The Thomas T. Sandifer House

This report was written on June 15, 1996

 

 1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Thomas T. Sandifer House is located at 12601 Moore’s Chapel Road in the Paw Creek Township of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

Mrs. Nada Bradshaw
P.O. Box 1692
Belmont, North Carolina 28012

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

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

---

 

 

---

5. Current deed book references to the property: The Thomas T. Sandifer House is sited on Tax Parcel Numbers 053-161-05 and 053-161-07 and is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1236 at page 131.

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

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of history, architecture, and cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Thomas T. Sandifer House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Thomas T. Sandifer House was built in the 1850’s and is one of the few ante-bellum houses remaining in this section of Mecklenburg County; 2) the Thomas T. Sandifer House is one of the few extant farmhouses located, and facing, the Catawba River, along which many of the important early farms in Mecklenburg County were sited; 3) the Thomas T. Sandifer House was constructed by Sandifer, a physician and farmer, whose dual occupations represent a common mid-nineteenth century economic pattern in Mecklenburg County; and 4) the Thomas T. Sandifer House was the home of Sandifer, who served as county commissioner and a representative to the state legislature.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Frances Alexander included in this report demonstrates that the Thomas T. Sandifer House property 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 designated as a historic landmark. The current appraised tax value of the improvements to the Thomas T. Sandifer House is $78,180.00. The current appraised tax value of the 10.940 acres associated with the house is $59,500. The total appraised tax value of the property is $137,680.00. The land is zoned R-3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 15, 1996

Prepared by:Frances P. Alexander and Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
2100 Randolph Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

Phone: (704) 376-9115

 

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Location Description

 

The Thomas T. Sandifer House is located on Moore’s Chapel Road in the Paw Creek Township of western Mecklenburg County. Paw Creek is roughly six miles west of the city center of Charlotte. Sited on 10.940 acres on the east side of Moore’s Chapel Road, the Sandifer property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of the Catawba River. Moore’s Chapel Road begins at Wilkinson Boulevard south of the property, and I-85 crosses Moore’s Chapel Road north of the Sandifer property. The Sandifer House is sited on a slight knoll, and a deep lawn separates the house from the road. The lawn contains mature trees and plantings, although there have been some losses in recent storms. To the rear of the house, the site descends sharply to a creek, called Catawba Tributary, where the property becomes wooded. The Catawba Tributary follows the modern rear property line. The only other structure on the site is a modern garage. The proposed designation includes the Thomas T. Sandifer house and the 10.940 acre farm site, but excludes the modern garage.

 

Architectural Description 

The Thomas T. Sandifer House is a two story, single pile, frame building with a one story, rear lean-to. The house has weatherboard siding; a brick foundation, which replaced a stone pier foundation; and a hip roof covered in asphalt shingles. The roof has wide, overhanging eaves. An enclosed, one story, rear porch extends across the rear lean-to. A centrally placed dormer tops the lean-to, and is flanked by two exterior, brick chimneys. The chimneys are modern replacements but occupy the same position as the originals. A small one story addition with gable roof is now situated at the rear of the north elevation.

The house has a symmetrical, three bay facade covered by a one story, hip-roofed porch. The porch is supported by paired, classical, box piers with stylized capitals. The porch piers rest on brick pedestals, added in the early to mid-twentieth century. A replacement balustrade has been added between the brick pedestals. The central entrance has a single, paneled wood and glass door with sidelights and transom. The door is a mid-twentieth century replacement. The molded door and window surrounds have stylized scrolled brackets across the lintels. The windows are six-over-six light, double hung, wooden sash. The corners of the house are delineated by stylized pilasters, and there is a wide, flat cornice under the broad eaves. The interior has a narrow, central hall which now opens into the modern rear porch. This rear doorway is original with molded surrounds, sidelights, and transom.

The hall has plaster walls; molded chair railing, baseboards, and door surrounds; and plaster walls. However, the floors are now carpeted, and the ceiling is stuccoed. Located along the south wall of the hall the staircase rises to a landing. Although the risers are now covered in carpet, the staircase is original with a classical, box pier newel and simple, square balusters. The hall doors appear to be early to mid-twentieth century paneled replacements. The south side of the main block is occupied by a parlor. The parlor has original molded baseboards, chair railing, and cornice. The parlor has a delicate, classical fireplace which is also original. Alterations include the addition of carpeting and a replacement tile ceiling. A paneled door leads to the dining room which is situated on the south side of the lean-to.

As in the parlor, the dining room is now carpeted, but original features include a bold, vernacular classical mantel and a built-in china cupboard with glass and wood doors. The molded baseboards, chair railing, and door surrounds, and plaster walls are also original. Replacement tiles cover the original ceiling. On the north side of the main house was a second parlor, which is now used as a bedroom. This room has original plaster walls and molded surrounds. However, the simple brick fireplace mantel with corbeled shelf, is an early twentieth century addition. Flanking the fireplace are two doors. On the north side, the paneled door leads to a closet while the south door opening has been converted to a book shelf. This room is also carpeted and has a replacement ceiling. An entrance has been cut from this room to the north addition, which houses a bathroom. To the rear of the north parlor is the kitchen. There are few, if any, original features to the kitchen. Its does appear to date to the early to mid-twentieth century, and the replacement stucco ceiling appears to be post-World War Two. A window on the rear (east) elevation has been removed and opens directly into the enclosed porch. The rear porch has been enclosed within the past twenty years. This room has tall banks of windows, two skylights, and a bold, vernacular Victorian mantel which is not original to the house.

The upstairs has two bedrooms which open from a short hall. A small room is located between the two large bedrooms. The north bedroom has hardwood floors, plaster walls, and molded door and window surrounds. A fireplace along the east wall has a simple, vernacular classical mantel. A door next to the fireplace leads to a bathroom which occupies the rear dormer. The south bedroom also has hardwood floors (now carpeted), plaster walls, molded surrounds, and a matching vernacular classical mantel. In the past 30 years, a closet has been built by partitioning one corner of the room. The small intermediate room has carpeted hardwood floors and plaster walls, but no fireplace. A modern, one car garage with front gable roof is sited southeast of the house. The garage is excluded from the proposed designation.

 

Conclusion 

The Thomas T. Sandifer House has undergone modification. In the 1940s, brick pedestals and a new balustrade were added to the porch; and paneled replacement doors were added on the interior. Since 1950, the original stone foundation was covered and infilled with brick. The house was originally built over tree stumps which added support, but these were removed by the owners after 1950. Other exterior changes have included the enclosure of a rear porch and the bathroom addition to the north elevation. Interior changes since World War Two have included the remodeling of the upstairs bathroom and the kitchen and the addition of carpeting and replacement ceiling tiles. A rock-lined well was also covered in the 1950s. Despite these modifications, the Sandifer House retains its distinctive I-house form and floor plan. Much of the historic fabric is intact, including original siding and exterior detailing.

