This report was written on 30 July 1996.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Craig House is located at 900 Ardsley Road in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

William R. and Virginia B. Story
900 Ardsley Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

(704) 333-9131

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative black and white photographs of the property. Color slides are available at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission office.

4. Maps depicting 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 3288 on page 499. The tax parcel number of the property is #155-043-05.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a physical and architectural description of the property.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in 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 Craig House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgement on the following considerations:

• 1) The Craig House was designed by William H. Peeps, an important local architect. It represents a fine example of early-twentieth century Tudor Revival architecture in one of Charlotte’s earliest and most desirable suburbs. The house exhibits many characteristic components of the style.
• 2) David J. Craig, Sr. could afford to build his house in a manner not readily available to the average middle class American. The well-developed design, fine details, quality materials and accomplished workmanship all bear testament to the high caliber of this building.
• 3) The Craig House was built for a prominent businessman, and was his home for the last nineteen years of his life. It makes a statement about his image and standing in the community, and reveals the standard of living available to a well-to-do businessman in early-twentieth century Charlotte.
• 4) Mr. Craig’s decision to relocate his family and settle in Charlotte is representative of a period of economic prosperity and population growth during the 1920s in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. Craig’s selection of a local architect and his choice to erect such a large and well-made home reflects both a financial and personal investment in the community.
  b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the Craig House meets this criteria.

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 total appraised value of the improvements is $487,060. The current total appraised value of the lot is $235,000. The current total value is $722,060. The property is zoned R-3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 30 July 1996.

Prepared by: Mary Beth Gatza
428 North Laurel Avenue, #7
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204

(704) 331-9660

 

 

Historical Overview
The Craig Family

David Jenkins Craig, Sr. (1877-1948) was born and raised in Gastonia. He graduated from the University of North Carolina in 1897 and was an active member of the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (Oasis Temple) from 1901 to the time of his death. In 1904, at the age of 27, he moved to Statesville, where he established himself in business. He went into partnership with L. P. Henkel and C. V. Henkel, serving as secretary and treasurer of the Henkel-Craig Live Stock Company. In addition to dealing in horses, mules and cattle (and later automobiles), they ran a hack line (horse-drawn taxi) between Lenoir and Blowing Rock, catering to the tourist trade. During the 1910s, they formed the Blowing Rock Development Company and acquired the landmark Green Park Hotel (built in 1891). In 1915, the Blowing Rock Development Company constructed a nine-hole golf course on surrounding acreage. This was no small feat, as the land they chose was entirely forested. In 1922, an additional nine holes was cleared. At some point, the Green Park Hotel was expanded and modernized by Craig and his partners. Craig and his family, however, may not have been regular guests of the hotel, as they had a cottage of their own in town. ¹

Craig wed Vera Copeland (1882-1974), who was originally from Clinton, S.C. and later from Statesville, N.C. Presumably, it was in Statesville where they met and married. Together they had three sons: David Jenkins, Jr. (1907-1985), John Thomas (1910-1987), James Copeland (1914-1988) and a daughter, Frances. In addition, they took in and raised Frankie Craig, who was the daughter of Mrs. Craig’s sister and brother-in-law, who had died. ²

By 1929, when the Craigs chose to build here, Myers Park was well established as a fashionable and exclusive neighborhood. The neighborhood was carved out of farmland once owned by John Springs (“Jack”) Myers. Myers’s son-in-law, George Stephens, had a vision and the business acumen to carry it out. He formed the Stephens Company, purchased the land from his father-in-law and set about creating Myers Park. The end result was the product of a unique collaboration between the Stephens Company, city planner John Nolen and landscape architect Earle Sumner Draper. The neighborhood began to take physical shape in 1912. Myers Park soon became the favored suburb for Charlotte’s most successful and wealthy businessmen, and growth continued at a strong and steady pace throughout the next several decades.

The Craigs moved to Charlotte with their children in 1929. No doubt they waited until after completion of their new house before relocating. Correspondence dating from November between the architect and Mr. Craig was addressed to Statesville. After relocating, the Craigs became active in Myers Park Presbyterian Church. Mrs. Craig served as president of the women’s Bible class. ³ David J., Jr. served on the session and on the board of deacons. Funeral services for Mrs. Craig, David J. Jr. and James were held at the church. Services for David J., Sr. were conducted at he home, with the pastor of Myers Park Presbyterian Church officiating.

The Craigs’ oldest son, David Jenkins Craig, Jr. graduated from the University of North Carolina Law School in 1932, and had an illustrious career in Charlotte. He practiced law until 1966, served as a city recorder’s court judge from 1941 to 1944, and was president of the Mecklenburg County Bar Association from 1960 to 1961. From 1967 to 1974, he ran the regional office of the American Arbitration Association. He had a home in Myers Park (1112 Granville Road) and was an elder, deacon and Sunday School teacher at Myers Park Presbyterian Church. He also served ⁴ as President of the Charlotte City Club and the Charlotte Country Club.

Mrs. Craig continued to live in the house alone after her husband died and her children moved away. She remained there until 1971 when she moved to Sharon Towers, where she died in 1974 at the age of 91. ⁵

The Story Family

Dr. William R. (Bob) and Virginia Brame (Ginnie) Story, natives of Wilkes County, N.C., arrived in Charlotte in 1965. They moved here so that Dr. Story could complete his residency, and thus begin his career as a urologist. In 1968 he joined the urology practice of McKay, Baird and Justis (established 1929). After three years in Charlotte, they purchased the Craig House from the children of David J. Craig Sr. in 1971. Mrs. Story is the past president of the Delhome Service League of the Mint Museum and is past chairman and current co-chairman of the Mint Museum Antiques Show. The Storys have lived in the house for twenty five years and have raised two children there. They especially enjoy entertaining, which they find the house particularly well suited for. They have hosted visiting guest speakers to the Mint Museum, and have celebrated their daughter’s wedding and son’s engagement party in the house. Grandchildren are frequent visitors. The house is beautifully decorated (by Mrs. Story) and is being well cared for. The Storys would like to see the house designated as a historic landmark.

