Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

Survey & Research Reports

Charlotte City Hall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was written on Feb. 6, 1980

1. Name, and location of the property: The property known as the Charlotte City Hall is located at 600 East Trade St. in Charlotte, N.C.

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

City of Charlotte
600 E. Trade St.
Charlotte, NC 28202

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 current deed to this property is re-corded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 547, Page 265. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 125-021-01.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

In 1891, Charlotte erected an imposing city hall at the corner of N. Tryon and Fifth Sts. Designed by Gottfrid L. Norrman (1846-1909), the building housed all city services, including the police department and the fire department. 1 By the early 1920s, Charlotte had outgrown this facility. Consequently, James Oscar Walker (1879-1947), who was elected Mayor on May 3, 1921, advocated the construction of a new municipal complex. The City purchased an entire block on East Ave, now E. Trade St., in the midst of what was then a fashionable residential area. 2 Interestingly, the Charlotte Observer proposed that the Board of County Commissioners sell the courthouse, situated on S. Tryon St., and join with the City in erecting a single structure on this location. Happily for Mayor Walker, who did not favor this proposition, the citizens rejected the idea of a joint facility at the polls on July 28, 1923. 3

On January 26, 1924, City Council authorized Mayor Walker to negotiate a contract with Charles Christian Hook (1870-1938) to design the new city hall. 4 A native of Wheeling, W. Va., and graduate of Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., Hook was the first architect who lived in Charlotte. He moved here in 1891 to teach mechanical drawing in the Charlotte Graded School, which stood at the corner of South Blvd. and E. Morehead St. By 1892, he was designing structures for the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, the developers of Dilworth. 5 C. C. Hook occupied a place of pivotal importance in the evolution of the built environment of Charlotte, N.C. Indeed, he introduced the Colonial Revival style in this community and, consequently, established the aesthetic norm which dominated the architecture of the affluent suburbs of Charlotte. 6 The Charlotte City Hall is the most imposing public building of this genre which Hook designed.

The complex consisted of four structures. An administrative building, commonly known as the City Hall. was placed in the middle of the block, thereby allowing for future expansion. A fire station, a police station and public health building were constructed along the southern edge of the property. Governmental agencies occupied the new facilities on October 30, 1925, and the initial meeting of City Council occurred there on November 1, 1925. 7 The J. A. Jones Construction Co. erected the four structures. 8 Mayor Walker had resigned on December 4, 1924, so that he might devote his energies more fully to the management of an automobile dealership which he owned in Columbia, S.C. The Charlotte News was expansive in its praise of Mayor Walker, stating that he was a man “gifted with a disposition that makes for affability.” The newspaper went on to explain, however, that Mayor Walker had his share of detractors. “His have been accomplishing administrations, and, of course, as is always the case, progress and progressive policies bring about disaffections and cause sore toes,” the article explained. 9

Unquestionably, the decision to transfer municipal headquarters from N. Tryon St. to the residential district on E. Trade St., was of pivotal importance in terms of the physical history of this city. In addition to its symbolic significance, the placement of City Hall at this new location set into motion a series of forces which eroded the viability of the surrounding neighborhood. Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that the Board of County Commissioners did dedicate a new courthouse on an adjacent parcel on March 10, 1928. 10 City Council selected the site on E. Trade St. for the City Hall because it was, “one of the most beautiful wooded areas of the city wooded in the city.” 11

 

 


Notes:

1 Henry F. Withey & Elsie Rathburn Withey, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased) (Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., Los Angeles, 1970). p. 444.

2 Charlotte Observer (May 4, 1921), p. 1. The Charlotte News (February 10, 1924), pp. 1 & 5. The Charlotte News (October 31, 1947), pp. 1A & 12A. Charlotte Observer (November 1, 1947), pp. 1 & 3. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 547, p. 265.

3 Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

4 City Council Minute Book 17, Page 357.

5 The Charlotte News (September 17, 1938), p. 12. Charlotte Observer (April 3, 1892), p. 4. George Welch, a resident of Charlotte, did design several structures in the city in the 1870s, including Second Presbyterian Church, the opera house and the jail. Apparently, Welch was not a professional architect (The Charlotte News (April 15, 1901), p. 1.).

6 Charlotte Observer (Sept. 19, 1894), p. 4.

7 City Council Minute Book 179 p. 508. City Council Minute Book 18, p. 295.

8 Charlotte Observer (July 10, 1924), p. 6. Charlotte Observer (Nov. 1, 1925), sec. E., p. 5. J. A. Jones, a native of Randolph County, N.C., moved to Charlotte in the spring of 1888.

9 City Council Minute Book 18, p. 57. The Charlotte News (December 5, 1924), p. 4.

10 Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

11 The Charlotte News (February 10, 1924), pp. 1 & 5.

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Charlotte City Hall does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the structure has served as the seat of municipal government for approximately fifty-five years and is, therefore, the symbolic landmark of Charlotte’s governmental agencies; 2) it is one of the finest local examples of the beaux-arts Classicism style; and 3) it was designed by Charles Christian Hook, Charlotte’s first resident architect and an architect of regional importance.

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

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The Ad Valorem Tax appraisal on the 3.290 acres of land is $787,710. The Ad Valorem Tax appraisal on the improvements is $1,819,120. The property is exempt from the payment of Ad Valorem Taxes.

 


Bibliography

Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill. “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

The Charlotte News.

The Charlotte Observer.

City Council Minute Books 17 and 18.

Gravestones in Elmwood Cemetery, Charlotte, N.C.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Henry F. Withey & Elsie Rathburn Withey, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased) (Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., Los Angeles, 1970).

 

Date of Preparation of this Report: February 6, 1980.

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
3500 Shamrock Dr.
Charlotte, N.C. 28215

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description
 

Construction of the Charlotte City Hall, located at 600 East Trade Street, was begun in the summer of 1924 after designs by Charles C. Hook. The building was occupied officially on October 29, 1925, during the administration of Mayor H. W. Moore. This municipal building was one of four edifices that were erected simultaneously on the spacious block bounded by East Avenue (East Trade Street) and South Davidson, South Alexander, and Fourth Streets. The other structures were the Fire Department on the southwest corner, the Court Building or Police Department on the southeast corner, and the Health and Welfare Department, it being placed to the rear of the central administration building.

City Hall was placed approximately in the middle of the block facing to the north so that it could be enlarged if needed without increasing the height or resorting to other purchases of land. The land in front of the building was to serve as a park-like setting for the structure as well as a place where the public could assemble for official speeches. Wide curved walkways lead from either side of the grounds to the front of the municipal building and to a massive granite stairway bounded on both sides by balustrades with turned members and ornamental, round, limestone impost blocks.

Hook chose one of the most commonly employed styles for governmental buildings during that period for the design – beaux-arts Classicism. The plan is a rather simple and symmetrical rectangle (166 feet long by 70 feet wide) typical of that style. The building, of steel frame, rises three stories with a basement and an attic space.

The entrance facade is divided into eleven bays with the seven central bays being set-back to provide a break to the otherwise continuous front plane. The first story or ground floor is articulated with rusticated well-dressed ashlar masonry of buff Indiana limestone. It is pierced by eleven symmetrically placed arched openings which have no pronounced keystone. The central, recessed section contains five entranceways, the esplanade being flanked on either side by a blind archway. The two projecting sections each contain two arched windows. Window sills are of white pine painted white. The original wrought iron drill doors to City Hall have been replaced with fireproof glass and steel frame doors, these being most incongruous with the design of the facade.

A pronounced beltcourse and balustrade divide the first story from the second. The second and third stories of the central section of the front facade are joined by colossal, fluted, Corinthian limestone columns which rise from bases in the balustrade. There are six pairs of columns flanked by a single column on either side, all of which have straight bases and standard entasis in the upper sections. The capitals of the monumental order closely resemble those of the Tower of the Winds, Athens, whose capitals are of a plain, unusual type, without volutes, the upper row of leaves resembling those of the palm. The central sections of the second and third stories are set back from the row of columns, each floor being pierced by seven rectangular windows. The bays are divided by paired pilasters flanked by single pilasters, all of which are located directly behind the free standing columns and which bear similar Corinthian capitals. The windows between the two stories are separated by plain paneled blocks. The architrave and frieze are unadorned excepting for roundels placed over each abacus.

The projecting side bays are smooth-walled and contain two rectangular windows on both stories. The spandrels are ornamented with floral swags crowned by rosettes. The cornice contains pronounced dentil work which extends the course of the building; the balustrade also runs the extent of the edifice’s flat roof. Both provide continuity and fluidity to the projecting and receding planes and to the broken rhythm of the columned center section of the facade.

The South Davidson (west) entrance is reached by granite stairs flanked by round limestone impost blocks. The rusticated limestone facade is divided into five bays, the ground floor consisting of four arched windows and a centrally located arched doorway, the door proper not being original to the building. The first story is distinguished from the upper sections by a pronounced beltcourse. Five symmetrically placed rectangular windows pierce the second and third stories; the spandrels are adorned with swags capped with rosettes. The cornice work and balustrade are continuous and unifying features of the building.

The South Alexander (east) facade of City Hall is identical to the west facade.