 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

The Thomas T. Sandifer House and its now 10.940 acres were once part of a larger 246 acre tract purchased by Dr. Thomas T. Sandifer in the 1850s. Sandifer bought the property, which then included Catawba River frontage, from the heirs of Isaac A. Wilson (Wilson Deeds 1864, 1869). Wilson had died in 1853 in California, probably having migrated west because of the gold rush. Isaac Wilson had inherited the farmstead from his father, Robert Wilson, who had bought the land when it was known as the Smartt farm. The original 246 acres was bounded by the Catawba River and properties owned by John and William Clanton, William Beaty, R.J. Wilson, and the McLeary family (Martha Wilson Deed 1856).

The extant house was apparently built by Sandifer. At his purchase, Sandifer enacted deeds with each of Isaac Wilson’s five heirs, and two of the deeds specify amounts of $200.00 and $300.00, neither amount sufficient to cover the value of the house. Sandifer also seems to have traded property with one of the heirs, Martha A. Wilson. Sandifer sold, or granted, her property he owned on Tuckaseegee Road in October 1856, several months after purchasing her portion of the Wilson farm (Grantor Index 1840-1918; Wilson Deed 1856). A physician, Thomas Sandifer held a considerable estate in 1860. In addition to this farm tract valued at $2,500.00, Sandifer also owned other property in the Paw Creek Township (Grantor Index 1840-1918). His personal estate was worth $7,000.00, and he held three slaves. Sandifer’s slaves included two men, ages 33 and 20, and one woman age 31. (The former location of the single slave house is not known.) At the same time, a carpenter, W.B. Bradford, was boarding with the Sandifer family, and Bradford may have been working on the house (U.S. Census 1860 ).

Born on October 20, 1818, Thomas Sandifer was a native South Carolinian, and it is not known when he migrated to Mecklenburg County. His two marriages produced 11 children. His first wife, by whom he had four children, was Ann Wilson of the Steele Creek community of Mecklenburg County. After her death in 1864, Sandifer married a younger woman, Elizabeth G., and they had seven children (Gatza 1989). Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, Sandifer continued his medical practice and farming (Branson Business Directory 1877; City Directory of Charlotte Gazeteer 1884, 248). He died in 1901 and was buried in Paw Creek Presbyterian Church cemetery. By the 1850s, when Sandifer purchased this riverfront farm, the population of the county seat of Charlotte had slowly doubled since the American Revolution to 1,065 while Mecklenburg County had 18,750 residents (Tompkins 1903, 123). Despite the richness of the farmland and the gold mining of the region, population growth had been stymied by poor transportation and the great distances to the ports of Wilmington and Charleston.

Although a small town in the ante-bellum period, Charlotte nonetheless became important in the back country of the Carolinas because of these natural assets (Hanchett 1993, 55). The coming of the Charlotte and South Carolina Railroad in 1852 ended the transportation dilemma, offering the fertile land of Mecklenburg County access to the port of Charleston. Two years later, in 1854, the North Carolina Railroad reached Charlotte, connecting the back country with the North Carolina coastal plain. By 1861, four railroads converged on Charlotte, and the town quickly became a cotton marketing center in the Piedmont. With the greater potential for shipping farm products, the population doubled to 2,265 between 1850 and 1860 (Hanchett 1993, 65). As early as 1802, Mecklenburg County had become a center for the production of short staple cotton with more cotton gins than any other North Carolina county. Although located outside the traditional plantation regions of the North Carolina coastal plain and the South Carolina low county, Mecklenburg County was the third largest cotton producing county in the state in 1850 (Hanchett 1993, 47).

However, unlike the coastal regions of the Carolinas, cotton cultivation in the Piedmont back country did not produce the highly stratified plantation economy of the Deep South. The high cost of transportation made Mecklenburg County agriculture more diversified, with less reliance on cash crops such as cotton. Difficulties in shipping also encouraged the establishment of numerous flour milling and still operations. In 1850, 1,692 people were engaged in agriculture; 234 in manufacturing and trade, 49 in commerce, 94 in mining, and 58 in professional occupations (Tompkins 1903, 123). Mecklenburg farmers grew wheat and corn as well as cotton, and in 1850 had one of the most productive and diverse farm economies in the North Carolina, cultivating every crop except tobacco (Alexander 1908, 174).

The importance of cotton as a cash crop encouraged slavery. Only 14% of the population in 1790, black slaves comprised 40% of the population by 1850 although only 70 men owned 20 or more slaves on the eve of the Civil War. For Mecklenburg County, this constituted a planter class, although one which did not hold vast estates with large numbers of slaves. Indeed, few Mecklenburg residents made purely agricultural fortunes. Only one planter in 1850 owned 50 slaves, and only one plantation covered more than 1,000 acres (Hanchett 1993, 50). The more typical planter had diversified interests, usually combining the operation of a store in town, a law or medical practice, or other non-agricultural pursuits as Dr. Sandifer did. Although the county had few planters, it supported a number of moderately wealthy farmers, who owned approximately 10 slaves. In 1860, 160 men held 10 to 19 bondsmen, while 650 owned one to nine slaves (Hanchett 1993, 51). Sandifer exemplified this latter group of successful farmers with his limited number of slaves. One-third of the county population owned no slaves, and either owned a few acres of land or had no landholdings at all. Planters, professionals, and prosperous merchants made up less than 1% of ante-bellum Mecklenburg; farmers and small merchants who owned a handful of slaves and 50 or more acres of land comprised 20 to 25% of the population; non-slaveholding residents constituted 35%; and black slaves, and the small number of freedmen, formed 40% of the Mecklenburg County population (Hanchett 1993, 53).

Remarkably, Charlotte sustained little damage during the Civil War, and perhaps most importantly, its rail lines to the seaports were left intact. The cotton trade rebounded quickly, and the county shipped the same amount of cotton in 1866 as it had in 1860. Wartime scarcities and transportation problems drove prices up, and Charlotte, in contrast to much of the South during Reconstruction, entered a boom period, doubling its population between 1860 and 1870 (Hanchett 1993, 69). Mecklenburg farmers, such as Sandifer, who had not relied heavily on slave labor and cash crop cultivation, were able to continue farming with little disruption and with the hopes of high prices. During the 1870s, as Charlotte prospered, new rail lines were constructed to further ensure adequate transportation for goods. In 1872, the Carolina Central was built providing a direct connection, through Charlotte, from Lincolnton to Wilmington. With the construction of the Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line, linking Richmond and Atlanta via Charlotte, the city became an important regional trading center with the convergence of six rail lines (Hanchett 1993, 72). The purchase of a cotton press by the town made Charlotte the center of the upcountry cotton market and set the stage for the development of textile production in the 1880s and 1890s. During this period, Dr. Sandifer served as a member of the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, elected in 1878, and as a representative to the North Carolina General Assembly, beginning in 1883 (Blythe 1961, 453, 462). In addition, Sandifer continued his medical practice into, at least, the mid-1880s when he was in his late 60s.

From land transaction records in the 1880s and 1890s, it is clear that Sandifer continued to own considerable land in Paw Creek Township, in addition to his 246 acre home place (Grantor Index 1840-1918). Sandifer died in 1901, and his will apparently caused disputes among family members over the division of the land. In 1904, his widow, Elizabeth, sued the eighteen surviving family members. The division of land in the settlement confirms that the original 246 acre farmstead was virtually intact in 1904 although Mrs. Sandifer had sold some land along the Catawba in 1904. Elizabeth Sandifer retained 89 acres, which included river frontage and probably the house, while the eighteen children and grandchildren shared 149 acres. The commission established to settle the dispute directed the children to sell their collective inheritance (Mecklenburg County Deed Records, Book 195, Page 395).