 

Notes

¹ The Charlotte News, 4 October 1948, p. 1B.
The Charlotte Observer, 4 October 1948, p. 1B.
The Charlotte News, 5 October 1948, p. 14A.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Health Department, Death Certificate #1315.
Barry M. Buxton, A Village Tapestry: The History of Blowing Rock. (Boone, NC: Appalachian Consortium Press, c. 1989), pp. 6, 7, 9, 40, 97.

² The Charlotte News, 9 September 1974, p. 8A.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Will Book 6, p. 493.
Elmwood Cemetery, Charlotte, North Carolina, section Y, lot 51.
Interview with Mrs. David J. Craig Jr., Charlotte, NC, 22 May 1996

³ The Charlotte News, 4 October 1948, p. 1B.
The Charlotte News, 9 September 1974, p. 8A.
The Charlotte Observer, 7 July 1985, p. 16A.
The Charlotte Observer, 6 December 1988, p. 4B.
Thomas F. Clark, Myers Park Presbyterian Church: 1926-1966. (n.p.: Kingsport Press, 1966), pp. 224, 225, 230.

⁴ The Charlotte Observer, 7 July 1985, p. 16A.

⁵ The Charlotte News, 9 September 1974, p. 8A.
Interview with Mrs. William R. Story, 1 May 1996.

 

 

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Introduction

Fashionable and exclusive, Charlotte’s Myers Park neighborhood created an exposition for some of the finest residential architecture in the region during the first decades of the twentieth century. Professional architects were retained by wealthy individuals to design impressive homes in the latest styles. Louis Asbury, C. C. Hook, Martin Boyer, Franklin Gordon and William H. Peeps all had commissions in Myers Park. Colonial Revival, Rectilinear, and Bungalow/Craftsman styles all were represented here, as they were elsewhere throughout the city. But it was the Tudor Revival style that flowered in Myers Park.

The earliest Tudor Revival-style residence in Myers Park, and in Charlotte, was designed by L. L. Hunter and Franklin Gordon in 1915 for E. C. Marshall (500 Hermitage Road). The style flourished in the years following World War I, and was well-represented in the neighborhood during the 1920s. Most of the locally-prominent architects were conversant in the design idiom, and designed houses in the Tudor Revival style.

Characteristics of the style include steeply-pitched roofs, cross gables, textured wall surfaces (especially brick and false half-timbering), narrow or grouped windows and prominent chimneys. Often, a mixture of materials or textures was central to the design of the structure (such as brick with stone trim or false half-timbering with stucco). Dark colors were ubiquitous, sometimes only for trim, but often throughout the entire structure.

Well versed in the Tudor Revival style of residential architecture, William H. Peeps designed the Craig House in 1929. Peeps was a native of England who had come to Charlotte in 1911 and established a notable career designing various buildings in the Queen City. During the 1910s, he drew plans for the Latta Arcade (S. Tryon St., 1914), the G. C. Galloway House (602 E. Morehead St., 1914-15), and the C. C. Coddington House (1122 E. Morehead St., 1917-18), all of which are designated Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties. In 1923, he designed the J. B. Ivey Department Store (N. Tryon St.), which is currently undergoing renovation and transformation to multi-family housing. Another designated Historic Property attributable to Peeps is the Ratcliffe Florist Shop (431 S. Tryon St., 1929). In Myers Park, Peeps drew plans for a premiere Tudor Revival style house at 2038 Roswell Avenue for Frank and Mary Lethco in 1928. Perhaps David J. Craig was inspired by this fine residence when he chose Peeps to design his own home.

Craig House

The Craig House was designed by William H. Peeps for David J. Craig in 1929. It is a two and one-half story house with a cross-gabled slate roof and exterior walls of brick veneer and false half-timbering (wood and stucco). The house sits sideways on its lot–that is, one end of the house faces the street and the facade faces the driveway (which runs down the west side of the lot). Since the house is much broader than it is deep, it would not have fit on the lot if the facade was oriented toward the street. The awkwardness of having one end face the street is ameliorated by the presence of a full-width brick colonnade. This was a clever treatment in that it allows for a porch, which is normally omitted in the Tudor Revival style.

Structurally, the house is frame, but the exterior has a brick skin on all of the first story and most of the second story. False half-timbering decorates part of the second story, a dormer window, and four gable ends. The masonry cladding gives the home a feeling of solidity. The half-timbering is called “false” because it is not structural–it is merely applied for decorative effect. On the Craig House it consists of a pattern of horizontal and vertical dark wood “timbers” with light-colored stucco in between.

The main (west) facade is seven bays long, divided into three sections. The center section, which is under a cross-gabled roof, extends out a few feet from the rest of the facade. This section holds a tripartite stained glass window (second story) and the front entry. The front door is fully glazed and surrounded by multi-paned sidelights and overlights. It is shielded by a metal and glass marquee. Also in this section is set of four grouped windows looking into the dining room. The left (north) section of the facade has more grouped windows–one set of two and two sets of three. It also holds the only dormer window in the house. The right (south) section of the facade has two single windows. With the exception of one group of three fixed, multi-paned windows in the left (north) section of the facade, windows throughout the house are six-over-one or eight-over-one double-hung sash. The windows are framed by soldier arches above and cast stone sills below.

The predominant feature of the south elevation, which faces the street, is a full-width brick colonnade. It is composed of three arched openings separated by square brick piers. It shields the base of an exterior brick chimney, and two sets of French doors. The second story here and gable end are clad with false half-timbering.

The rear (east) facade features a treatment similar to the colonnade on the south elevation, but only in the one southeast corner bay. Otherwise, this elevation is brick on the first and second stories and half-timbered in the ends of the two cross gables.

The north facade is the only side that is covered entirely with brick, even in the gable end. It features a semi-exterior chimney and a side door. Windows here are both single and grouped.

Entering the house through the front door, one stands in a small entry hall. A few steps up lead into a larger, more formal hall with an interesting hanging light fixture. The main stairway rises up behind you, and features iron balusters and a birch railing. Ten steps lead to a landing, which is dominated by a large stained glass window. The window was probably commissioned by the owner rather than by the architect (there is no mention of it in the documentation), and has a Latin inscription “fiat lux,” meaning “let there be light.”