The land slopes downward on the rear (south) side of the building so that the basement is exposed, it containing the entrance to this facade. This seven-bayed entrance area is shielded by a copper marquise on a steel frame (now painted white). The scheme of the upper three stories of this facade is similar to the front facade. The first story is rusticated and contains a seven-bayed recessed central section with arched windows flanked by two bays containing arched windows. The second and third stories bear no free standing order but are articulated by colossal Corinthian pilasters and symmetrically placed rectangular windows. The projecting double-bayed sections of the facade are pierced by rectangular windows separated by spandrels containing swags and rosettes. Unadorned architrave and frieze, dentil work, and balustrade (closed in the central section) define the uppermost sections of the building.

The lobby, which is entered immediately from the East Trade Street side, runs the length of the central section of the facade. The exterior bays are defined on the interior by exposed ceiling beams which are met by fluted, marble pilasters located both between the arched entrance openings and the service desks directly opposite them. Wide marble staircases located to the sides of the central entrance area rise in two flights with one landing to the second and third floors. A staircase, located under the northwest set, descends to the basement, which housed the central heating plant (now offices also). The lobby continues to each side of the central service area and leads to the two side entrances facing South Davidson and South Alexander Streets.

The lobby, with the exception of the entrance doors, has been kept basically in its original state. The main floor and corridors are finished in pink Tennessee marble. The pilasters, arched door frames capped with ornamental scrolls, and wainscoting on all walls also consist of the light-colored marble. The wainscoting is trimmed with a chair rail and baseboard of verde antique marble the upper sections of the walls being plastered. The staircases, with turned newel posts, duplicate the marble band arrangement on the walls. Handrails are of polished hardwood while the railing is of wrought iron painted a dark green.

Two arched elevators, located in the west corridor, are framed with light-colored marble and capped with scrolls. The segmental pediments are of verde antique marble with round, light-colored marble indicators. The doors themselves are not original.

The four service windows and centrally located doorway (door not original) are occupied by revenue and accounting departments devoted to the collection of taxes and water and light fees. The large windows are framed by polished copper, fluted pilasters and classical detailing carrying a straight entablature. The desks from which the pilasters rise are of light-colored marble; the baseboards are trimmed with verde antique marble.

The 15′-10″ plaster ceiling bays are defined by rectangular panels into which are set the original light fixtures. The cross beams and cornices contain two decorative bands, the lower consisting of a fret motif, the upper of a stylized, foliated scroll pattern. The cross beams also bear an upper band which contains a row of dentil work topped by delicate egg and dart decoration.

The other floors of the building have been altered from their original state and function. Entrances to the upper floors from the staircases are closed with fireproof doors. The 15′-8″ second story and 12′-10″ third story ceilings have been lowered. Walls are often sheathed in fabric, and the composition floors are carpeted.

The mayor’s office at the northeast corner of the second floor appears to be one of the few offices kept in something of its original state. Its plaster ceiling is intact and is articulated with cross beams and decorative wreaths. The walls are of American black walnut (all other interior wood trimming is of white pine). A fireplace with a central cartouche and floral consoles adorns the south wall of the office.

The second floor also originally housed a Confederate museum located in the north-central section as well as a veterans’ assembly room in the northwest corner of the building.

Charlotte City Hall should be protected from further damage and alteration. The exterior of the structure has been well preserved (with the exception of the entrance doors) and is a fine example of a restrained and elegant use of beaux-arts Classicism. Its grounds should also be preserved as they greatly compliment and provide a park-like setting for the building. The first floor lobby with its rich marble textures and colors, the classical pilasters, ornamented cross beams and the copper-framed service windows should also be preserved.


Cedar Grove House

Hugh Torance House and Store

Mill Ruin

This report was written on 22 April 1993

1. Name and location of the properties: The properties known as Cedar Grove and the Hugh Torrance House and Store are located on Gilead Road, Huntersville, in Mecklenburg County , North Carolina.

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

Mr. and Mrs. Richard Torrance Banks
PO Box 122
8229 Gilead Rd.
Huntersville, North Carolina 28078

Telephone: 704 /875-0774

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

4. Maps depicting the locations of the properties: This report contains maps which depict the locations of the properties.

 

 

5. Current deed book references to the properties: Cedar Grove Tax Parcel Number 009-061-01 is not listed in the Mecklenburg County deed books. The most recent reference to the second Cedar Grove property, Tax Parcel Number 015-091-04, is listed in Mecklenburg County Will Book W23 at page 77. The most recent reference to Cedar Grove Tax Parcel Number 009-061-07 is listed in Mecklenburg County Will Book W23 at page 77. The most recent reference to the Hugh Torrance House and Store, Tax Parcel Number 009-061-09, is listed in Mecklenburg County Will Book W23 at page 77.

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

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

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the properties meet criteria for designation set forth in NCGS 160A-400.5:

 

a. Special significance in terms of history, architecture, and cultural importance: The Commission judges that the properties known as Cedar Grove and the Hugh Torrance House and Store do possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following Considerations: 1) the Hugh Torrance House and Store was built between 1780 and the early 1800s, and Cedar Grove was constructed between 1831 and 1833; 2) the Hugh Torrance House and Store is one of the few houses to survive from the eighteenth century settlement period of the county; 3) Cedar Grove is one of the premier Greek Revival houses remaining in the county and the Piedmont; 4) because of their physical and historical associations, these two properties offer a unique picture of agricultural life in Mecklenburg County from the settlement period through the antebellum era; 5) the two houses, and their various construction campaigns, illustrate clearly the evolution of residential architecture in the county during early periods, for which little remains; 6) both houses are remarkably intact, retaining important characteristic interior and exterior features, including original floor plans, decorative elements, hardware, and woodwork.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association: The Commission contends that the architectural descriptions by Ms. Frances P. Alexander included in this report demonstrate that Cedar Grove and the Hugh Torrance House and Store meet this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the properties which become designated historic landmarks. The current appraised value of the improvements to Cedar Grove is $144,600. The current appraised value of the improvements to the Hugh Torrance House and Store is $6,880. The current appraised value of Cedar Grove Tax Parcel 015-091-04 is $54,750. The current appraised value of Cedar Grove Tax Parcel 009-061-01 is $193,160. The current appraised value of Cedar Grove Tax Parcel 009-061-07 is $86,880. The total appraised value of the three parcels of the Cedar Grove property is $479,390. The current appraised value of the Hugh Torrance House and Store, Tax Parcel 009-061-09, is $15,000. The total appraised value of the Hugh Torrance House and Store property is $21,880. Tax Parcel Numbers 009-061-01 and 00906109 are zoned RU. Tax Parcel Number 009-061-07 and Tax Parcel Number 015-091-04 are zoned R3.

Date of preparation of this report: 22 April 1993

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill
in conjunction with
Ms. Frances P. Alexander
and Ms. Paula M. Stathakis
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
P.O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: 704 /376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview
 

Cedar Grove and the Hugh Torrance House and Store were one part of a large financial concern owned and managed by the Torrance family. The first member of this family in Mecklenburg County was Hugh Torance, who came to the area in the late eighteenth century. Hugh and his son James accumulated a substantial tract of land and by 1840 owned over one hundred slaves; a concentration of wealth that was not common for this area. Although some plantations thrived in Mecklenburg in the nineteenth century, the more common enterprise for the region was small, and usually subsistence farming. Planters commonly defined as those who owned twenty or more slaves were more prevalent in Eastern North Carolina, in Virginia, in the South Carolina low country, and in the black belt regions of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Hugh Torance (1743-1816) emigrated to the American colonies from Ireland c. 1763. 1 A letter written by his minister in Five Mile Town in the Parish of Clogher and County Tyrone vouched that “Hugh Torance is an unmarried person and descended from honest and reputable parents and from infancy lived in ye bounds of the Protestant Dissenting Congregation of this place and always behaved himself orderly and supported a very fair church is certified by Thomas Boyle (?) D.D.” 2 It is not known what ship brought Hugh Torance to America, or where he first landed. It is known that he and his brother Albert came together, and the family believes that they came as indentured servants. Hugh lived in Pennsylvania for several years. Shortly after the outbreak of the American Revolution, Hugh took an oath of allegiance to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. 3

Hugh joined the revolutionary forces and fought in North Carolina in a light cavalry company, the “Partisan Chargers” led by Captain Galbraith Falls who was killed on June 20, 1780 at the Battle of Ramsour’s Mill. 4 Records show that Hugh was a disbursing agent for Falls’ militia and probably stayed in the army until 1781. 5

After the war, Hugh married Captain Falls’ widow, Isabella Kerr Falls (1783-1816). He and Isabella and her eight children lived briefly in Rowan County where Hugh had a store. They had one child together, James Galbraith Torrence (1784-1847).

According to land records, Hugh Torance was active in Mecklenburg County by 1779. He purchased 667 acres in that year, and by the 1790s, was in a position to purchase over 500 acres during the course of the decade. By the time of his death he had accumulated over 1400 acres. 6 In Rowan County, Hugh was a merchant, but he became a planter in Mecklenburg. The building currently designated as the Torrance House and Store is the first of two structures Hugh built to accommodate his family.