Thus after Sandifer’s death, the original farmstead was subdivided. Mrs. Sandifer continued to own a large portion of the original Sandifer farmstead until at least World War I. In 1911, she sold parcels to the Piedmont Traction Company, the predecessor company to the Piedmont and Northern Railway. Piedmont Traction had been organized in 1910 to construct an interurban rail line between Charlotte and Gastonia, connecting the street railway systems of these two rapidly developing textile hubs. Similarly, in 1912, Mrs. Sandifer sold a parcel to the Southern Power Company, now Duke Power Company, as the company began providing electric power to the textile mills. The Sandifer farm, located on the west side of the county, laid in the path of development for the burgeoning textile industry (Grantor Index 1840-1918). Elizabeth G. Sandifer died sometime after 1912, and it seems probable that at her death John William Grice bought the property. After Grice’s death in the early 1940s, his grandson, Robert L. Auten, bought a 21 acre tract, which included the house, from the other 50 Grice heirs (Mecklenburg County Deed, Book 1121, Page 18, 1944). According to the current owner, Robert Auten spent part of his childhood in the Sandifer house so it seems likely that J. W. Grice bought the property after Mrs. Sandifer’s death (Bradshaw Interview 1994). Robert Auten, a contractor, made many of the alterations to the house. In 1947, Bob Auten sold the house and 14 acres to his brother and sister-in-law, Frank and Gladys Auten. Frank and Gladys Auten, in turn, sold the property to the current owner, Nada Bradshaw, and her husband, Nelson Bradshaw, both natives of Belmont, in 1950 (Bradshaw interviews 1994, 1996).

 

Conclusion 

The Thomas T. Sandifer House is one of the few remaining ante-bellum farmhouses in Mecklenburg County. Facing the Catawba River, the Sandifer house and farm originally fronted on this river, along which many of the earliest and most prosperous farms in the county were located. The house and its surrounding 10.940 acres is the last vestige of the once 246 acre farm owned by local physician and farmer, Thomas T. Sandifer. Sandifer exemplifies the class of moderately wealthy ante-bellum farmers in Mecklenburg County, who combined professional or commercial pursuits with a diversified form of farming. This middling economic group characterized agricultural life in the back country, in contrast to the highly stratified plantation economy of coastal regions. The survival of this western Mecklenburg County ante-bellum farmstead is particularly remarkable because this area of the county laid in the center of the textile and transportation corridor between Charlotte and Gaston County which developed in the early twentieth century.

 

Bibliography 

Alexander, J. B. Reminiscences of the Past Sixty Years. Charlotte: Ray Printing Company, 1908.

Blythe, LeGette and Charles R. Brockmann. Hornet’s Nest. Charlotte: McNally of Charlotte, 1961.

Branson, L., ed. The North Carolina Business Directory. Raleigh: Branson and Jones, 1872.

Branson’s Business Directory. Raleigh: Branson and Jones, 1877.

Charlotte City Directory, 1879-1880.

City Directory of Charlotte and Gazetteer for 1884-1885. Atlanta: Interstate Directory Cornpany, 1884.

Gatza, Mary Beth. Research Materials on the Thomas Thorn Sandifer House. Records of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1989.

Hanchett, Thomas W. Sorting Out the New South City: Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods. Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of History. 1993.

Interview with Nada Bradshaw, owner. October 1993, June 1994, and May 1996.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. Grantor and Grantee Indices. 1840-1918.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. Martha A. Wilson to T. T. Sandifer. Deed Book 4, page 694. 12 May 1856.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. R. L. and Leona Auten to Frank and Gladys Auten. Deed Book 1236, page 131. 12 February 1947.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. R. L. Grice to R. L. Auten. Deed Book 1121, page 18. 22 June 1944.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. E. G. Sandifer to Piedmont Tract Company. 6 March 1911.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. E. G. Sandifer to Southern Power Company. I October 1912. Mecklenburg County Deeds. T. T. Sandifer Estate to E. G. Sandifer et al. Deed Book 195, page 395. 7 April 1905.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. R-L. Wilson to T. T. Sandifer. Deed Book 5, page 41. 26 April 1864.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. Sarah and William Fite to T. T. Sandifer. Deed Book 4, page 729. 10 April 1857.

Mecklenburg County Deeds. S. C. Wilson to T. T. Sandifer. Deed Book 6, page 426. 20 September 1856.

Strong, C. M. History of Mecklenburg County Medicine. Charlotte: Charlotte News Printing House, 1929.

T’hompson,Edgar. Agricultural Mecklenburg and Industrial Charlotte. Charlotte: Chamber of Commerce, 1926.

Tompkins, Daniel A. History of Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte, 1740-1903. Charlotte: Observer Printing House, 1903.

U.S. Bureau of Census. Population Schedules, 1860, 1870, 1880.

Hospital, ca. 1907

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Old St. Peter’s Hospital (Kenmore Hotel) is located at 225-231 N. Poplar St. in Charlotte, NC.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:
The occupants of the property are the various guests who occupy the property on a temporary basis. The telephone number of the Kenmore Hotel is (704) 375-1587.

The owner of the property is:
Realty Fund, Inc.
3801 Larkston Dr.
Charlotte, N.C. 28211

Telephone: (704) 364-4567

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 depicting the location of the property.

 

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3547 at page 206. The Parcel Number of the property is 07801104.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The impetus for the establishment of St. Peter’s Hospital was provided by Benjamin S. Bronson, Rector of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church on N. Tryon St. Having preached a sermon in which he urged his congregation to establish a facility that would provide medical services for the underprivileged of this community, he witnessed the creation of the St. Peter’s Church Aid Society on January 25, 1875. Mrs. Jane Renwick Smedburg Wilkes, a native of New York City, directed the efforts of this organization in raising the money necessary to open Charlotte’s first civilian hospital. The facility opened on January 20, 1876, in two rented rooms in a house on E. Seventh St. “between College and Railroad.” The evidence suggests that this was the first non-military hospital in North Carolina. Initially known as the Charlotte Home and Hospital, the facility moved to new temporary quarters on N. Tryon St. in mid-1876, where the Old First Baptist Church (Spirit Square) is now located. Mrs. Hamilton C. Jones, the Vice President of the St. Peter’s Church Aid Society during these early years, described the difficulty with which patients were initially brought to the hospital:

 

“It is strange to recall the tremendous struggle which the pioneers were called upon to make against prejudice; first of the patient, who had to be almost kidnapped from his relatives, and brought against his own will as well, and secondly, against the opposition of these who lived in the neighborhood, who resented the diseases brought into their midst. The first few patients were brought in under resistance so fierce that one of the two or three policemen which the town boasted had always to walk beside the patient, and at times hang around the premises, to intimidate the rioters who threatened to shoot into the building.”