The living room is to the right as you enter the hall. It is the largest and most formal room in the house. Taking center stage is the ornate Classical Revival mantelpiece. It is one piece–cast out of masonry from a mold. It has a full entablature whose frieze has a center medallion with a human face peering out, bracketed by floral swags. Acanthus leaf brackets, and floral and foliate patterns adorn the sides, and egg-and-dart molding delineates the firebox opening. Like the stained glass window, there is no specific mention of this item in the documentation, and was probably acquired by Mr. Craig independently of Mr. Peeps. The large mirror above the mantel was acquired from the Craig estate and could have been part of the original decorating scheme. On either side of the mantelpiece, two sets of French doors lead out onto the colonnade which shields the south end of the house (the street-facing elevation). Completing the detailing in the room are a continuous cove molding and an original light fixture which has a single bulb surrounded by many hanging crystals.

Walking back out through the hall, a set of French doors leads into the dining room, which is to the left, toward the front of the house. It is also a formal room, dominated by a group of four sunny windows and by an elegant crystal chandelier. A cove molding similar to that in the living room delineates the ceiling-wall juncture.

Beyond the dining room, moving toward the north end of the house, are three rooms in linear succession. First is the breakfast room, which features built-in corner cabinets and a chair rail . Next in line is the butler’s pantry with a U-shaped arrangement of original cabinets. Finally, one enters the kitchen. It is the only room in the house that has undergone remodeling. Though the elements are younger than the house, they probably represent an arrangement similar to the original configuration.

Leaving through the rear of the kitchen, a small enclosed porch leads to the side door. Turning to the right, one enters the hallway and walks alongside the rear staircase. It is a closed-string stair with square wood balusters and a newel and railing made of birch. Passing the stairway, the hallway continues on through to the main hall. Along the way, three rooms open off to the left. First is the den, which features a tiled fireplace with a classically-inspired mantelpiece and a chandelier with five marbled glass shades. Next to the den, accessed through the hall, is the only bathroom on the first floor. Back in the hallway, this is a good place to notice the solid mahogany doors which are found throughout the house. The last room to visit on the first floor is the library. This room is completely panelled with chestnut, finished in a rich brown tone. Three walls are covered with a board-and-batten style panelling, and the fourth wall features recessed shelves in three groups with arched openings above. This room also has an interesting original light fixture. It has six bulbs surrounded by a polychromatic painted metal fixture.

Having come full circle on the tour, one is back in the main hall. From here, climb the stairs to the second floor. To the right is the master bedroom. Like the living room below, it is a large and formal room. The tone is set by a classical mantelpiece which has Adamesque detailing. The master bathroom is off to the left and has separate stalls for the bathtub and shower. All of the fixtures in this and every second floor bathroom are original, including the colorful tiles.

There are four other bedrooms on the second floor. All feature mahogany doors, original light fixtures and picture molding at the ceiling-wall juncture. The two bedrooms on the back (east) side of the house have individual bathrooms, while those on the front (west) side share a bathroom between them.

The arrangement of rooms upstairs is similar to that on the first floor. On the front (west) side, there is a bedroom over the dining room, and one corresponding to the breakfast room and butler’s pantry. Walking through this second bedroom, one reaches a full-length enclosed sleeping porch (which is over the kitchen and back porch). Passing through the porch leads to the hallway which extends from the back stair to the main hall. Two bedrooms open off of this hallway, each with a private bathroom.

The attic is worth taking a peek at. It is accessed from the rear of the stair hall. In it, the walls and sloping ceilings are fully sheathed with wooden panelling. Legend suggests that the Craigs used this room for entertaining and ballroom dancing. Area residents remember attending a debutante party in this room.

The basement extends beneath the kitchen, butler’s pantry and breakfast room. It is divided into three sections having separate rooms for laundry facilities and coal storage. The steam heating plant has been replaced, but the original door to the incinerator can still be seen along the outside wall.

Garage/Servants’ Quarters

An outbuilding on the rear (northeast) corner of the lot holds a two-car garage and servant’s quarters above it. It was designed in tandem with the house and shares similar design features. The first story garage section is constructed from the same brick as the house. The second story, the servants’ quarters, is clad with false half-timbering and stucco, again matching the main house. It has a steeply-pitched roof and an oversized dormer on the south side. It is entered from the back, the east side.

Site and Landscaping

The lot that the Craig House stands on has about 100 feet of frontage on Ardsley Road and extends back roughly 200 feet deep. The house is set back from the road, so there is a substantial front lawn. A driveway runs along the west side of the property, extending beyond the house and culminates in a circular drive. The house is oriented to the west, toward the driveway, rather than facing Ardsley Road. The garage/servants’ quarters is in the rear (northeast) corner of the property.

A brick wall delineates the back yard. This yard is landscaped with trees and shade loving shrubs, including azalea and rhododendron. No doubt the landscaping plan and some of the plants are original to the house. Bills exist from Harkey Brothers Nursery dated February and May 1930. They list various trees and landscape plants, including eleven lombardy poplars, one silver maple, four English laurels, one pink dogwood, arborvitae, ligustrum, photinia, pyracantha and unspecified flowering shrubs. Although the landscape architect, if any, is unknown, Harkey Brothers must have enacted the plan, because their bills include figures for stone, flagstone, topsoil, turf, fertilizer and labor. The sunny spot is along the west side of the house where the greenhouse once stood. It is planted in colorful flowering annuals and perennials.

Integrity

The Craig House is in virtually intact condition. Except for a kitchen remodeling and the removal of the greenhouse, little or no material has been added or removed since the day the house was completed.

Documentation

The owners of the Craig House are unusually fortunate to possess some original documents pertaining to the construction of the house. These include specifications, contracts, correspondence, bills for materials, and bills for the architect’s services. Even the application for water service and receipts for utility deposits are in the file.