The inventory of Hugh Torance’s estate shows that he owned a substantial amount of livestock: sixty cows, twelve horses, forty-six sheep, and 150 hogs, as well as their offspring . In terms of real and personal property, Hugh Torance owned 1400 acres, thirty-three slaves. The estate had $1500.00 cash on hand. 7

Hugh’s youngest son James acquired all of the property in Mecklenburg County and focused most of his financial interests in a dry goods store that he opened in 1805. James purchased most of his initial inventory from merchants in Philadelphia. According to the recipts from his first buying trip in May and June, 1805, James spent nearly $4000.00 to purchase ribbons, cloths, buttons, dishes, jugs, tools, kettles, shovels, curry combs, rat traps and hardware. 8

Torrence suplied articles to his North Mecklenburg customers that they could not manufacture themselves, which suggests that the majority of his patrons concentrated in agricultural production. James Torrence extended credit for his customers for periods ranging from one day to one month. 9 His customers frequently paid him in cotton or sometimes in land. Cash was usually used as a method of partial payment. Sometimes customers traded in other commodities such as lard or powder in exchange for merchandise. 10 During this time cash would have been scarce for most of Torrence’s middling neighbors. Economic relations based on barter and exchange indicate that the area was not connected with a market economy during the period that Torrence owned his store, and probably was not for a significant period afterward. 11

Torrence sold the store in 1825 to Samuel McCombs of Charlotte; according to family legend, his daughters convniced him that it was beneath a man of his stature to engage in trade. Besides his store, James also ran a large plantation with a saw mill on site. During James’ life, the Torrence plantation expanded to approximately 3000 acres. 12 James grew primarily cotton and corn, but also grew the provisions and livestock necessary to maintain a large plantation.

Plantations were rare in Mecklenburg and seem to have been concentrated in the northwestern section of the county. Other substantial landowners in the vicinity were the Lattas, the McDowells, the Davidsons, and the Alexanders. Slave holding was common in Mecklenburg County, but the Torrences and their landed peers frequently owned thirty or more slaves, which was an exceptional number for this area. 13

Unfortunately, very little information about the Torrence family slaves survives in the family papers. A notebook titled “Ages of Negroes” is the only surviving inventory of the slave population on the Torrence Plantation. According to this notebook, James Torrence owned 125 slaves, excluding two who were marked as dead and three who were struck from the lists. 14 The Torrence slaves sometimes shopped at local merchants using Torrence’s account for dry goods. Invoices from Andrew Springs show that slaves had purchased calico, buttons, shoes, bonnets, suspenders, tin cups, coffee, sugar and turpentine. 15

The Torrence family seldom mentioned their slaves in their correspondence. In the surviving records, James Torrence makes no personal notes regarding his slaves; he only mentions them in the 1840 inventory, and in his will, as some slaves were given to his children. His son Hugh alluded to a problem slave in a letter to his father in 1838: “I have a negro in the woods he may attempt to go back though I cannot tell. It is Dick. I undertook to whip him a few days ago and when I called him up – he took to the woods. He is a great rascal. If I ever get him, I will sell him — for I believe he will spoil every negro we have if I keep him.” 16 James’ twelve year old daughter Jane Elizabeth writing from Salem Female Academy in 1835 closed her letter by asking her father to “Tell the black people howdy for me.” 17 During the Civil War, James Torrances’ widow Margaret wrote to her son Richard that her “darkeys are doing very well. Some of the negroes in this quarter have left their masters to try the Yankees.” 18

There is no complete record of overseers, and no record of there being one before 1849. It appears that from 1849-1851 a new overseer was hired every year. 19 This kind of turnover was not unusual. Planters dismissed overseers for a range of different reasons: leniency or cruelty to slaves, drunkenness, and failure to make a good crop. 20 In 1862, Margaret Torrance, James Torrance’s widow, hired James Brown to oversee the plantation. Brown stayed with the family until 1865. The contract between James Brown and Margaret Torrance illustrates the usual responsibilities of overseers. Brown agreed to enforce eighteen provisions in exchange for $210.00, and the use of a milk cow and a horse.

Brown’s primary responsibilities involved monitoring the slaves’ work and protecting the Torrance’s property. Slaves were to begin their day early enough to feed the stock and prepare their own breakfast. Brown was to follow the slaves to their work to make sure that they went on task. Slaves stayed at work until sundown. In the summer, field hands received a two hour break at midday, and one hour in the fall and spring. The slave cabins were inspected at least once a week at night “to keep the negroes from running about”, and no one was allowed out of their cabin without permission. On Saturday evenings, women were allowed to spend two hours to wash their laundry and all hands were expected to appear on Monday mornings with “comb head and clean clothes unless prevented by circumstances.” Brown was also responsible for the maintenance and health of livestock. He supervised gearing horses and had to account for the condition of gear, wagons and tools. 21

The primary role of slaves on the Torrance Plantation was to produce cotton. There are no complete records of cotton production, but some indication of the plantations cotton output exists in the receipts of cotton sales from 1816-1846. In 1816, cotton gins could press between 285-325 pounds of cotton. A receipt form a Charleston broker indicates that, in June 1816, cotton sold between 30 cents per pound to 22 cents per pound for an inferior grade. Thus in one exchange on June 22, 1816, James Torrance made $94.69 from three bales (after paying hauling and storage charges to the broker). The price of cotton declined steadily during the 1820s and 1830s. In order to continue to make a profit, Torrance had to focus on growing more cotton and had to take more cotton to market at a time to make the trip worth his while. Torrance usually traded with cotton brokers in Charleston, Fayetteville, and Columbia. By 1843, Torrance’s receipts show that the price of cotton had plunged to five and a quarter cents per pound. In May 1843, Torrance sold 150 bales weighing 54,055 pounds an average of 360 pounds per bale at five and a quarter cents per pound to make $2325.40. In 1827 when Torrance was paid nine cents per pound, he could make $2000.00 from 69 bales. Towards the end of his life, cotton prices rose slightly, but the latest receipt in his files, from 1846 shows that he did not make more than nine and three eights cents per pound. 22

In addition to cotton, James Torrance also raised sheep for wool. Other major crops included corn and wheat. He built a water-powered saw mill and grist mill in 1824. He sawed lumber for himself and his neighbors. 23

The Torrance Plantation supported a large number of people. James Torrance had a big family as well as over one hundred slaves. Torrance was married three times. He married his first wife, Nancy Davidson, in 1809. Nancy was the daughter of Ephraim and Jane Brevard Davidson of Mount Mourne (a plantation that was formerly in Mecklenburg County, but is now in Iredell County). James and Nancy had five children: Jane Adeline (1811-1820), Catherine Camilla (b. 1814), Isabella Malvina (1818-1893), Hugh Jr., and James Franklin (1816-1869). Nancy Davidson Torrence died of “typhus” in 1818 at the age of 26. 24

James Torrance remarried in 1821 to Mary Latta, daughter of James and Jane Latta of Hopewell. 25 James had two children with Mary Latta: William Latta (1822-1852) and Jane Elizabeth (1823-1844). Mary Latta Torrence died in 1824.

In 1827, James Torrence married for the third and final time. Margaret Allison was the daughter of Richard and Letitia Neil Allison of Statesville. Margaret and James had six children: Letitia (b. 1828), Mary (b. 1829), Delia (b. 1831). Richard (1833-1927), Sarah Jane (b. 1826), and John (1839-1904). Margaret Torrance died in 1880, surviving her husband by thirty-three years.

Cedar Grove, the extant plantation house currently occupied by Richard Allison Torrance’s grandson, Richard Banks, was built by James Torrance in 1831 for Margaret Torrance. Cedar Grove was built on the same site as a brick house built by Hugh Torance in 1784. Much of the lumber for Cedar Grove was processed on site by James Torrance’s saw mill. The bricks for the house were also made on site. Brick making was directed by master mason V. Rivafavoli. According to James Torrance’s account book kept during the construction of Cedar Grove, Rivafavoli and a crew of slaves made 12,000 bricks between October 3, 1830 and May 5, 1831. In total, Rivafavoli made over 20,000 bricks. 26

The master builders and carpenters for the house were David Hampton and Jacob Shuman. The staircase is said to show the influence of the Stirewalt style. Stirewalt was a master builder in Rowan County, and Hampton and Shuman may have apprenticed with him. The stairs are made of walnut and are the only part of the house that was not built from material that was gathered and processed on site. Most of the hardware in the house came from Philadelphia as did most of the original furniture. 27

By the time Cedar Grove was completed, most of the children from James Torrance’s first marriage had moved away. James Franklin, Hugh Jr., and Isabella and her husband Frank Smith moved to plantations in Mississippi by 1837. The other surviving child from his first marriage, Catherine Camilla, married William A. Latta of York County, SC.

Several letters survive from Hugh Jr., James Franklin, and Isabella that describe their lives in the Mississippi wilderness. By the 1830s, many planters moved westward in search of more fertile farmland. Torrance’s children established cotton plantations in Coffeeville, Mississippi. It was the steady westward expansion of plantation agriculture based on slave labor that ultimately ignited the political debate over free and slave territories that set the nation on the course toward the Civil War.