In 1877 a lot at the corner of Sixth St. and Cemetery Ave. (now Poplar St.) was purchased as the permanent site for the Charlotte Home and Hospital. Elaborate ceremonial commemorating the laying of the corner stone of the initial structure took place on the afternoon of June 4, 1877. The bricks for this building, a one-story edifice with four rooms, were made at the present site of the Thompson Orphanage Chapel. The hospital opened at its permanent location on May 30, 1878. Deserving much of the credit for this achievement was an organization known as the Busy Bee Society. Its members were students at a local female academy run by a Miss Hattie Moore. They had raised the money to purchase the lot ($273.42) and had supplied considerable funds toward the construction of the building itself, which was located in the rear portion of the lot. The original structure measured 30×30 feet. The first addition to the hospital was completed in March 1882. It was. a two-story brick structure which contained six rooms and measured 34×30 feet. This ten-room complex was the only hospital which existed in Charlotte at this time. Good Samaritan Hospital, a facility serving the brick residents of this community, did not open until 1888 and did not move to its permanent location until September 1891. Presbyterian Hospital initiated its activities in a converted hotel on W. Trade St. in January 1903, and Mercy General Hospital opened in a frame structure on East First St. on February 25, 1906. By the late 1890’s the Charlotte Home and Hospital was becoming a major medical center, where many of the advanced surgical techniques of that day were first employed in this community. It is important to note that the hospital served patients from throughout this region of North Carolina. For example, of the 51 individuals who received care there in 1887, only ten came from Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Twenty-seven came from other parts of the state, six from outside of North Carolina, and two from Ireland. Indicative of the increasing importance of the hospital was the decision to erect a major addition in 1898. The Charlotte Daily Observer of June 19, 1898, provided a lengthy description of the new building:

 

“The new building was built in front of the old one. It faces Poplar Street, running back and joining the old building in the rear. The building is three stories high. It has 30 rooms,and broad porches on three sides on each floor. Wide halls extend through the center of the building on the first and second floors, and a smaller one on the third floor. On the main floor are the doctor’s room and drug store, parlor, sick rooms, linen room, the community room which is endowed-dining room, kitchen and bath room and matron’s room. On the second floor: operating room, well-arranged as to light and cleanliness, and patient’s room preparatory to operation; the Busy Bees’ room, which is furnished in white and is exceedingly neat; the Odd Fellows’ room, furnished in attractive style by the different lodges of the city; and six sick rooms. The rooms on the third floor have not been completed, but will be as needed. The building is finished in the interior in hard pine, the fireplaces are tiled, and there is a grate in each; it is heated by steam and is supplied with hot and cold water, electric bells, and elevator. The heating apparatus and laundry are in the basement and like the arrangements above, are complete in every particular.”

Dedication ceremonies for the expanded facility were held at 6:00 p.m. on July 15, 1898. The Charlotte Daily Observer reported that several hundred people had assembled to take part in or witness the services” which were conducted by Bishop Joseph Blount Chesire. The name of the complex was now changed to “St. Peter’s Hospital.” The activities of July 15, 1898, included a tour of the new building. The guests discovered that the typical room contained a “white iron bedstead, oak bureau, white iron washstand, two chairs, grate and pretty tile.” Of particular interest to the visitors were the endowed rooms, especial the Busy Bees’ Room. It was painted “white and blue” and was furnished “with a view to a child’s pleasure and comfort.” Another addition to the hospital was completed in March, 1907. Erected in front of the building which had been dedicated in 1898, the new structure was three and one-half stories tall and possessed porches along the front or Poplar St. side of the first three floors. The dedication services for this twenty-room addition were conducted by Bishop Chesire on April 22, 1907. An early postcard of the St. Peter’s Hospital features a view of the front of this addition. The Charlotte Observer of March 27, 1922, announced that contracts would be awarded for some $75,000 worth of work at St. Peter’s hospital. Mr. Louis Asbury, a prominent architect in Charlotte, had prepared the plans for a project which would transform the complex by erecting a “nurses’ home in the rear of the present structure,” constructing a maternity ward, children’s ward, baby’s ward, and “doubling the capacity of the charity wards.” The contract for this 56×85 feet, three story and basement addition to St. Peter’s Hospital was awarded to T. C. Thompson & Bros. on July 10, 1922. The Charlotte Observer of July 11, 1922, contains a description of the proposed building:

 

“Included in the building will be space for the nurses’ home, occupying parts of all the floors, with kitchen and dining room in the basement and reception rooms on the first floor. In addition, the basement will contain the kitchen and space for preparing food for the patients. The first floor will be occupied by children’s and babies’ wards, both private and charity; private rooms will occupy the second floor space and operating rooms and the x-ray department will be on the third floor.”

Besides the new addition, these portions of the complex which had been erected in 1898 and 1907 were substantially renovated in 1922. The exteriors of these earlier edifices assumed their present appearance, and the interiors of same were altered to a significant degree. Indeed, the cost of these renovations along was approximately $20,000. The final alterations to the St. Peter’s Hospital occurred in 1935. Approximately $17,000 was spent on improvements and repairs to the medical complex and to the equipment contained therein. By this time, however, the Board of Trustees of the facility began to investigate the possibility of moving the hospital to a new site. The size of the lot at sixth and Poplar Sts. did not allow for further expansion. Moreover, the business section of the community was rapidly spreading into the neighborhood. “To build higher,” reported an article in Southern Hospital of September 1936, “is not practical because that would necessitate tearing down the present plant, parts of which are thirty or forty years old.” In April 1938 Dr. William Henry Walsh, a hospital consultant from Chicago, IL, presented a report which surveyed the medical facilities of this community. His findings caused the citizens of Charlotte to launch a drive to establish a new hospital. The Board of Trustees voted to contribute $100,000 to this effort and to close St. Peter’s Hospital upon completion of the new complex. Memorial Hospital opened on October 8, 1940. The patients in St. Peter’s Hospital were transferred to the new facility, thereby bringing the history of St. Peter’s Hospital to an end. The complex was transformed into a hotel and continues to serve in that capacity today.

7 A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description prepared by Ruth Little-Stokes, formerly of the Division of Archives and History.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. 16A-399.4:

 

a. Historical and cultural significance: The Old St. Peter’s Hospital is historically and culturally significant because of its association with the medical history of this community from 1878 until 1940. The evidence suggests that this was the first non-military hospital to operate continuously for general medical purposes in the state of North Carolina and in the city of Charlotte. The structures which were completed in 1878 and 1882 were demolished in 1922. The oldest surviving elements of the present building are located in the middle portion and date from 1898. The front section of the building was erected in 1907. In 1922 the rear portion of the building was constructed, and the interiors and exteriors of the earlier edifices were substantially altered. In short, the buildings evolved in response to the changing medical needs of this community and region.

b. Suitability for reservation and restoration: It is reasonable to assume that extensive research could uncover a substantial amount of information regarding each of the three components of the complex. In other words, the structure could be restored to its appearance as of 1922. Indeed, the exterior of the complex has not been fundamentally altered since that time. However, the restoration and preservation of the interior of the edifice should not be a primary objective.

c. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. It assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the structure will be paid by the owner or subsequent owners of the property.

d. Educational value: The property has educational value because of its historic and cultural significance.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The property is currently being adaptively used as a hotel. It is highly suited for a variety of adaptive uses.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal value of the structure itself is $45,230. The current tax appraisal value of the .427 acres of land is $46,550, The cost recent annual tax bill on the building and land was $1,541.90. The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which the Ad Valorem taxes are calculated.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: As indicated earlier, at present the Commission has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property. Furthermore, the Commission agrees that all costs associated with the structure will be met by whatever party now owns or will own the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for listing in the National Resister of Historic Places: The Commission believes that the property known as the Old St. Peter’s Hospital (Kenmore Hotel) does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s position is its understanding of the purpose of the National Register. Established in 1966, the National Register represents the decision of the Federal Government to expand its listing of historic properties to include properties of local, regional, and state significance. The Commission believes that the Old St. Peter’s Hospital is of local, regional, and state historic significance and therefore meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historic importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: The Old St. Peter’s Hospital is historically important to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County because of its association with the history of medicine in this community. The evidence suggests that it was the first non-military hospital to operate continuously for general medical purposes in Charlotte and in the state of North Carolina. It is true that the oldest portion of the structure dates from 1898 and that the complex has experienced periodic alteration. However, these alterations have reflected the changing medical needs of this community and are therefore contributors to, not detractions from, the historic significance of the complex.

 

---

Bibliography

An Inventory of Older Buildings in Mecklenburg County and Charlotte for the Historic Properties Commission

Beers Map of Charlotte, 1877.

Charlotte Daily Observer (June 19, 1898, p. 6); (July 16, 1898, p.6); (April 23, 1907, p.5); (April 18, 1909, Sec. 2, p. 4).

“Church Hospital. Kidnapped Patients,” Southern Hospital (September 1936) pp. 8-13.

Daily Charlotte Observer (June 3, 1877, p.4); (June 5, 1877, p.4).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office. Parcel Number 07801104.

Sanborn Insurance Maps of Charlotte (1900, p.4); (1905, p.7); (1911, p.58); (1929, Vol. 1, p.1, 6); (October 8, 1940, Sec. 2,, p. 1)

Date of Preparation of this Report: November 1, 1977

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

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description  

The Kenmore Hotel (former St. Peter’s Hospital), located on the southwest corner of Poplar and Sixth Streets, Charlotte, is a large Georgian Revival style building with warm red brick walls, picturesque stepped gable ends of Flemish derivation, and simple wooden classical details. The U-shaped three-story brick building on a partially-raised basement, eight bays wide and fifteen bays deep, was constructed in three stages 1898, 1907 and 1922. The oldest portion, located in the center, is the first two stories of the rear wing, extending seven bays behind the main front block. The three-story front block, eight bays wide and two bays deep, was added in front of the 1898 structure in 1907, and forms the main facade. The three story front portico, the third story of the 1898 section, and the L-shaped extension of the rear wing were added in 1922. The well-maintained building forms a visual link between the historic landmarks clustered around the “Square” to the southeast, the heart of Charlotte “inner city”, and the Victorian residential fabric of the Fourth Ward, Charlotte’s oldest remaining neighborhood and now a local historic district, to the north.

Detailed Description

At the northeast corner of the main block is a stone cornerstone with the inscription “1877, 1898, 1907, St. Peter’s Hospital.” The original one-story four room brick hospital, constructed in 1877, sat on the rear of the 100 by 200 foot lot. This structure was enlarged in 1882, and in 1898 an L-shaped 2 story brick addition was built in front (east) of the structure. A photo of this addition, located in the 1902 annual report of St. Peter’s Hospital, shows a simple Neoclassical Revival style building with a pedimented main facade, three bays wide, and a two-story classical porch extending across the front and down the south flank. The 1877 and 1882 structure was demolished in order to construct the 1922 addition. The only visible exterior remains of the 1898 addition are the brick walls and possibly the window sash. The 1907 addition, a three-story brick block eight bays wide and two bays deep, concealed the front of the 1898 building. It is covered with dark red brick, laid in one-to-five common bond, and has a lively roofline resulting from the wide, pedimented cross-gable with a glazed lunette which surmounts the center three bays of the main facade, the three pedimented dormer windows south of the cross-gable, and the crow-stepped gable ends, coped with concrete, which conceal the gable ends of the slate roof. The cross-gable has a boxed molded cornice with modillion, and the remainder of the main block has identical cornice treatment but lacks modillions. Matching dormer windows accent the rear of the main block. One interior end chimney projects from the north gable end. An interior brick chimney with a corbeled brick cap, located behind the cross-gable, may have originally belonged to the 1898 structure.

The main entrance, located slightly off-center in the third bay from the northeast corner, is a handsome trabeated design of stained oak. The double glazed door has sidelights and a transom flanked by fluted Doric pilasters, and a molded surround eight-over-eight sash windows predominate, with a few four-over-four sash and casements. All have granite sills, but flat brick arches and granite lintels are interspersed. The south bay of the main facade is set apart by a passageway connecting the front yard with the interior enclosed courtyard on the south side of the rear wing. The passageway has a round-arched front entrance with a cast-iron gate, and an identical rear arch. At the second story of this bay is a triple six-over-six sash window within a segmentally arched opening. Along the south property line is a random stone rail, approximately 5 feet high. The wall forms the base of the south wall of the 1907 addition, and perhaps predates the 1907 addition. It may be the remains of a wall which enclosed the front yard of the 1898 building. In 1922,the three-story porch which stretched across the main facade was replaced by a classical entrance porch, one bay wide, surmounted by a second and third story sunporch. At the first level, heavy brick posts support a paneled frieze and molded dentil cornice. The upper sunporches are enclosed with Queen Anne style casement windows with transoms, accented with corner Doric pilasters with strapwork capitals. At the corners of the third story sunporch are large eave brackets. The 1922 porch, of transitional late Medieval-early English Renaissance design, blends compatibly with the earlier Georgian Revival building. The third story added to the rear wing and the wing extension also fit inconspicuously with the existing building. This construction consists of red brick veneer, one-over-one sash windows, a modillion cornice and a hip roof with composition shingles. Like the exterior, the interior finish reflects continual efforts to provide the most up-to-date hospital facilities possible. The basic interior plan consists of a T-shaped hall with flanking rooms. The main stair, apparently a 1907 replacement, is located in the southeast comer of the rear wing, just opposite the front portico. It consists of a wide wooden open-string stair rising in two flights through each story from the basement to the third floor, with a railing with plain balusters and a molded hand rail. In 1922 the stairwell was enclosed at the second and third levels with plaster partitions with vertically sheathed wainscots and mesh glass windows.