Records go back to April 1929, when the lot was staked by an engineer, and then purchased by Mr. Craig from the estate of C. C. Coddington. In June, contracts were signed with the general contractor, J. A. Gardner, and with the plumbing contractor, Henry Hackney. Both gentlemen were from Charlotte. An estimate of $3845.00 was given by the Statesville Manufacturing Company for the millwork. Also in June, a proposal for a heating system was solicited from the A. Z. Price Company of Charlotte. Their bid was $2875.65, including a load of coal. July 8, an application for water service was made to the Charlotte Water Works. Interestingly, this took place before the building permit was granted on July 12, 1929. Correspondence from the architect dated July 13 mentions that “We will start to pore [sic] concrete today and will be laying brick in a few days.” Another letter from Peeps on July 18 says “Concrete footings have been poured and will start laying brick tomorrow.”

Various bills trickled in and were paid during August, September, October and November. A six dollar deposit was paid to the Southern Public Utilities Company on December 9 for electric service. The Craig’s likely settled into their new home before Christmas. A final accounting made by Peeps of the costs of the Craig House, including the lot, is dated March 15, 1930 and totals $59,638.97. A handwritten note from the architect says “The above includes all work that was contracted for and passed through my office, but does not include such items as was added after the house was completed.” He is probably referring to the stained glass window and the living room mantel, since there is no mention of these items elsewhere in the file.

The architects specifications is a detailed document outlining both general terms and exact composition of materials. It lists, for instance, the recipe for the mortar mix and the brand of stucco to be used. It directs that the floors be white oak, the interior doors be mahogany, the gutters be copper, and the switchplates be Bakelite. It even includes instructions for finishing the interior woodwork. This is an especially valuable document because it verifies that the materials present in the house today are original.

Some landscaping was included in Peeps accounting of the price tag for the Craig House. There are two bills from Harkey Brothers Nursery, dated February 20 and May 17, 1930. They list various trees shrubs, plants, landscape materials and labor.

Summary

The Craig House stands as a fine example of a large Tudor Revival home designed by one of Charlotte’s premiere architects of the early twentieth century. Original documentation dating from the period of construction proves that virtually all of the fabric present in the house today is original material as specified by the architect.

The Craig House contains many characteristic components of the Tudor Revival style, especially dark, textured wall surfaces stone trim, grouped windows, and a steeply-pitched, cross-gabled roof. On the interior, the fine workmanship and high quality materials are evidenced throughout the house, including a large stained glass window, classical mantelpieces, chestnut panelling and mahogany doors. Although the kitchen has been remodeled, virtually all of the bathroom fixtures and tile are original. Additionally, all of the light fixtures are original and all but two are each different from the next.

David Craig was in a high income bracket and could afford to hire an important architect and build his house in a manner not accessible to the average middle class American. The house even today reveals a standard of living available to a well-to-do businessman during the 1920s.

 

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Cooper Log House

This report was written on June 6, 1984

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Cooper Log House is located at the intersection of the Dixie River Rd. and the Mt. Olive Church Rd. in the Dixie Community of southwestern Mecklenburg County.

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

William C. Nygren & wife,
Brenda J. Shepler
RFD 4
Box 421A
Charlotte, N.C. 28208

Telephone: 704/393-0515

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

4. A map depicting 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 4203, Page 621. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 113-152-07.

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 an architectural description of the property prepared by Mr. Joseph Schuchman.

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Cooper Log House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the log house, built c.1780’s or 1790’s by William Cooper (1758-1834), is one of the few 18th-century structures which survives in Mecklenburg County; 2) the house continues to serve as a residence; and 3) the house and its two additions bear testimony to the evolution of the rural built environment of Mecklenburg County during the 18th and 19th centuries.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Mr. Joseph Schuchman demonstrates that the Cooper Log 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 6.010 acres of land is $10,820. The current appraised value of the improvements is $24,040. The total current appraised value is $34,860. The property is zoned R12.

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 6, 1984

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview
William H. Huffman
July, 1983

The Cooper log house, now located on six acres of land at the intersection of Dixie River Road and Mt. Olive Church Road in the Steele Creek section of the county, was built about the 1780’s or 1790’s. While the original structure was added on to about 1840 and 1880, the eighteenth-century log structure, which has been uncovered by the present owners, is still basically intact. ¹

Although the records from that time are often inconclusive, the available evidence suggests that the house was built by William Cooper (1758-1834). William was the son of a pioneer settler of the Steele Creek area, John Cooper (1721-1801). That section of the county began to be settled about 1751 and was probably named after Robert Steele, a trader with the Catawba Indians. By about 1760, the predominently Scotch-Irish settlers had organized the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, where five generations of Coopers are buried along with many other pioneer families of the area. ²

From the county records, John Cooper seems to have first acquired property in the area in 1767 and 1768, totalling three hundred thirty-six acres. ³ The original purchase of 1767 was from George Augustus Selwyn (1719-1791), an English gentleman and member of Parliament, whose father, John Selwyn, had been given a block of one hundred thousand acres lying between the Rocky and Catawba Rivers by King George II in 1745. ⁴ William Cooper appears to have inherited part or all of his father’s lands in the Steele Creek district, but this cannot be established with complete certainty since neither John Cooper’s will nor estate records appear to be extant. ⁵ It is certain, however, that William Cooper also purchased an additional three hundred sixty-four acres in 1782, 1785 and 1803. ⁶

William Cooper is reputed to have built a log church in the vicinity of the log house, ⁷ and since he was active during the time it is thought the house was constructed (1780’s or 90’s), and this taken with the fact that he was the apparent owner of the land, it is a reasonable presumption that he built the log house about that time. Cooper was no doubt a typical plantation owner of that era who raised a variety of crops, perhaps including corn, wheat, hay, oats and cotton, in addition to livestock. The farming and household chores were assisted by slaves, and when they became old enough, the sons and sons-in-laws also took part in the farming. On Sundays, work would be put aside, the Sunday best clothes put on, and the team hitched to the wagon for the ride to church. Back home, the Sunday meal would be prepared in the detached summer kitchen, while the team was put away in the nearby barn. Less than a hundred yards from the house would have been located the frame or log slave quarters, where the slaves would supplement the rations given to them by the family through hunting, fishing and trapping, and perhaps raising something on their own small plot. When William Cooper died in 1834, he divided his lands and slaves among his five sons and daughter’s children. ⁸ The parcel with the log house appears to have been passed to William’s son Alexander Cooper (1798-1863), to whom we can credit ownership with complete certainty. ⁹ It was probably during Alexander Cooper’s ownership that the first addition to the house was made, c. 1840, which is the section on the right side as one faces the original log structure. Alexander carried on the family farming tradition in the area, and had acquired about three hundred and fifty acres of land at the time of his death in 1863, which was in turn divided among his children. ¹⁰