Coffeeville, Mississippi was a world away from Cedar Grove. The Torrance children exchanged an established plantation lifestyle for log cabins arid rough society. Isabella wrote to her sister Camilla that her new home was a cabin with so many cracks in the walls that the wind blew through them constantly. James Franklin commented that Mississippi was relatively uncivilized: “the people here are particularly fond of using the Bowye knife and fire arms- not less than four or five cases have occurred in this county since we got here in most of which sum man has lost his life.” 28

Although the soil in Mississippi was better-suited for cotton agriculture than in Mecklenburg County, James Torrance’s eldest sons had a difficult time establishing themselves on their new plantations. In the spring of 1838, Hugh Jr. wrote to his father that in the previous year he had raised thirty one (480 pound) bales of cotton and 4000 bushels of corn. At that time, prospects for the Torrances looked good as Hugh Jr. wrote to his father that Mississippi land would entice him away from Cedar Grove, “I think that you would be tempted to leave your clay hills – I am convinced that your negroes would make you more here in one year after the first than you can make there in three. Our land will produce 1000-1500 pounds of cotton to the acre a hand can work eight acres and will bring about 1200 pounds if well worked.” 29

In spite of these advantages, Mississippi was a hard place to make a living. James Franklin and Hugh Jr. managed to make large cotton crops, but they found that it was frequently difficult to get the cotton to market. They depended largely on river transport to take the crop to market, but, the river was often too low for them to move the cotton out or to take it very far. 30 It was preferable to get the crop to New Orleans for the best price. Unfortunately, there were no railroad lines in Mississippi until 1850, and none that ran near Coffeeville until 1860. Cotton had to be hauled by wagon to market, an expensive and difficult undertaking. The Torrences frequently had to sell their cotton in Mississippi which meant they were paid in Mississippi currency. Mississippi money was worthless out of the state, and James Franklin estimated that it was worth 10%-20% less than North Carolina currency. The death of the National Bank in 1833 and the absence of bank regulation contributed to the financial troubles the Torrences encountered.

The Torrence boys’ financial problems were compounded by the fact that they owed debts in Mecklenburg County and were unable to pay them with Mississippi currency. They were forced to ask their father to carry these debts for them, which James Torrance did, in addition to his own debts. Although James and Hugh’s cotton crop was enormous, especially compared to what their father was able to produce, the enthusiasm of their early letters quickly waned and changed to laments that they were unable to make a profit. Isabella wrote in 1840 that “Times are very hard here indeed.” Cotton sold for four cents a pound, and many of their neighbors had lost their plantations. 31

Isabella Torrence Smith probably suffered the most in Mississippi. Her husband, Frank Smith, died shortly after they moved there, leaving Isabella, their infant daughter, and a few slaves to manage a new plantation alone. At the time of Frank Smiths death, Isabella’s brother Hugh Jr. wrote to his father that she was nearly four thousand dollars in debt. At first, it seems that Isabella was determined to stay in Mississippi with her brothers, and at least make enough to satisfy her creditors. However, most of her letters home indicate that she preferred to return to Cedar Grove. She encountered the same financial difficulties as her brothers, and could not afford to return. Hugh Jr. urged his father to come for Isabella because she was lonely in Mississippi. 32 Isabella returned to Mecklenburg County in 1840. She married Rufus Reid, a neighboring planter and family friend, and they had six children. 33

Nothing in Isabella’s upbringing prepared her for life in the Mississippi wilderness. She described a camp meeting to her father as a disorderly, loud and unrefined affair, like everything else in the state. 34 She and her sister Camilla were raised in the relatively refined society of northern Mecklenburg County. They were sent to Salem Female Academy in Salem, N. Carolina, and Camilla also studied at Lucretia Sarazen’s School in Philadelphia. From girlhood, they were trained to think and behave according to the standards of their social station. Camilla moved within the same circles in Yorkville, South Carolina. Isabella’s log cabin on her Coffeeville plantation, in an unsettled area that relied on camp meetings as it had no established church proved to be territory for which Isabella was uniquely ill-suited.

Salem Academy was established in 1802 by the Moravian community and was the first boarding school for girls in North Carolina. 35 At Salem Female Academy, Torrances’ daughters were instructed in the curriculum approved for young ladies: grammar, geography, history, drawing, embroidery, sewing, and music. Competency in these subjects prepared the daughters of the elite for their roles as plantation mistresses for whom basic knowledge was as important as the fine arts.

Letters from James Torrance’s daughter Jane suggest that music was her favorite subject. In all of her surviving letters from school, she never fails to mention which pieces she has learned for recitals. Like all students away from home she also never failed to ask for more pocket money. The effects of the school on her social maturation and refinement are evident in her letters to her father over the course of three years. At eleven she wrote about the teeth she had to have pulled, and in the next paragraph requested that her parents send her a box of cakes, locks of their hair, and money. Within a few years, her letters assumed the tone of a young lady of privilege asking her father to “Give my love to all my dear acquaintances and friends when you see them. I remain your affectionate and dutiful daughter until death.” 36

Before the Torrance children were sent away to school, they were tutored at home. The community would sometimes hire a tutor and give him lodging and a school house as part of his salary to instruct the young boys of the area. Young girls were usually tutored in their homes. 37 William Latta Torrence was the first of James Torrance’s sons to have access to college. He was one of the first students at Davidson College and later attended the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. James Torrance was one of the initial subscribers to Davidson College. 38

Richard Allison Torrance, a son from James Torrance’s third marriage, was tutored as a child by Peter Stuart Ney. Ney is alleged by some to have been Napoleon’s field marshal Michel Ney. Although there is no evidence to support this claim, this romantic belief in Ney’s origins has been sustained. Ney taught at a school in Mineral Springs. A notebook belonging to Richard Torrance while he was a student of Ney’s in 1844 survives in the family papers. This notebook, kept when Richard was eleven years old, is primarily an exercise book for spelling and writing. Richard Torrance copied lines written by Ney such as ” Practice writing Richard Torrance; Rich men should be kind to poor men; Command your hand and pen Richard; Take more Pains or you will have no gains; Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Ney’s elaborate and beautiful penmanship is followed by the scrawled lines of the young boy’s effort. 39

Richard Torrance completed his studies at the University of North Carolina. Little is known of his academic life there, but Richard spent considerable time trying to impress young women. On two occasions, Richard hired George Moses Horton to compose flattering acrostics to the current girl of his dreams. Horton was a slave who had taught himself to read and write, and had a talent for poetry. He earned extra money by composing love poems on demand for Chapel Hill students and eventually published three books of verse. Horton charged twenty-five to fifty cents to students to compose acrostics for their sweethearts. Hortons popularity quickly grew to the point that he was able to parley his talent into a cottage industry. In his biography, he wrote that “I have composed love pieces in verse for courtiers from all parts of the state and acrostics on the names of the tip-top belles of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.” Richard Torrance commissioned two acrostics from Horton. “Inimitable Beauty” was composed for Sophia Alexander, daughter of a wealthy Mecklenburg County planter who was not swayed by this token and married John Sample of Tennessee instead. Another acrostic was sent to a Mary McClean in an unsuccessful attempt to win her affection. 40

Little is known about Margaret Allison Torrance, even though she became mother to all of James Torrance’s children and lived until 1880. Considerable historical inquiry has been made regarding the role of the plantation mistress, but Margaret Torrance did not leave journals or records behind except a few letters that give any insight into her life. 41 Current scholarship shows that plantation women assumed several different roles. As ladies, they were expected to be beautiful, refined, genteel, and versed in poetry and music. As managers of the plantation household, they had to clothe and manage the slaves, nurse the sick, supervise butchering and personally prepare and cure meat, and run the plantation in the absence of their husbands. After the death of James G. Torrance in 1847, Margaret Torrance managed Cedar Grove until her death (after the Civil War, her son John assisted her).

Richard Torrance married Bettie E. Reid, daughter of Rufus and Betsy Latta Davidson Reid, on November 26, 1856. He moved to Texas where he purchased land on the Brazos River in Fort Bend County, and Bettie stayed behind at Cedar Grove. Richard Torrance’s 1860 property assessment shows that he owned 640 acres, nineteen slaves and livestock valued at $27,000.00. 42

The separation was difficult for Bettie Torrance. In a letter to her son, Margaret Torrance reminded him that Bettie was very lonely at Cedar Grove, but she did not believe that Bettie would be happy in Texas. 43 Bettie eventually moved to Texas to join her husband, and shortly after she arrived, contracted a fever and died in September 1861, leaving him with two young daughters.