The elevator west of the stair was probably added at this time. The corridors of the 1898 and 1907 sections have plastered walls and ceilings, vertically sheathed wainscots, and door transoms. Most of the doors are recent replacement, of hollow-core construction. The only differentiation in visible interior finish between the 1898 and 1907 sections are the door surrounds, with roundel corner block treatment, and some paneled doors, in the 1898 section. On the third floor, leading from the hall of the 1907 main block into the hall of the rear wing is a wide round arch. At the third story of the rear wing is a 1922 addition, this arched opening may have led into a sunporch on the roof of the 1898 section. The only interior decorative finish which remains is the comer fireplace with mantel in the waiting room located in the north first floor room of the 1907 main block. The late Victorian design consists of fluted, chamfered pilasters and frieze and an ornate cast-iron fireplace cover. The 1922 addition is finished similarly to the older section, but lacks wainscots. The beginning of the extension is visible on each floor by a gentle drop in floor level of approximately two feet. On the first floor, the juncture is further indicated by a wooden classical arch with Doric columns and a paneled frieze. In the center of the rear extension is a second stair with a metal railing. On the third floor, two deep skylight wells illuminate the corridor. The third floor, which housed the operation rooms and auxiliary spaces, received further modernization in several stages between 1922 and 1940, when it became a hotel.

This report was written on March 1, 1983

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the St. Mark’s Episcopal Church is located on the Mount Holly-Huntersville Road, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:
The present owner and occupant of the property is:
St. Mark’s Episcopal Church
R.F.D. 9 Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road
Charlotte, N.C. 28208

Telephone: (704) 399-5193

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1870 at page 119. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 025-161-03.

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

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as St. Mark’s Episcopal Church does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) St. Mark’s Episcopal Church is the second oldest church of that denomination in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and was an outgrowth of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, the oldest Episcopal congregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg; 2) the building, erected in 1886-7 by local craftsmen, is an excellent local example of the “English country Gothic” style; 3) in recent years, the members of the church have performed a sensitive restoration of the sanctuary; 4) St. Mark’s Episcopal Church retains its essential rural setting, including a burial ground.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Mr. Thomas W. Hanchett demonstrates that St. Mark’s Episcopal 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 8.68 acres of land is $30,000. The current appraised value of the building is $126,390. The total current appraised value is $156,390. The property is zoned R15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: March 1, 1983

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

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Long Creek community, just to the north of Charlotte, is rich in rural history, much of which has remained unstudied and neglected until recently, with the exception of the Hopewell Presbyterian Church. Sitting prominently on the hill overlooking its approaches from the Mount Holly-Huntersville Road, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, in the form of both its buildings and its members, has been an important part of the life of the community. The church began as a result of the interest of a Long Creek farmer, Columbus W. McCoy (1834-?), who had become discontent with the Presbyterian teaching of the Hopewell Church, of which he was a member. A younger acquaintance of his, Reverend Edwin A. Osborne, had captured McCoy’s interest by leaving Hopewell and studying for the Episcopalian ministry and subsequently loaning him a Prayer Book and some other material to study. McCoy had also attended some services at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, and, through a friend, Colonel Hamilton C. Jones, a Charlotte attorney and noted orator, was introduced to the rector of St. Peter’s, Reverend Joseph Blount Cheshire, Jr. (d.1932) in early 1883. After bringing some friends from the country to some services in Charlotte during the year, McCoy extended an invitation for Reverend Cheshire, who eventually became bishop of the North Carolina diocese, to come preach to a gathering in Long Creek.¹

Thus on November 18, 1883, after holding his regular Sunday services at 11:00, the Charlotte rector was driven to the country in McCoy’s wagon. At 4:30, he preached to a good-sized gathering at the Beech Cliff School House, which was located on the land of Columbus McCoy’s brother, Albert McCoy (1843-1925). Impressed by the size and attentiveness of those assembled, Reverend Cheshire preached again the following evening and stayed at Columbus McCoy’s home for a few days to become acquainted with some of his neighbors. Four weeks later, on December 16th, the Rector of St. Peter’s returned to preach again for two days, but weather and bad roads prevented his further journeys to the country until a Sunday in spring, May 11, 1884. On his next visit of June 29, he proposed to some of the interested participants, including the brothers McCoy, Robert Kerns, James Kirksey, Robert D. Whitley, John Blythe, Captain Thomas Gluyas and others, that they consider joining the church and organizing a Protestant Episcopal congregation. At services on the following July 26, Reverend Cheshire announced to the group that he intended to have a series of services lasting several days in the middle of the following month.²

Assisted by Reverend George Wetmore and Reverend Edwin Osborne (who had first interested Columbus McCoy in the church), the Reverend Joseph Blount Cheshire went to Long Creek on Tuesday, August 11, with the intention of holding services through Friday. There they were met an hour before the services by a number of people who strongly urged them to stay through Sunday, which Cheshire and Osborne agreed to do while Wetmore returned to look after St. Peter’s in Charlotte. For every service they were greeted by large congregations, at times too numerous for the one-room schoolhouse which housed them, and the gathering seemed particularly moved by the earnest and straightforward preaching style of Reverend Osborne. At the high point of this eventful series on Sunday, a meeting was held of those interested in forming a congregation, and the following petition to the Bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina was drawn up:

 

We, whose names are here underwritten, desire to be organized into a congregation of St. Mark’s Chapel; and we do hereby agree to be governed by the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and of the Diocese of North Carolina. Done at Beech Cliff School House, Long Creek Township, Mecklenburg County, N.C., August 17th, 1884, being the Tenth Sunday after Trinity. (Signed)
C. W. McCoy
Thos. Gluyas
A. McCoy
W. D. Jamison
W. D. Price
N. J. Price
L. F. Jamison
R. V. Kerns
R. D. Whitley
Maria Davis
Jennie D. Alexander

In addition to the above, John N. Blythe, Robert W. Blythe, Mrs. Mary C. McCoy, James S. Kirksey and Benjamin W. Houston also wanted to be among the original members as soon as they could get a certificate of dismission from the Hopewell Presbyterian Church.³ The following October 24th, the Bishop came from Raleigh, preached the sermon, confirmed sixteen communicants into the church (making nineteen in all), and received another petition from the congregation. The next day, Bishop Lyman issued their founding document:

 

Application having been made to me by several members of the Church, residing in Long Creek Township, in the County of Mecklenburg, and state and Diocese of North Carolina, requesting the organization of a Mission in said township, agreeably with the provisions of Section 2, Canon XII of said Diocese: Now therefore be it known to the Faithful in Christ Jesus that I have organized and by these present, do organize, a Mission as desired, the same to be known as St. Mark’s Mission, and I do further appoint the following persons as officers of the same, to wit: John N. Blythe-Warden, and Thomas Gluyas-Treasurer. Given my hand in the city of Charlotte, this twenty-fifth day of October in the year of our Lord 1884.
(Signed) Theodore B. Lyman
Bishop of North Carolina

Attest: Jos. Blount Cheshire, Jr.
Minister in charge said Mission

In addition, Columbus W. McCoy was also commissioned to be the lay leader of the congregation. The name St. Mark’s was suggested by Reverend Cheshire and Reverend Osborne, because of the Biblical association of St. Mark and St. Peter as companions, which could represent a like association between the two Mecklenburg churches. Also at the October 24th meeting, it was requested informally that the Bishop consider appointing Reverend Edwin A. Osborne to be in charge of the mission, and $300.00 was promised toward his support for the first year. Everyone involved subsequently agreed to this arrangement, and the Reverend Osborne took over from Reverend Cheshire on January 1, 1885.