In the final division of Alexander’s lands, son Thomas S. Cooper (1840-1904) became the last member of the family to own the eighteenth-century log house. In addition to seeing Civil War service, Thomas S. Cooper held the office of sheriff of Mecklenburg County from about 1887 to 1898. ¹¹ It was during his ownership that the second addition to the house was made about 1880, which is directly behind the central log building extending to the northeast. ¹² Sheriff Cooper, who engaged in farming and the buying and selling of property in the county, also had an interest in the furniture company of Cooper and Lewis, but did not take active part in its management. ¹³

In 1897, the Cooper log house passed out of the family ownership for the first time when the sheriff sold it to Joseph A. Freeman (1859-1925) as part of a one hundred sixty-one acre tract of land. ¹⁴ Freeman and his wife lived on and farmed the property until 1928, when he (then a widower) lost it through foreclosure. ¹⁵ The succeeding owners, James M. Yandle (1888-1965) and his wife Mary M., sold the house with one hundred twenty-five acres in 1940, and two years later it was divided down to a twelve acre plot. In 1951, the tract was further divided into six acres, its present size. ¹⁶

Over the years, the Cooper house has seen many changes, both to its own structure and the surrounding landscape. The present owners, William and Brenda Shepler-Nygren, have undertaken extensive work to expose and refurbish, where possible, the original structure, and have spent many hours researching the history of the house in addition to gathering related local folklore. Included in the folklore was information from a former resident of the house, John Yarborough, who died about three years ago. Yarborough told the Nygrens that in the 1930’s, there was a gold mine shaft on the knoll behind the house (which has not been located in recent times), as well as a sorghum mill behind the barn, and that when he was a child, he saw remains of possible slave quarters on the property, a wood structure with brick chimney. He also said that Walker’s Ferry Road used to run near by the house, and on the corner (with Mt. Olive Church Road) was a big oak tree from which lynchings took place in Sheriff Cooper’s time. His daughter, Joan Brown, was born in what is now the kitchen of the present house, and she now lives nearby at a site formerly occupied by a log barn. ¹⁷

As one of the few remaining eighteenth-century structures remaining in Mecklenburg County in any form, and even rarer, one which is still being used for its orignal purpose, the Cooper log house is distinctly historic. It not only encompasses the original log structure of the late seventeen- hundreds, but two nineteenth-century additions which are also of historic interest in their own right. Historic preservation necessarily involves mostly town buildings and dwellings, but the value in preserving our rural heritage is also equally evident, and the Cooper log house provides a unique opportunity to do so.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Interview with William Nygren, Charlotte, N.C., 3 March 1983.

² The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, 3rd Edition (Charlotte: Craftsman, 1978), pp. 13-16, 21, et passim.

³ Old Deed Book 3, p. 238, 12 January 1767; Old Deed Book 4, p. 460, 20 July 1768.

⁴ Old Deed Book 2, p. 109; George Selwyn and His Contemporaries, 4 vols. (Boston: Francis Niccolls, 1843), I.

⁵ Interview with Brenda Shepler-Nygren, who conducted an archival search in Raleigh: Charlotte, N.C., 20 July 1983.

⁶ Deed Book.

⁷ Interview with William Nygren.

⁸ Will Book G, p. 185.

⁹ Division of Alexander Cooper’s lands, Orders and Decrees, Book 4, p. 40., 1890.

¹⁰ Ibid.; Will Book J, p. 158.

¹¹ History, op. cit., p. 181; List of sheriff’s deeds, Grantor Book, 1840-1918: Charlotte News, May 30, 1904, p.5.

¹² Interview with William Nygren.

¹³ Charlotte News, May 30, 1904, p. 5.

¹⁴ Deed Book 121, p. 451, 8 July 1897.

¹⁵ Deed Book 701, p. 565, 26 July 1928.

¹⁶ Deed Book 1012, p. 19, 1 May 1940; Deed Book 1087, p. 68, 26 October 1942; Deed Book 1497, p.84, 15 November 1951; see chain of title thereafter.

¹⁷ Interview with William Nygren.

 

 

Architectural Description
Joseph Schuchman
May, 1984

The Cooper log house is one of Mecklenburg County’s more interesting residential structures. Located in the Steele Creek community, the house is set back from the intersection of Dixie River Road and Mt. Olive Church Road. The original log section was constructed about the 1780’s or 1790’s; a two story side wing was added during the 1840’s while a two story rear ell dates from the 1880’s. The present structure bears witness to the varied building and decorative traditions of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Mecklenburg County.

The two story main block (1780’s or 1790’s) is surmounted by a gable roof and is of log construction with half dovetail corners. Weatherboards, which may have been original to the structure, have been removed by the present owners, William and Brenda Nygren, to expose the log construction; mud nogging is evident. The main entrance door was originally located approximately four feet to the west of the present entrance. The date of the present front entrance is unknown. Its splayed and crosseted surround suggests a late nineteenth or perhaps a turn of the century construction date. It is possible that the front entrance may have been relocated to create a more symmetrical appearance although it should be noted that the fenestration, for the most part, is asymmetrically arranged. The entrance may have been moved to accommodate interior modifications, which included the construction of a new staircase. A rear entrance is surmounted by a two pane transom and contains a six panel door of mortise and tennon construction; this entrance appears to be of late eighteenth or early nineteenth century construction and appears original. 9/6 sash are used on the first story while 6/6 sash appear on the upper level.

While the interior has been altered over the years, a significant amount of detailing from the house’s successive periods of growth survives. The house presently follows a center hall plan, which runs the width of the main block and side addition. The log section may have initially presented a one or two room plan. The present hall appears to date from the late nineteenth century; its detailing may be contemporary with the construction of the rear ell. A notable quarter turn open string stair rises to the second floor. Identical turned balusters and a turned newel post support the shaped handrail and are characteristic of late nineteenth century decorative motifs.