Both Richard and John Torrance served in the Confederate forces during the Civil War. At first, many Southerners hailed the War with great enthusiasm. Margaret Torrance was no exception when she wrote to Richard in 1861 that as of July, there were no close Torrance relations in service, but, “…nearly all of our most respectable neighbors have friends in the fields batteling for our rights. We may say that the flowre of our land are in the army. All the lower class are hanging back, nothing short of a draft will bring them into service.” 44 In October, 1861, John Torrance wrote to his brother “I have joined that army expect to leave home in a few days, probably never to return. I hope and trust I may, if I fall you must come and take care of those left behind.” 45 Richard Torrance joined the service shortly afterward with Terry’s Eighth Texas Rangers, a cavalry company that fought under Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Any enthusiasm the Torrance family had for the war definitely waned within the year. Margaret Torrance, faced with the harsh reality of having two sons in the army wrote to Richard in 1862, “Oh how often I think of you and John, when I get down to eat, particularly. I can have my tabal groaning and plenty to spare and think of my dear boyes, faring so scantily. It brings the tears to my cheek while writing. And now I do not know if you are in the land of the living or not.” She continued that she had recently read about the engagement of the Texas Rangers at Murfreesboro and the heavy Confederate losses there, “I can not help feeling like it was uncertain, whether I am writing to the living or the dead.” She could not know at the time she wrote this letter that Richard had been wounded at Murfreesboro, and lost a leg as a consequence. She reported in the letter that John had been wounded in Richmond, but was recovering. Unlike her inference a year before that all of the right sort had volunteered to fight for Southern rights, she indicated that she was actively looking for substitutes for both Richard and John, “I would give a negro a piece to get a substitute for you and John.” Her troubles were further complicated by the fact that her overseer, James Brown, had been drafted; she could not afford to lose him either. 46

Richard and John returned from the war, but the Torrance family did not escape from the ordeal unscathed. James Rufus Reid, son of Rufus and Isabella Torrence Smith was killed at Manassas, Virginia on November 1, 1861 at age sixteen. All of their slaves were freed and ceased to be personal property, and the value of their land decreased. There is only one recorded incident of a former slave contracting to work at Cedar Grove. 47

John Torrance returned to Cedar Grove where he lived until his death in 1904 Richard Torrance remarried in 1865 to Patience Eliza Gaston of Chester, SC. Eliza lived in Texas for a short time in 1867, but she returned to live alternately with her mother in Chester and with her mother-in-law at Cedar Grove, only periodically visiting Texas as long as Richard was there. Richard hoped to sell his farm in order to settle in North or South Carolina with is new wife and family. He was unable to leave Texas permanently until 1868. His primary problem was that his debts had exceeded that value of the property. He also had tremendous difficulty finding labor for his farm.

Immediately after the war, freed slaves preferred to work for themselves rather than for planters. Many former slaves did not remain in the areas near their plantations, and those who did did not work on the same schedule that they were forced to observe as slaves. Emancipation made agricultural labor very expensive, and planters’ primary concern from 1865-1870 was finding enough labor that would work efficiently and cheaply. The planters lament during this period was that black labor, was “indifferent, inefficient, and simply unreliable.” 48 Many historians beheve that during this period, the ex-slaves attempted to assert their independence and work according to the same schedule and routine as white farmers. The deviation in the work patterns expected of blacks caused whites to accuse them of laziness. The economic insecurity of the freedmen ultimately forced them to accept contracts as tenant farmers or sharecroppers. 49

In 1867, a series of letters to Eliza demonstrates the scope of the labor shortage for people like Richard. There was no one in his region to hire, which forced Richard Torrance to travel to contract labor for his plantation. Eliza received letters from Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia between January 13, 1867 and February 9, 1867, each letter reporting that it was necessary for Richard to move farther east, then north in search of tenant farmers or sharecroppers. His letter from Hampton, Virginia begins “I reckon you will think I have gone stark mad, sure enough, and maybe I have, but I am still trying to get hands.” 50

Eliza returned to Chester in 1868 with the children, and Richard faithfully wrote to her and she to him regarding his progress on the farm and how much he missed his family. He wrote that he wished they could live together, but “poverty prevents”, and that he expected to only make a “few” bales of cotton, and 2000 or 3000 bushels of corn, “barely enough to pay for making the crop.” 51

Richard had serious financial problems. As he explained in a letter to Eliza, the postwar value of his property had plummeted, “…when this war began my property was worth $75,000.00, now I aint worth a $1000.00-debts all paid I aint worth a dollar.” 52 The invasion of the “cotton worm” destroyed most of Richard’s cotton crop for 1868; he anticipated that he would only make two bales that year. 53

In spite of their difficult situation, Richard and Eliza had reason to celebrate. Their second child was born in 1868. Richard wrote to Eliza in September, “Nineteen days have passed since your last of August 27 was written and I suppose that dreaded time is passed also with you. I do hope and trust safely for you both.” 54 Circumstances continued to improve for Richard and Eliza Torrance.

In October, he wrote to inform her that he would be home by December. He planned to bring Bettie’s remains with him because he could not bear to leave them in Texas. Richard intended to rent Eliza’s mothers farm as he did not believe that Cedar Grove could support his mother, brother, and his family of six. His happiness at the prospect of reuniting with his family was marred by the realization that the future was uncertain and that the postwar world promised to be radically different from the familiar routine of his youth. 55

Richard Torrance ultimately returned to Mecklenburg County. He worked as a tax collector and continued to farm at Cedar Grove. He lost an arm in a cotton gin, and would have been dragged into the machine if a former slave working with him, Sam Alexander, had not ripped off the belt that had caught Torrance’s arm. Eliza Torrance died in 1917, and Richard died in 1927.

John Torrance returned to Cedar Grove after serving with the “Mecklenburg Wide Awakes”, the Thirty-seventh Regiment of the North Carolina Infantry. 56 He managed the farm after his mother’s death and continued to operate the saw mill. His account book of 1866 shows a list of “workmen” who were hired to work for one-third wages and two-thirds share of crops. This accounting kept track of work days lost as well as the dry goods John Torrance procured for these laborers. 57

Most of John Torrance’s friends and family were concerned about his drinking. A portion of his personal papers contain advertisements for cures for drunkenness. Several of his friends advised him to take the Keeley cure at a Keeley Institute conveniently located in Greensboro. His nephew Frank Witherspoon was cured at a Keeley Institute and worked for the Keeley Institute of Dallas, Texas. He gently offered to discuss the cure with his uncle in the future. 58

After the deaths of John and Richard Torrance, Cedar Grove and its surrounding property were divided into eleven parcels and distributed among Richard Torrence’s children. 59 The heirs drew lots to determine who would receive each parcel. Delia Torrance Banks (b. 1871) drew the lot which included Cedar Grove. 60

Delia Torrance worked as a stenographer with the firm of Clarkson and Duls before she married Howard A. Banks. Howard Banks, a religious journalist, began his career with the Charlotte Observer, then moved to Philadelphia to write for the Sunday School Times. Banks eventually published his own magazine, Christ’s Life or the Word of the Cross. Howard Banks died in 1932, and his family returned to Charlotte to live with Kate Torrance Sanders (Delia’s sister) in their home on Church Street. 61

The current residents of Cedar Grove are Richard and Belle Banks. Richard, the son of Delia and Howard Banks, moved his family into the house in 1944, after installing central heating, electricity, and plumbing. Mr. Banks wrote for the Charlotte Observer. He and his wife have been instrumental in the preservation of both the plantation seat and the earlier house and the store.

 

 


NOTES

1 The family name changes spelling from Torance to Torrence to Torrance. The changes were made by Hugh and later by his son James. Hugh changed the spelling to distinguish himself from his brother Albert’s son Hugh Torrence of Salisbury. James Torrance spelled his name Torrence until his marriage to his third wife, after which he spelled it Torrance to differentiate himself from the Iredell County Torrences. When referring to the property, Torrance will be used. Otherwise, various historic spellings will be used.

2 Photocopy of original letter of Thomas Boyle (?) dated August 20, 1763. Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 1. University of North Carolina at Charlotte Special Collections, hereafter UNCC.

3 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Folder 87, Series 1.8, UNCC.

4 The Battle of Ramsor’s Mill was fought on June 20, 1780. A Whig force of 300-400 led by Col. Francis Leake and Major Joseph McDowell defeated the Tory forces of 1100 led by Lt. Col. John Moore. Hugh Lefler and Albert Newsome. North Carolina, The History of a Southern State, (Chapel Hill, 1973). p. 245.

5 Index and genealogical history prepared for Part I of the Torrance-Banks Family Papers, UNCC.

6 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part 1, Box 1, Folder 2A, UNCC.

7 Photocopy of Inventory of the Estate of Hugh Torrence, May 24, 1816 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 1, UNCC.

8 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I. Box 1, Folder 15 B. UNCC.

9 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 16. UNCC.

10 Torrance-Banks Family Papers,UNCC. James Torrance, Account Book 1.

11 Most of the work that examines the regional transition from a barter to a market economy in the early nineteenth century has been done on regions of the northeast, however substantial work exists on the issue from the southern perspective. The transition begins in the north by 1820, and some areas in the south begin to show a strong market orientation by 1850. See Christopher Clark, “The Household Economy, Market Exchange, and the Rise of Capitalism in the Connecticut Valley, 1800-1860”, Journal of Social History 13 Winter 1979: 169-90; Ford, Lacy K. “Rednecks and Merchants: Economic Developinent and Social Tensions in the South Carolina Upcountry, 1865-1900”, Journal of American History 71 (September 1984): 294-318; James Henretta, “Families and Farms: ‘Mentality’ in Pre-Industrial America”, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 35 (January 1978): 333; Winifred Rothenberg, “The Market and Massachusetts Farmers, 1750-1855”, Journal of Economic History 41 (June 1981): 283-314; Lewis Athertori, The Southern Country Store, 1800-1860, (1949); A Masters Thesis relative to this topic and more broadly concerned with the plantation economy of north Mecklenburg is being written by UNCC Master of Arts candidate David Blick.