Edwin Augustus Osborne (1837-1926) led a full and eventful life. His youth was spent with his pioneer father, Dr. Ephriam Brevard Osborne (who fought with Andrew Jackson in New Orleans) in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas, but at the age of 22, he returned to North Carolina, the home of his ancestors. Two years later, he entered the Civil War as the Captain of an Iredell County Company, and eventually rose to the rank of Colonel through much gallantry in action and despite being wounded a number of times. At war’s end, in 1865, he married Fannie Swan Moore (who was descended from Colonial South Carolina’s Governor James Moore and General Maurice Moore, a Revolutionary War hero), and became a lawyer. He subsequently secured the post of Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, which he held for about ten years before resigning to enter the ministry. After ordination as a deacon in 1877, he began his ministry at a small salary in Fletcher, North Carolina. Reverend Osborne served at St. Mark’s from 1885-91, 1892-95, 1896-98, 1900-04, 1906-09, and 1910 and established the Thompson Orphanage and Training Institution, of which he was Superintendent for ten years, in 1887.⁵ After six months labor with his new charge, in July, 1885, Reverend Osborne provided some insights to the struggles of the new church:

 

“I found the little flock anxiously awaiting me, and full of zeal and hope. My heart almost failed me as I thought of the trials and tribulations and hardships that await them, and also of the probable disappointments, for they expected a rapid growth in members, and depended largely upon my personal influence in the community to give strength and popularity to the cause. But I know how difficult it would be to overcome the prejudice and opposition of the community against the church, and that in all probability our growth would be slow for at least a number of years… And now after six months, I write the fulfillments of these forebodings though I am thankful to say that the Lord has given some indication of his favor to the work, by adding six other adult persons and several inputs to our ranks. But the opposition to the work is very strong and very bitter. Every influence that can be brought to bear against us is used, and I hear much misrepresentations being used. Still our members have so far, with only one exception, been faithful, and patient, and true, and I thank God for many indications of a healthy and permanent growth. Our members have been strengthened and united by the persecution which they have sustained, and I trust that the opposition itself has been weakened by the calm and judicious bearing of our members.”⁶

Just under four months after the mission was started, in February, 1885, two large landowners, who are now church members, sold a total of two and one-quarter acres of choice hilltop land for a modest sum to the church trustees: Robert D. and Martha McCoy Whitley, and Benjamin and Dovey Houston (see attached map).⁷ Robert Davidson Whitley (1820-1900), who was Columbus McCoy brother-in-law, owned over three hundred acres south of the church property along Beatties Ford Road, including the Long Creek Mill, sometimes known as Whitley’s Mill, on Long Creek. The foundation of the mill, the mill race, and the ruins of the miller’s house are still extant ⁸

Thus early on, the members of the new church were interested in putting up their own house of worship. The drive to raise money went on in 1885 and 1886, but the early church minutes show that the effort received a major setback in the middle of 1886 because of severe rains which almost totally destroyed the crops in the area.⁹ By October, however, there was great hope of beginning the work. Reverend Cheshire had been working at St. Peter’s in Charlotte to help raise funds, and went to a General Convention in Chicago with the understanding that the work would get under way in a week or ten days. While there, he received a letter from R. D. Whitley explaining that Reverend Osborne was disappointed about the level of funds received, and wanted to postpone construction until the spring, which Whitley thought would be disastrous for the momentum thus far achieved. Cheshire immediately wired Whitley to proceed thus: “Go ahead, and I will be responsible.” When the Reverend Mr. Osborne read it, he wanted to know exactly what it meant, but Whitley assured him it meant what it said, and so the plans went forward.¹⁰

On October 21, 1886, a contract was given to J. F. Grady to construct the church for $770.00. The contractor, Joseph Free Grady, Sr. (1851-1929) was a local resident who moved to Charlotte in 1888 and became a prominent builder there. Among other projects, he built some of the first houses in Dilworth for the 4-C’s (Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company) and also built a number of fine homes in the city and neighboring counties.¹¹ The church contract called for all of the material to be furnished by a committee of the church, except the door and window frames, doors, sash, putty, glass and lights.¹² All the bricks were made at the bottom of the hill from the church at the creek branch by John Ellis McAuley (1861-1929), a “country carpenter” who built a number of one- and two-story frame houses in the area of similar pattern (including the old church rectory about 1897-8).¹³

Starting out with clay from the creek bank which was shaped in wooden molds (one of which is still extant), the twenty-five-year-old McAuley fired the brick in a kiln put up on the hillside above the creek. In addition to severe rains, 1886 also brought an earthquake which destroyed McAuley’s kiln and a number of his bricks, wiping out any profit he hoped to make. But with Reverend Cheshire’s backing, he reconstructed a crude (and dangerous) kiln of an old steam boiler encased in brick, which he used without a steam pressure gauge, and proceeded to finish the job of making all the handsome brick for the church. The cornerstone, carved by W. D. Price, a parishioner, was laid on October 28, and contains a copy of the Bible, the Prayer Book, copies of the “Churchman,” “Living Church,” and “Church Messenger, “as well as a short history of the mission to that time, including the names of the active church members.¹⁵ On the following March 27, 1887, the first service was held in the new brick church. On that date Reverend Osborne wrote:

 

…(the church) has been erected by the earnest efforts of the members, assisted by means furnished by friends of the cause in Charlotte and other parts of the state, and some who lived in the North. The latter contributions were made through Bishop Lyman.

In July, 1887, Colonel Hamilton C. Jones gave the country church an altar, and about January, 1891, it was plastered, wainscoted, oiled, and painted, and a rood screen (no longer extant),was built. The first class was confirmed by Reverend (later Bishop) Cheshire at St. Mark’s December 7, 1893, and in 1895 and 1896, the chancel rail was put up, and the prayer desk, credence table (shelf) and Rector’s (or Bishop’s) chair were purchased. Consecration of the church building took place on May 10, 1896, after all indebtedness was taken care of.¹⁷

Through the years since its beginning, St. Mark’s has remained a small rural parish, mostly serving descendants of the original families. Indeed, it was removed from mission status only about 1960. It has, however, remained a significant part of the Long Creek community. As mentioned above, a two-story frame rectory was built about 1897 or 1898 by John Ellis McAuley on land donated by the Whitleys and Justice Heriot Clarkson and his wife, Mary Osborne Clarkson.^l8 In 1954, a church classroom and activities building was added to the site near the church. More recently, the church itself was, in 1980, restored to much of its original state through efforts led by Mr. Frank Penninger, and the interior furniture was restored by Mr. Banks Blythe. One can still picture St. Mark’s as part of a late nineteenth-century flourishing rural community. The charming “country gothic” church sat high on the hill overlooking the sand-clay road from Mount Holly to Huntersville, and nearby was the rectory (which was also used as a meeting hall by the Masons)²⁰ and the miller’s house. Southward down at Long Creek was the mill, powered by water in the long mill race, and across the creek was the country store. The elegance and simplicity of the structure itself easily reminds us of a simpler life of a century ago, and the names associated with the church constitute an important part of the history of the Long Creek community and Mecklenburg County.