Dominating the present living room (located in the log section) is a mantle which displays a segmental arched opening and which is believed to be original; this mantle is of mortise and tenon construction. Plain piers rise to a simple frieze and a molded shelf. Wainscoting encircles the chamber. Its flush vertical board, believed to be original to tile late eighteenth century structure, is set between a baseboard and a chair rail, both of which have been replaced.

The former sitting room (now kitchen) is located in the side addition, which dates from the early nineteenth century. The western side of the wall has been removed to expose the log construction of the adjoining main block. The mantle displays vernacular federal motifs; attenuated piers rest on rectangular bases and rise to molded capitals and a molded mantle shelf. A plain rectangular frieze is set between the piers. Mantles in the rear ell are of simple pier and lintel construction, typical of late nineteenth century and turn of the century vernacular building patterns.

A closed string stair, in the ell, is simply detailed and follows a straight run. Original pine flooring remains in several areas throughout the house. Two depressions in the ground, one in the front yard and the other at the rear, are the surviving evidence of wells located on the property. A log house, with half dovetail corners, stands to the rear of the main house. The structure is believed to date from 1847, the year inscribed on a log. The house was originally located on the Griffin Family Farm to the north of Marshville in neighboring Union County. It was recently purchased and moved to the present site by the Nygrens. Plain surrounds enframe the exterior openings. 6/6 sash are the primary glazing material. Some original weatherboard sheathing remains. The building presently serves as an outbuilding. A gable roofed frame barn is further set back from the main house.

Since their purchase of the property in 1979, William and Brenda Nygren have undertaken a substantial stabalization and restoration effort of the main house, which included the removal of asbestos siding and the beginnings of a significant maintenance effort. A once-deteriorating house is being brought back to life, with a respect for the past and a commitment to the present and future.

 

                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Coffey House is located at 3300 Shopton Road, Charlotte, NC 28217.

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

Bernice Tate
3300 Shopton Road
Charlotte, NC 28217

Telephone: (704) 588-1567

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 depicting the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to the property is found in Deed Book 4472, page 931. The tax parcel number for the property is 141-071-05.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the 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 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Coffey House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) The James Morrow Coffey House is a tangible reminder of the importance of farming to the agrarian economy of post-bellum Mecklenburg County.
2) James Morrow Coffey and his descendents were influential members of the Steele Creek Community.
3) The James Morrow Coffey House, built in 1886, is an excellent example of an evolving 19th century farm complex ­ the house and surrounding outbuildings reflect the diverse and self-sufficient existence led by most farmers in late 19th and early 20th century Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission judges that the architectural description completed by Emily D. Ramsey demonstrates that the James Morrow Coffey 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 a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the 5.800 acres and all improvements is $131,400. The property is zoned R3.

Date of Preparation of this Report:September 1, 2000

Prepared by:Emily D. Ramsey
745 Georgia Trail
Lincolnton, NC 28092

 

 

Statement of Significance

The James Morrow Coffey House, erected in 1886, is a property that possesses local historic significance as a tangible reminder of the importance of farming and rural life in the booming agrarian economy of post ­Civil War Mecklenburg County, and for its association with James Morrow Coffey and his son, Rufus Coffey, both prominent members of the Steele Creek Community’s circle of well-to-do farmers and active members of the Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church. The last half of the nineteenth century saw tremendous opportunity for farming communities around Charlotte. Charlotte had escaped relatively unscathed from the effects of the Civil War and the continually high demand for cotton, coupled with the development of the fertilizer Peruvian guano in 1860, made the post-bellum period a prosperous time for farming in Mecklenburg County. Although James Morrow Coffey owned five slaves at the time of the Civil War, the bulk of his farming operations, like those of most farmers in Mecklenburg County, did not depend on slave labor, and he, along with his son, Rufus Alexander Coffey, was able to profit handsomely from the post-war prosperity.

The James Morrow Coffey House is also significant as an excellent example of a nineteenth century farm complex. The typical farm in late 19th and early 20th century Mecklenburg County supported not only cash crops like cotton and corn, but also an array of livestock (mainly hogs, cows, and chickens), kitchen gardens for family consumption, and fruit trees. In addition, many farmers operated their own blacksmith shops, smokehouses, and cotton gins. Most farms, therefore, consisted of an array of barns, storage sheds, and other outbuildings in addition to the farmhouse itself. The evolution of the James Morrow Coffey house, originally a simple one-pile I-house, reflects the growing and changing needs of farming families in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Mecklenburg County, and the collection of outbuildings which surround the house speak to the diverse nature of rural life in the area.

 

 

Historical Overview  

The last half of the nineteenth century was a time of tremendous growth and change in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The coming of the railroad in 1852 and its rapid expansion before and after the Civil War made Charlotte “an excellent location for trade and industry.”¹ Charlotte quickly developed into a bustling and vital trading center for a region that covered “fourteen counties in North Carolina and at least eleven in South Carolina.”²  By far the most lucrative business for the burgeoning city was trade in cotton. Cotton, an important crop to the area’s economy before the Civil War, had become even more vital in the post- bellum period. Cotton prices skyrocketed after the war and the introduction of the fertilizer Peruvian guano in 1860 made cotton easy to grow even in the most inhospitable soil.³  These favorable economic conditions gave farmers outside the county’s small circle of large slaveholders the opportunity to “replant and recover quickly” after the war.⁴

Although James Morrow Coffey owned five slaves at the time of the Civil War, the bulk of his farming operations, like those of the majority of farmers in Mecklenburg County, did not depend on slave labor, and he, along with his son, Rufus Alexander Coffey, was able to profit handsomely from the post-war prosperity.⁵ James Morrow Coffey had come to the Steele Creek area in the early 1850s, eventually acquiring over 300 acres of land along the Moore branch of Big Sugar Creek (the branch is now known as Coffey Creek). James Morrow, his wife, Eliza Alexander Coffey (granddaughter of Ezra Alexander, one of the signers of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence) and their five surviving children lived in a series of humble log houses on their large farm.⁶ Such log homes were typical of Scotch-Irish farmers like the Coffeys, whose ancestors had learned the building techniques from German immigrants in Pennsylvania and brought the building style with them to the Carolina piedmont.⁷  The Coffey family quickly became enmeshed in the closely-knit community of farming families around Steele Creek. The Coffeys, the Spratts, the Griers, the Watts, and the McDowells were among these influential local families, who were joined by marriage, business transactions, shared religious beliefs and community social activities. James Morrow Coffey and his family were active members of the Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, the largest Presbyterian Church in Steele Creek, and all three of the Coffey daughters married into the Spratt family, close neighbors of the Coffeys.⁸