12 Deeds recording the activity of Hugh Torance and James Torrence may be found in the Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 2A. UNCC.

13 Mecklenburg was one of three Piedmont counties that could count 50% of its inhabitants as slaves. Lefler and Newsome, p. 424.

14 Torrence-Banks Family Papers, Box 1, Folder 12, UNCC. The slaves are listed in what appear to be family groups. The most recent scholarship on slavery argues that in spite of the limitations of slavery, slaves maintained families that were often centered around a male head of household, and that they were able to build a world of their own. See: John Blassingame, The Slave Community, Eugene Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll, Herbert Gutmann, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, and Kennth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution.

15 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Box 1, Folder 12. UNCC. Bill “for Negroes” from Andrew Springs to James Torrence, August 28, 1837.

16 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Box 1, Folder 23 A. UNCC. Letter to James Torrance from Hugh Torrence, Coffeeville, Mississippi, February 7, 1838.

17 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Box 1, Folder 24 A. UNCC. Letter to James Torrance from Jane Elizabeth Torrance, Salem, North Carolina, July 2, 1835.

18 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part II, Box 3, Folder 44 B. UNCC. Letter to Richard Allison Torrance from Margaret Allison Torrance, Cedar Grove, August 3, 1862.

19 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 2, Folder 43 D, Account Book 10, 1848-1870. UNCC.

20 Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll, 14; Stampp, The Peculiar Institution, 39-40.

21 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 12. UNCC. Agreement between Margaret Allison Torrance and James Brown, 1862.

22 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part 1, Box 1, Folder 8. UNCC.

23 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part 1, Box 1. Folder 16, UNCC. Mill Book, 1831-1832; Census of Agriculture Manuscript, 1860, Mecklenburg County.

24 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part I, Box 1, Folder 14. Photocopy of p. 499 of Abstracts of Vital Records From Raleigh, N. C. Newspapers, 1799-1819, by Lois S. Near. Entry 4673. Typhus was sometimes used to describe a variety of fevers besides the specific disease.

25 James and Jane Latta had three daughters, Nancy, Betsy, and Mary. Nancy (1801-1833) and Betsy (1797-1838) were the first and second wives of Major Rufus Reid who married Isabella M. Torrence as his third wife. All three of the Latta sisters were dead by 1838. Their mother, Jane Knox Latta, survived until 1864.

26 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part 1, Box 2, Folder 43 B, Account Book 4, Folders 19-20, and also included in this box is a typescript by Mr. Richard Banks concerning the construction of Cedar Grove.

27 Ibid.

28 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part I, Box 1, Folder 23 A, UNCC. Letter from Isabella Torrence Smith, Coffeeville, Mississippi, to Camilla Torrence Latta, Feb. 27, 1837; letter from James Franklin Torrence. Lusiscuna Valley, Miss., to James C. Torrance, June 17, 1837.

29 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 23 A. UNCC. Letter from Hugh Torrence, Coffeeville, Mississippi, to James G. Torrance, February 7, 1838.

30 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part 1, Box 1, Folder 23 A, UNCC. Letter from James Franklin Torrence, Lusiscuna Valley, Mississippi, to James G. Torrance, January 5, 1840.

31 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 23 B. UNCC. Letter from Isabella Torrence Smith, Lusiscuna Valley, to James G. Torrance, April 7, 1840.

32 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part I, Box 1. Folder 23 A. UNCC Letter front Hugh Torrence, Coffeeville, Mississippi, to James G. Torrance, February 7, 1838. It is apparent how lonely Isabella is in her letter to James G. Torrance Apr. 7, 1840.

33 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, UNCC. Part I, Box 1, Folder 23 B. Letter from James Franklin Torrence, Lusiscuna Valley, Mississippi, to James G. Torrance, September 3, 1840; Folder 26. Photocopy of Chalmers Davidson, “Two Daughters of Mount Mourne”, Briarpatch (March 1980): 8-15.

34 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part I. Box 1. Folder 23 A. UNCC. Letter from Isabella Torrence Smith, Coffeeville, Mississippi, to James G. Torrance. Oct. 8, 1838.

35 Lefler and Newsome, North Carolina, p. 409. Salem Academy later became Salem College.

36 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 24 A. UNCC. Letters from Jane Torrence, Salem Female Academy, to James Torrance, July 2, 1835, July 7, 1836, December 15, 1837. Jane attended Salem Female Academy from the ages of ten to fourteen. Isabella attended Salem from ages seven to nine, Camilla from eleven to fifteen, and from ages sixteen to seventeen attended Lucretia Sarazen’s Boarding School in Philadelphia.

37 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 24 A, UNCC. Robert A. Sadler was hired by the community to teach orthography, reading, writing, arithmetic, English, grammar, geography and surveying in 1827. He was paid two dollars a student, as well as boarding, washing, firewood, and school house. Two of Sadler’s students were James Franklin and Hugh Torrence.

38 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 2, Folder 37, UNCC. Davidson College Receipts. James Torrance initially subscribed $500.00 towards the establishment of the college and from 1844-1845 made contributions to endow a professorship. William’s fees were approximately $35.00 per session (four sessions to the calendar year).

39 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, UNCC. In the front of the notebook, Ney inscribed the following to Richard Torrance:

 

Time, lot, and chance may take away
Our wealth, but knowledge gained from Ney
Remains in fortunes darkest night
Resplendent as meridian light
Exalted minds will science gain,
Nor suffer life to pass in vain
Commanding time, they in the end
Endeavor to make God their friend.

40 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 2, Folder 41 B, UNCC. Information concerning George Moses Horton and Richard Allison Torrance from a photocopy of Robin Brabham, “To the Tip Top Belles of Mecklenburg County: Two Acrostics by George Moses Horton”, CLA Journal 30 (June 1987): 454-460.

41 Cathleen Clinton, The Plantation Mistress, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Within the Plantation Household, Sally McMillen, Motherhood in the Old South: Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Infant Rearing.

42 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 2, Folder 42.

43 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 1, Box 3, Folder 44 A, UNCC. Letter from Bettie Torrance, Cedar Grove to Richard Allison Torrance, February 15, 1858; Letter from Margaret Torrance, Cedar Grove to Richard Allison Torrance, April 6, 1858.

44 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 1, Box 3, Folder 44 B, UNCC. Letter from Margaret Torrance, Cedar Grove, to Richard Torrance, July 10, 1861.

45 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 1, Box 3, Folder 44 B, UNCC Letter from John Torrance, Cedar Grove, to Richard Torrance, October 13, 1861.

46 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 1, Box 3, Folder 44 B, UNCC. Letter from Margaret Torrance, Cedar Grove, to Richard Torrance, August 3, 1862. Another letter to Richard Torrance from a friend, R. H. Leigh, complained, “Oh! This war. This war!! When will it end we are so tired of it but the south can’t stop until we gain our independence and our rights…” April 5, 186?.

47 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part I, Box 1, Folder 12, UNCC. On January 21, 1867 a woman named Vina bound herself and her four children to work for Margaret Torrance for two years. Other such agreements may have been executed, but do not exist in the record.

48 James Roark, Masters Without Slaves, p. 164.

49 See Roark, Masters Without Slaves, Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revoltuion, Roger Ransom and Richard Sutch, One Kind of Freedom.

50 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 2, Box 5. Folder 117, UNCC. See letters from Richard Torrance to Eliza Torrance, January 13, 1867; January 22, 1867; January 25, 1867; January 29, 1867; February 3, 1667; February 9, 1867.

51 Torrance-Banks Family Papers. Part II, Series 2, Box 5, Folder 118. UNCC. Letter from Richard Torrance, Richmond, Texas, to Eliza Torrance, June 29, 1868.

52 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 2, Box 5, Folder 118, UNCC. Letter from Richard Torrance, Fort Bend, Texas, to Eliza Torrance, July 26, 1868.

53 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 2, Box 5, Folder 119, UNCC. Letter from Richard Torrance to Eliza Torrance, September 2, 1868.

54 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 2, Box 5, Folder 119, UNCC. Letter from Richard Torrance to Eliza Torrance, September 15, 1868. Richard and Eliza Torrance had nine children together, plus two from Richard’s first marriage, making a total of eleven children.

55 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 2, Box 5, Folder 119, UNCC. Letter from Richard Torrance to Eliza Torrance, October 20, 1868. He wearily noted in his letter, “…if Grant is elected president and I have no doubt he will be perhaps it would be better not to undertake to make a crop with free negroes, who can tell, I can’t.”

56 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 3, Box 7, Folder 178, UNCC. Copies of John Andrew Torrance’s muster rolls.

57 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 3, Box 7, Folder 181 A, UNCC.