 

---

NOTES

¹ “History of St. Mark’s Mission, Mecklenburg County, NC, from 1883-1885,” by Jos. Blount Cheshire, Jr. Unpublished historical sketch in church records, pp. 1-2.

² Ibid., pp. 2-3.

³ Ibid., pp. 3-4.

⁴ Ibid., p. 5.

⁵ Ibid., p. 5; “Address of Justice Heriot Clarkson, Unveiling at St. Mark’s Church, Memorial Tablet to Rt. Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, Jr., and Rev. Edwin Augustus Osborne, Sunday, November 26th, 1933.” Typewritten copy of address, pp. 2-4.

⁶ Typewritten copy of church records, dated 16 July 1885.

⁷ Deed book 42, p. 271; Ibid., p. 272; 16 Feb. 1885.

⁸ Survey of R. D. Whitley estate land by T. B. Spratt, dated April 1926. Interview and site visit with Mary Ellen Droppers, and Rev. Tom Droppers, Rector of St. Mark’s.

⁹ Typewritten copy of St. Mark’s Church minutes, p. 9.

¹⁰ Jos. Blount Cheshire, St. Mark’s Church: Its Beginnings, 1884-1886 (N. P., August, 1927), pp. 23-4.

¹¹ Charlotte Observer, October 12, 1929, p. 4.

¹² See note 9.

¹³ Charles W. Sommerville, The History of Hopewell Presbyterian Church, (Charlotte: Hopewell Presbyterian Church, 1939), pp. 156-9; interview with the Droppers, note 8.

¹⁴ Sommerville, p. 159.

¹⁵ Typewritten copy of church minutes, p. 9.

¹⁶ Lucy Gluyas, “The Beginning of St. Mark’s Church”, unpublished sketch from church minutes, p. 3.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Deed Book 116, p. 134, 14 December 1896.

¹⁹ Interview with the Droppers, note 8; Mecklenburg Gazette, October 9, 1980. p.?

²⁰ Deed Book 127, p.41, 16 April 1898.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Thomas W. Hanchett

St. Mark’s Episcopal is a well preserved example of a small rural “English country Gothic” style church. It was built of handmade red brick by local craftsmen in 1886-1887. Today, sited atop a tree covered hill with its parsonage and graveyard, near an old country crossroad, it looks much as it must have at the turn of the century. The Gothic style has long been associated with the Episcopal Church in America, because this was the chief ecclesiastical style in England when King Henry VIII created the denomination. Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire, who oversaw the creation of St. Mark’s, had a strong interest in church architecture and in his later years wrote an essay touching on the development of the Gothic in the United States (“St.Peter’s Church, Charlotte, Historical Addresses,” 1921):

 

“Church architecture in America … took its rise in the study of the Gothic architecture of our mother Church of England…. The pointed arch, the long nave, the sharp roof with its open timber construction … — these and other characteristics of the Gothic style have come to be commonly understood as denoting a building intended for ecclesiastical purposes; and almost all denominations making any attempts at churchly effect in their buildings have followed our lead….”

According to Cheshire the style had been introduced by a Bishop Hopkins, who built the 1825 Trinity Church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the first “purely Gothic” chapel in the United States, based on an English pattern book. In 1836 Hopkins had published his own “Essay on Gothic Architecture … designed chiefly for the Clergy.” It contained lithographed church plans and details by Hopkins, as well as illustrations of notable English churches. Cheshire owned a copy of Hopkins’ book. With the long Episcopal tradition of Gothic design, and with Gothic enthusiast Cheshire in charge of fund raising, it is not surprising that St. Mark’s is a good example of the style. It has a cross-shaped plan with a three-bay-long nave, a pair of small single-bay side wings, and a one-bay chancel. Roofs are characteristically steep pitched, flaring outward at the eaves. Old photos show that the roofs were covered with wood shingles. Today’s roof is of similar appearing grey composition shingles. Each bay has a simple eight-pane lancet window, with no tracery, set in a Gothic pointed arched opening. Many of the panes still have original handblown wavy glass. Behind the altar is a large three-part window with tracery and a compound arch. Stained glass was added in the chancel windows in the 1960s, and some panes bear the names of their contributors.

The church has three entrances, the main one at the end of the nave and smaller doors in the two wings. Each is set deep into a pointed arched opening. They are heavy double doors built up of wood and have elaborate cast metal hinges. In the 1960s each pair of doors was nailed together and rehinged to form a single panel. Walls of the church are of handsome red brick handmade at the site by John Ellis McAuley. One of the molds used to make the bricks still exists, a wooden form that held two bricks at once. The brick bond of the walls alternates a row of headers with five rows of stretchers. Single pilasters delineate each bay and emphasize the corners of the structure. A water table steps out from the main walls at the base of the building. The brick chimney nestled next to the southwest wing was added after the structure was built. The interior of the nave is dominated by the chamfered-beam open truss that supports the roof. Walls are of smooth white plaster with wooden tongue-and-groove wainscoting. The space accommodates a dozen rows of pews on each side of a center aisle. Where the side wings join the nave there is a hint of the Victorian decoration popular for residences in the period. Simple wooden columns are topped by scroll-sawn brackets and arch-shaped trim.

The work is somewhat similar to the porch trim of the nearby parsonage built by John Ellis McAuley in the late 1890s, and it may be that he is responsible for this decoration in the church. Today one side wing contains additional pews, while the other is partially closed off to hold storage cabinets and a sink. The chancel is raised slightly above the main floor of the church. Its elaborate wooden rood screen and some other woodwork were removed in a 1950s “modernization.” The walnut communion and original credence tables were put back in 1980 along with the old Bishop’s chair, supplemented by a new pulpit and prayer desks by local craftsman Banks Blythe. The work was directed by parishioner Frank Penneger, who also stripped white paint from all the interior wainscoting and woodwork, and painted the church’s exterior trim a subdued Victorian red, suggested by early photos. The setting of St. Mark’s is an important part of its architectural appeal. The chapel sits on a wooded knoll above the Mount Holly-Hunterville Road, near its intersection with Beatties Ford Road. Both of these two lane roads have been important highways through the rolling farmland of north Mecklenburg County since the early nineteenth century. Stepping down one slope of the hill below the church is the graveyard, its white stones marked with the names of the founding families of this rural community. The chapel is not oriented to the points of the compass. Its nave entrance faces northwest. Behind the church is John McAuley’s wood-frame parsonage. Its two-story L-shaped form and its Victorian doorway and porch trim are similar to a half dozen other farmhouses McAuley built in north Mecklenburg County, according to Mary Ellen Droppers, wife of St. Mark’s current pastor. At one time the Mount Holly-Huntersville Road ran over the hill between the church and the parsonage, rather than at the foot of the hill in front of the church as it does today. Traces of the old roadbed can still be seen at the edges of the property. The rough wooden building that served as St. Mark’s school was located northeast of the church along this road before it was demolished. Today a one story brick fellowship hall erected in the mid 1950s blocks the old roadbed just southwest of the church.

Rural Hill Plantation Survey and Research Report