After his wife’s death in 1870, James Morrow Coffey continued his farming operations in Steele Creek, with the help of his youngest son, Rufus Coffey. James and Rufus (who was twenty-two at the time of his mother’s death) planted crops such as wheat, cotton and corn for profit, logged their acres of woodland for timber (mainly pine and hickory) and raised livestock ­ primarily hogs and chickens.⁹ Excerpts from James Morrow Coffey’s diary reveal the day-to-day operations of his farm: “February 1, 1871 ­ Sold corn to Mr. Turner – – 5 bushels; June 15, 1871 ­ Crops look fine today. Wheat crop is very, very fine; June 15, 1871 ­ Commenced laying by cotton; July 7, 1871 ­ Thunder storm and rain from the West. Powerful rain.”¹⁰

In the favorable post-war economy, father and son were finally able to build a house to reflect their success and rising status in the Steele Creek community. A larger house was also needed to accommodate Rufus, his wife, Amanda Utley Coffey, and their rapidly growing family. In 1886, James Morrow Coffey and Rufus Coffey erected a new farmhouse to replace the log house that had been their home. The new house, a two-story, one-pile I-house, was a conservative choice in the Victorian era of fancy spindlework and elaborate detailing, and gave the image of a prosperous but modest family. Here, James Morrow Coffey lived out the last seven years of his life, surrounded by his son, daughter-in-law, and ten grandchildren. He remained an active member of the community, serving as elder of districts one and two for the Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church.¹¹ Upon his father’s death in 1893, Rufus Coffey (a widower since his wife’s death the year before) inherited the farm in Steele Creek, including the house, the outbuildings and a substantial amount of land (over 200 acres). Here he reared his ten young children and continued operation of the family farm.¹²

Rufus Coffey’s detailed diary entries provide a very vivid picture of life on the Coffey farm in the early twentieth century. Although he never remarried, Rufus Coffey shared the farmhouse (which he had expanded around 1900) with his son Willie and his two spinster daughters, Amanda Rose and Eula. Willie was given much of the responsibility over the various types of farm work as his father grew older, including the planting and tending of the cash crops of cotton and corn, the care and slaughter of hogs (the primary livestock on the farm) and the chopping, sawing, hauling, and sale of pine, oak and hickory logged from the family’s land. Eula and Amanda Rose tended to the kitchen gardens and orchards, which produced an impressive array of vegetables and fruits, including “potatoes, corn, cucumbers, butter beans, cabbage, turnips, white peas, tomatoes, cherries, pears, grapes and peaches.”¹³ Eula herself cared for over ninety chickens, and the two women were in charge of all of the cooking and cleaning in the house.

Rufus Coffey’s twin daughters managed to maintain an active social life with neighboring families in spite the heavy domestic workload on the farm. They often traveled to visit or stay with acquaintances and attend various social engagements, as Rufus Coffey’s diary recorded: “Amanda and Eula road with the McDowell’s to Shopton to a Society MeetingŠ; Amanda went to a Layman’s MeetingŠ; Eula at Bessie Grier’s at the annual picknic [sic] of the Griers and Coffeys todayŠ”¹⁴

When Rufus Alexander Coffey died in 1935 at the age of 87, the farm was divided into eight lots, a plot for each of his surviving children. The farmhouse was left to Eula and Amanda Rose Coffey, who, according to a 1948 Charlotte Observer article, maintained their family home as a “museum of surprises and curiosities [where] stored away in antiquated trunks, chests of drawers, and other safe places are hundreds of valuable papers and curious odds and ends historians would revel in.”¹⁵  Amanda Rose and Eula carefully preserved and displayed their family artifacts – old furniture, antique china, old clothes, a Civil War blanket, and diaries kept by James Morrow Coffey and Rufus Coffey.¹⁶  Amanda Rose and Eula Coffey were the last descendents of James Morrow Coffey to live in the house. After their deaths, the house passed to Sue Coffey Cathey, then to her son, Kenneth Cathey. In 1974, Stokes and Eleanor Seegers purchased the home and five acres of the original farmland. The Seegers renovated the house, which had been vacant for several years and was in a state of disrepair. In 1981, the couple sold the house to James H. Tate and his wife, Bernice N. Tate. Bernice Tate, who became sole owner of the property upon her husband’s death, presently occupies the house.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Architecturally, the James Morrow Coffey House, a simple two-story, one-pile I-house with several later additions, reflects the conservatism that persisted among the rural population in Mecklenburg County. In the post-railroad period of the late nineteenth century, Victorian architecture was at the height of its popularity in America, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg was no exception. Even the most modest houses could be transformed into Victorian cottages with the addition of mass-produced Victorian spindlework and filigree. However, houses like the Coffey house demonstrate that, despite the popularity of the Victorian style, “traditional forms [the most prevalent of which was the I-house form] and simple interpretations of styles continued to hold sway . . .” in rural Mecklenburg County.¹⁷  The continually evolving floor plan of the James Morrow Coffey house – which began in 1886 as a simple one-pile I-house, and had become by the mid-twentieth century a sprawling, irregular gable-front-and-wing farmhouse ­ also illustrates how rural houses constantly changed to meet the growing and changing needs of farming families in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The James Morrow Coffey House is also significant as an excellent example of a nineteenth century farm complex. The typical farm in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Mecklenburg County supported not only cash crops like cotton and corn, but also an array of livestock (mainly hogs, cows, and chickens), kitchen gardens for family consumption, and fruit trees. In addition, many farmers operated their own blacksmith shops, smokehouses, and cotton gins. Most farms, therefore, consisted of an array of barns, storage sheds, and other outbuildings in addition to the farmhouse itself. The remaining outbuildings at the James Morrow Coffey house are a significant part of the site, because, as historians Richard Mattson and William Huffman explain, “the more historically complete and intact the farmyard, the more it reveals about the operations of the farm” and the diverse activities that made up daily life on that farm.¹⁸  The James Morrow Coffey Farm retains many of its original outbuildings and a sense of it original rural setting in an area where rural resources, and intact farm complex’s in particular, are rapidly disappearing.