58 Torrance-Banks Family Papers, Part II, Series 3, Box 6, Folder, 156, UNCC. Letter from Framk Witherspoon, Dallas, Texas to John Torrance, January 6, 1903. The appearance of national centers designed to reform drunkenness was doubtless part of the general reforming spirit of the early twentieth century.

59 Deed 731-295, October 6, 1928. Mecklenburg County Court House.

60 Interview with Mr. Richard Banks, March 1993.

61 Ibid.

 

 

 

Architectural Descriptions
 

 

Location and Site Description

Cedar Grove and the Hugh Torance House and Store are located on Gilead Road, west of I-77 and the town of Huntersville. The Cedar Grove property consists of three tax parcels: a 92.4 acre tract on the north side of Gilead Road; a 9.05 acre tract, also on the north side of Gilead Road; and a 25 acre parcel on the south side of the road. The 92.4 acre, northern tract contains the 1831-1833 plantation seat and four outbuildings. A brick outbuilding, containing the well house and laundry, is situated just to the rear of the house, and the granary, ice house, and horse shed (all wooden frame structures) are located between the plantation house and McDowell Creek, the western boundary of the property. The 9.05 arce site is vacant and abuts the 92.4 are parcel to the east. The earlier Hugh Torance House and Store rests on a 2.174 acre tract surrounded by the 92.4 acre Cedar Grove parcel. There are no outbuildings remaining with this property. Davidson College is currently conducting an archaeological investigation, approximately 30 to 40 feet northwest of the house.

The 117.4 acres of land associated with two of the three Cedar Grove tax parcels, the Cedar Grove plantation house, and the Cedar Grove well house and laundry have already been designated as local landmarks. The granary and ice house are in deteriorated condition, and the horse shed is inaccessible and only partially visible. These three outbuildings should be excluded from the designation, but the 9.05 are parcel, adjacent to the east, should be added to the Cedar Grove designation because this contiguous acreage is part of the historic Torrance estate. The proposed designation for the Hugh Torance House and Store includes the interior and exterior of the one building and the 2.174 are tract of land.

 

Cedar Grove

Exterior

The Cedar Grove property, is bounded by McDowell Creek on the west side and Torrence Creek to the south. The plantation seat and extant outbuildings are all situated on a knoll, located east of McDowell Creek, on the north side of Gilead Road. The knoll slopes northward and westward to encompass creek bottomland. The well house is directly to the rear of the plantation house, and the three other outbuildings are sited west of the house, just as the land begins sloping toward the creek. A detached kitchen originally stood northeast of the house, but this building is no longer extant. Gilead load originally ran farther to the south, but now traverses the property, north of the junction of the two boundary reeks. Woods now surround the house on the north and west sides, making the three deteriorated outbuildings largely inaccessible. To the east, an open field separates the Greek Revival plantation house from the earlier Hugh Torance House and Store.

Built between 1831 and 1833, the Cedar Grove plantation house is one of the finest examples of Greek Revival residential architecture in the state. 1 The house is a monumental, two and one half story, with raised basement, brick structure with a side gable roof and hipped roofed porches on the facade south elevation and rear elevation. The house measures 60 x 40 feet, with a five bay width and double pile depth, and central entrances in the front and rear elevations.

The exterior is distinguished by stepped, brick parapets, with corbeled caps, which terminate the gable ends of the roof. Double, brick, end chimneys are incorporated within the parapets, and corbeled, brick cornices with full returns delineate the gable roof and create pediments below the parapet line. The roof was originally covered in wooden shingles, but this covering has been replaced with standing seam tin. The brick exterior walls are laid in Flemish bond, and the walls meet a simple, flat, wooden cornice on the front and rear elevations. It is suggested that this cornice may be a replacement with the corbeled cornice of the end gables ontinuing around to the long elevations. 2 Gutter boxes along the overhanging eaves of the facade are marked ” 1831 “.

The porches extend across the center three bays of both the front and rear elevations. The south porch rests on a tall brick base laid in common bond. The base has heavy corner piers between which are structural arches of alternating soldiers and rowlocks. Wide granite steps lead to this porch. The shallow hip roof is supported by four stuccoed brick columns with Doric capitals, and the wide frieze is ornamented with scroll brackets and flat panels, which appear to be later Italianate additions. The frieze may have originally incorporated triglyphs or some other characteristic Greek Revival element. 3 The rear porch is supported by four stuccoed, brick columns, but these supports rest on a shallow”, brick pier and stone slab base. Above the Doric columns is a flat-panelled frieze. Parts of the brick foundation appear to be a fairly recent replacement. The double transverse, wooden stairs are also replacements. The basement is reached through a door located in the east bay of the rear elevation.

The tall, main entrance contains recessed double doors, each composed of five flat panels, paneled soffit and reveals, and heavy molded surrounds. The entrance is capped by, a transom light with tracery, but there are no sidelights. Double wooden screened doors over the entrance. The rear entrance is shorter, approximately six feet in height. A single, six paneled door is found at this entrance, and the upper panels contain fixed lights. The windows all have brick flat arches and granite sills. The first and second story windows are nine-over-nine light, double hung, wooden sash, while the short basement windows are six-over-six light. Under each gable end, there is a single six-over-six light, double hung, wooden sash window. The basement windows have paneled shutters hung on iron strap hinges, and the upper stories have louvered shutters.

 

Interior

Cedar Grove has a double pile, central hall floor plan. The monumental scale of the house creates an airy interior, with ceiling heights on the first floor reaching approximately 13 feet. The four first floor rooms open from the center hall, which terminates with a spiral staircase in the northeast corner. This elegant, cantilevered staircase rises in a open stairwell to the attic floor. The railing is formed of simple square balusters with a molded railing ending at a scrolled newel, and the stair risers are accented with tulip brackets. The hall has plaster walls; molded chair railing; paneled wainscoting; a wide, round-molded cornice, which forms a decorative band on the ceiling; and tongue and groove, pine floors. The pairs of rooms, flanking the hall, are connected by tall openings, which an be closed with flat-paneled, folding doors. The two front rooms are larger that those to the rear.

Each of the first floor rooms is reached by a tall, six-paneled door with flat-paneled reveals and soffits. Each room has plaster walls and ceilings; wide, tongue and groove, pine flooring; and a fireplace. The ceilings are delineated by heavy molded plaster cornices. The door and window surrounds are fluted with bull’s eye modillion corner blocks. In addition, the windows have paneled soffits and reveals, which are splayed for enhancing the lighting.

In the two west rooms, there is no wainscoting or chair railing. The front west room is used as a dining room, while the rear room is a kitchen. The kitchen appliances and fixtures are largely removable so as to cause little alteration to the historic fabric. The mantels on the west side have Ionic columns supporting a simple frieze and molded shelf. The mantels in the east rooms are similar but have Doric columnettes.

Access to the basement, second, and third floors was denied, but the plan of the second floor is identical to the first. The only alteration on this floor has been the partitioning of the northwest room to form a bathroom and closet. The owners report, however, that they had the bathroom designed so that the fixtures could be easily removed 4. The ornamentation in these bedrooms is simpler than the those on the first floor, reportedly more like that of the west rooms on the first floor. The mantels in the west bedrooms are simpler Greek Revival versions with molded pilasters, frieze, and a plain shelf. The mantels on the east side of the second floor have only the molded shelf and panel. The third floor, finished in flushboard siding, contains three rooms 5. The basement reportedly has two rooms.

 

Well House and Laundry

The well house is a small outbuilding which stands directly to the rear of the plantation house. This brick building, laid in common bond, has a standing seam tin, gable roof with exposed rafters. The west side of this structure is an open shed and houses the well the well pulley, and wooden base are still intact. The roof over the shed is supported by unsawn cedar posts set into brick bases. A single door to the laundry is located on the south side. There is a small window, located under the eaves, facing the open well shed.

 

Conclusion

The plantation house associated with Cedar Grove is one of the finest ante-bellum houses in Piedmont North Carolina. The house incorporates a variety of traditional and classical features, such as the stepped parapets, simple side gable form, and Federal staircase, with specific Greek Revival elements, notably the Doric columns and pedimented gables, to create a sophisticated, yet regional, interpretation of Neoclassical architecture from the early nineteenth century. As the family, seat for the prominent Torrance family, whose origins, settlement, and economic pursuits were typical of many early Mecklenburg families, Cedar Grove represents the height of ante-bellum cotton culture in the county.

 

 


Hugh Torance House and Store

Exterior

The Hugh Torance House and Store is situated on the north side of Gilead Road in a naturalistic clearing of recent vintage, approximately 100 yards east of the plantation house. The plantation house is clearly visible across an open field. A gravel drive runs along the east side of the Torance house; woods border to the north, and a thin line of trees buffer the eastern boundary. Gilead Road now runs close to the house, only roughly 50 feet to the south.

