ralph. Slavery in the American South. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
Architectural Description

M. B. Gatza
May 1989

Set way back in the woods, the Alexander Slave Cemetery could be easily overlooked by the uninitiated passerby. Located on a slightly-sloping site and covered with periwinkle, the historic burying ground contains only one carved marker. The headstone has broken and fallen and is propped up against an old rock. The footstone, incised with the departed’s initials, is nearby. The marker was placed in memory of W. T. Alexander’s first slaves by their children, and reads:

“Our father and Mother
Soloman Alexander
died
May 18, 1864
aged
64 years

Violet Alexander
died
August 16, 1888
aged
83 years”

A second cut stone, possibly also carved, lies nearby, face down, in the dirt. About two dozen common fieldstones stand upright, embedded into the ground, scattered around the two cut markers, and mark the locations of the other graves. The stones are of types that are indigenous to the area, and are not shaped or marked in any way. They were probably picked up off the ground on the day of the funeral, and simply placed at the head of the grave. Probably many more have fallen or sunken into the ground and are no longer visible. No one really knows how many slaves rest beneath the periwinkle amongst the trees.

The slave cemetery is deep in the woods, and probably always was. Mixed hardwoods; hickory, ash, oaks, maples and cedar trees, surround the site. A few pines have grown up in and around the burying ground, but were subsequently cut down, leaving a few stumps among the stones.

Despite its isolated and overgrown condition, the Alexander Slave Cemetery is the best-kept of the handful of remaining slave burial sites in Mecklenburg County. It is the only one known with a carved marker, and the only one known with as many surviving stones.