The four remaining outbuildings on the property date from the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. The oldest and most significant outbuilding is a small side-gable log structure with half-dovetail notching and a metal sheet roof, which most likely predates the house itself. The original use of the log structure is debated ­ a 1948 Charlotte Observer article claims the building was a slave home, and later accounts claim that it was originally a kitchen. No hearth remains to confirm that the outbuilding was either a kitchen or a slave home, although an opening does exist through the roof of the building that suggests it might have been used as a small tenant house or a kitchen after its original use was abandoned.

The other outbuildings on the property are less substantial frame buildings, suggesting early to mid-twentieth century construction. A large barn sits at the rear of the property, near the edge of a field. It is a front-gable structure with a long shed extending off of one side. A smaller side-gable frame structure, topped with a sheet metal roof, (which some reports claim was originally a granary) sits closer to the rear of the house. A small chicken coop and shed, both frame construction with slanting metal roofs, perch near the northwest side of the house.

The James Morrow Coffey House itself is of wood frame construction, sheathed in wooden clapboards and recently covered with aluminum siding. The original two-story I-house, three-bays-wide and one-bay-deep, is now partially obscured by a turn-of-the-century gable front addition projecting from the right side of the house’s facade (most likely added by Rufus Coffey to accommodate his large family). A covered porch runs the length of the house’s facade, and was probably added at the same time as the front addition. The porch features simple, understated square wooden posts and a hipped roof. Several ells have been attached to the rear of the house as well. The largest of these later additions is the kitchen ell – most likely a detached kitchen which was attached to the house sometime in the early twentieth century. A small second-story one-room addition was added to the rear of the house, above the kitchen ell, and a small one-story shed was built onto the rear of the house at some point. An enclosed porch and wooden deck, both constructed after 1981, extend from the rear of the house and along the kitchen ell. The house features regularly punctuated fenestration with six-over-six and four-over-four configurations. The house’s two original brick chimneys, laid in common bond with fieldstone bases, still remain, although one was rebuilt in the early twentieth century using bricks from the original chimney.

Stokes and Eleanor Seegers, who purchased the house in 1974, installed central heat, insulation, extra wiring, plumbing, bathrooms, modern appliances and new cabinets in the kitchen. They also filled in the house’s foundation (originally the house sat on brick piers) with bricks “from sections of downtown Charlotte that were being razed.”¹⁹  Despite these changes, many significant interior details remain. The original fireplaces are sealed off, but still intact, and the Seegers left all of the house’s board and batten walls and ceiling, as well as the beaded paneling in some of the rooms, exposed. All of the house’s original wooden doors are intact, as are the hardwood floors. The board and batten staircase features simple turned newels and square posts. The James Morrow Coffey House remains an excellent example of a late-nineteenth century farm complex, and a visible reminder of the evolving needs of farmers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

 

---

Notes:

¹   Thomas W. Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1985).   By 1861 four railroads converged in Charlotte:  the Charlotte and South Carolina Line to Columbia, SC; the North Carolina Railroad through Greensboro and Salisbury, NC; the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio line to Statesville, NC; and theWilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad connecting Charlotte and Lincolnton, NC.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.   Sherry J. Joines and Dr. Dan L. Morrill,  “Historic Rural Resources in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina”  (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1997).

⁴ Joines and Morrill, “Historic Rural Resources in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.”

⁵ Eighth Census of the United States: Slave Schedule, Mecklenburg County (1860).  James Morrow Coffey owned five slaves in 1860: one female, age 39; one male, age 19; one male, age 10; one female, age 5; one female, age 2.

⁶ Charlotte Observer (May 30, 1948), Sec. 4, p. 1.  Ezra Alexander Family Tree, researched by Tom Taylor.  James Morrow Coffey and Eliza Alexander Coffey had six children:  Mary (1828-1893); Margaret (1833-1887); James S. (1835-1858); Benjamin (1842-1952); Sarah (1845-1930); and Rufus (1848-1935).

⁷ Dr. Richard Mattson and Dr. William Huffman.  “Historical and Architectural Resources of Rural Mecklenburg County.”  (North Carolina Division of Archives and History, July, 1990), Sec. F, p.2 & 16.

⁸ Caroline Wells,  “Historical Sketch of the Coffey Family.” p. 1-2 (Charlotte, 1998).

⁹ Ninth Census of the United States: Agricultural Schedule of Mecklenburg County (1870).  

¹⁰ Charlotte Observer (May 30, 1948), Sec. 4, p.2.

¹¹ Linda Lawless Blackwelder.  A History of Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church (Charlotte 1984), p.132.

¹² Estate Records Office Index to Wills 1763-December 1, 1968, Vol. A-D, Book M, p.230.  Rufus and Amanda’s ten children were:  James M. (1873-1957); Claude (1874-1910); Sue A. (1876-1950); Lelia B. (1872-1952); twins Eula and Emma Utley (1884-196?); Jessie B. (1875-1945); Lamar A. (1888-1889?); William “Willie” Howard (1890-????) and Amanda Rose (1892-1984).

¹³ Caroline Wells,  “Historical Sketch of the Coffey Family.” p. 3 (Charlotte, 1998).  Entries from Diary of Rufus A. Coffey, dated January 30, 1922 & February 27, 1923.

¹⁴ Entries from Diary of Rufus A. Coffey, dated February 27, 1923 & August 3, 1933.

¹⁵ Charlotte Observer (May 30, 1948), Sec. 4, p.2.

¹⁶ Charlotte Observer (June 6, 1948), Sec. 8, p. B.

¹⁷ Mattson and Huffman.  “Historical and Architectural Resources of Rural Mecklenburg County.”  Sec. F, p. 18-19.

¹⁸ Ibid, p. 26.

¹⁹ Charlotte News (January 1974).