The Hugh Torance House and Store is a one and one half and two story building with a L-shaped plan, reflecting three building campaigns. The original one room, log house (ca. 1780) occupies the northern section of the building. The interior of the log house was later divided into two rooms: a parlor, located in the northwest corner, and a store extending to the east. Prior to the opening of the store in 1805, a small storage room had been added, circa 1787, to the east end of the house. Final construction occurred with the addition of a two-story, single pile, wood frame house (built in 1796) to the south side of the parlor, which gave the house its L-shaped plan 6 . With this last construction, the facade was reoriented from the south elevation to the west, and the principal entrance was moved to this federal addition. The entire building is sided in lapped, beaded weatherboard. Some of the weatherboarding dates to recent rehabilitation, but the new sheathing replicates the original. The foundation is constructed of field stone, set with mud and clay, and pointed with lime mortar. The gable roofs are covered in replacement, wooden shingles. 7

The original section was a one and one half story, log house which once contained one room and a garret, but this portion continues to reflect the partitioning of the first floor into two rooms to accommodate the opening of the store in 1805 8 . The weatherboarded log house has a side gable roof with box eaves. The siding was attached with hand-wrought, rose-headed nails. A massive stone chimney, with a single shoulder, is found on the west elevation although physical evidence indicates that the stone chimney was rebuilt in the twentieth century. 9

The two story Federal addition does not meet the earlier log house neatly, but rather resembles on the exterior a one-third Georgian plan on the first floor, while extending over to the ridge line of the log house on the second floor. This division is still visible in the siding. However, it seems that one first floor window was enlarged at this time to give the facade a more classical appearance, so that on the south side of the stone chimney, there are three asymmetrical bays. The smaller window openings north of the chimney reflect the earlier period of construction.

The principal entrance on the west elevation is located in the center bay of the Federal addition and consists of a single, paneled, wooden door with a divided transom light and molded door surrounds. Open, wooden, replacement steps lead to the front door. This section of the house has nine-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash windows on the second floor and nine-over-nine on the first. The earlier windows on this elevation are six-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash. All first floor windows have molded surrounds. The federal addition has wooden, paneled shutters while the older sections of the house have diagonally-laid, batten shutters. A low cellar, lined in field stone, is found at the southwest comer of the house, beside the front entrance. The cellar is reached by a break in the foundation wall.

The south elevation of the federal addition is dominated by a single shoulder, brick chimney, laid in Flemish bond, with a corbeled brick cap. The chimney rises from the stone house foundation. The bricks used in this chimney were handmade, hard-burned and reputedly made on the site. 10 Tall, narrow, six-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash windows flank the chimney on the first floor, and six-over-four light windows are found on the second. Small, square, divided light windows are located under the gable.

The east elevation repeats the facade although this elevation is only two bays wide because the store projects from the northern half of the elevation. The door and windows are identical to those on the facade.

The south elevation of the one and one half story, store section of the log house is broken by two entrances, symmetrically placed, and a small, single, six-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash window, located at the corner where the federal addition and the log store meet. The door closest to the house leads to the store while the easternmost door apparently provides the only access to the storage room. These doors are particularly notable. They are wide, solid, wooden doors, constructed of wide boards laid diagonally in a basket weave pattern using handwrought nails. The doors have molded surrounds, but no transom or sidelights. These entrances are reached by the same open, wooden steps found on the facade. When the storage room was added in the 1780s, heavy mill-sawn studs were used instead of log for the exterior walls, and sawn members were also used in the rafters and floor joists 11 .

The rear elevation of the ell has only two small openings, located in the center, but not aligned with the asymmetrical gable roof. On the first floor, there is a six-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash, square window, similar to the others found on the other elevations of the ell and the log section. Leading to a storage loft, the upper level opening is protected only by shutters.

The north elevation of the ell is aligned with the original house. The land slopes slightly toward the west so that a break in the foundation and weatherboarding reveals the division between the store and storage room. Otherwise the only openings in this wall are an entrance, leading to the log house, and a window, located roughly in the middle of this long wall. The window is identical to the other six-over-six light, single hung, wooden sash windows found on the ell. The door is identical to the doors on the south elevation.

 

Interior

The first floor of the Hugh Torance House and Store contains four rooms: two associated with the original log house; the storage room, located at the east end; and one more formal room added with the Federal-era alterations.

The two principal entrances to the house enter directly into the federal addition from the east and west elevations. The walls, floors, and ceiling in this room are all constructed of wide, pine, tongue and groove boards. The unpainted wall boards are laid horizontally except along the interior partition wall, which is composed of single thickness, tongue and groove, vertical boards. The six panel door in this wall is a more sophisticated example of Federal styling than the exterior doors, which are vernacular six-paneled doors of batten construction with iron H-L hinges and iron box locks. The room contains finely crafted classical features such as molded baseboards, crown moldings, and chair railings. A narrow, open, two run staircase is located against the interior wall in the northwest corner of the room adjacent to the facade entrance and rising next to the door leading to the oldest section of the house. The staircase is distinguished by slender, square, fluted balusters and newel, with molded railing, risers, and baseboards. A two-paneled door, located under the staircase, opens into a small closet. In the center of the south wall is a handsome vernacular Federal mantel with fluted pilasters, a narrow, molded mantel, and a paneled overmantel reaching to the ceiling. The fireplace is brick-lined.

The earlier parlor is situated directly north of the federal parlor, and is characterized by the same unpainted, wide, pine, flushboard paneling, floors, and ceiling. The wall boards in this room are laid vertically. The crown molding, chair railing, baseboard, and door and window surrounds also repeat the classical molding profiles found in the south room. on the north wall is one exterior door; a door on the south wall leads to the Federal room; and a third door on the east wall leads to the store. The door on the north wall is constructed of vertical interior boards with diagonal exterior battens, laid in a basket weave pattern. Handwrought roseheaded nails attach the battens and long iron strap hinges, and the doors are secured by hand-wrought, iron lift latches. On the south interior wall is an inset cupboard above the chair railing, and the cupboard has a divided light door. The door to the store is paneled with a multiple light midsection which allows a view of the store counter from the fireplace. The west wall is defined by a stone fireplace flanked by two windows. Although the fireplace was apparently reworked at some time during the twentieth century, the nicely detailed, vernacular Federal mantel with slender, fluted pilasters, and a delicately molded mantel shelf is original. In the southwest corner of this room is a recessed hatch in the ceiling leading to the attic.

The store also has vertical, pine, flushboard walls and molded chair railing, baseboard, and crown molding. Exposed rafters form the ceiling to this room. The enclosed, wooden counter, located in roughly the enter of the room and extending to the rear wall, is a replacement. Open, display shelves line the north wall, flanking a single window. On the south wall is one of the earliest doors in the house, which is constructed of vertical boards with an iron box lock and long, iron strap hinges. On the west side of the door is a small window. Both the door and the windows feature the same classical surrounds found throughout the house.

The second floor of the house has the same floor plan as the first. The stairs in the Federal addition lead directly into a large room with walls of unpainted, pine, vertical flushboards although on the south wall, the wall boards are laid horizontally. This room also repeats the classical detailing – chair railing, baseboards, surrounds, and crown molding – found on the first floor. The mantel is a fine example of vernacular Federal construction with delicate, fluted pilasters, narrow, molded mantel, classical fireplace surrounds, and paneled overmantel. A six-paneled door on the north wall leads to the garret bedroom, located above the log house. A section of the garret was remodeled at the time of the Federal addition to become a full second story bedroom.

The garret room is finished with horizontal flushboard walls and classical crown molding, baseboard, and surrounds. There is a single window on the west wall, and a door on the east wall opens into the attic loft. The attic is unfinished, but contains a window on the west wall and a shuttered opening under the east gable. A wide, tongue and groove, board floor has been laid over the rafters in sections of the attic loft. The pole rafters, lapped and pegged at the ridgeline, are visible, and crossbracing is provided by horizontal members and a metal tie rod, extending from north to south. The Roman numerals used to identify the individual rafters are apparently still visible, and the metal tie rod was added around the turn of the eighteenth century 12 .

The Hugh Torance House and Store was in deteriorated condition until the recent past, and some historic fabric was not extant at the time that rehabilitation and restoration began. However, important features of the house have survived, notably mantels, window detailing, doors, some hardware, and brick chimney. Rehabilitation has been undertaken, and where replacements have been necessary, these have been in-kind. Specifically, termite damage and deterioration have required the replacement of some exterior weatherboard siding and some interior paneling. Some window glass has also been replaced, and where possible historic glass has been used. In addition, a HVAC system and alarm have been added to protect the property, and inset spot lighting has also been inserted into the ceilings.

 

Conclusion

The Hugh Torance House and Store is a rare eighteenth and early nineteenth century survivor in Mecklenburg County. The combination of functions represented in this building, as well as the clearly defined construction campaigns, only underscore the uniqueness and importance of this property. The association of this house, both through ownership and proximity, with adjacent Cedar Grove illustrates economic, social, and architectural developments in the county from the settlement period to the Civil War.

 


NOTES

1 Cedar Grove has been called, “…an especially fine and well-documented example of builders ready adoption of the Greek Revival style.” Catherine Bishir, North Carolina Architecture, Chapel Hill: University, of North Carolina Press, 1990, 198.

2 Cedar Grove, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 1974, Part 7- 1.

3 Cedar Grove, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 1974, Part 7- 1.

4 Interview with Richard T. Banks, 9 Mar. 1993.

5 Cedar Grove, National Register Nomination, Part 7-2.

6 Interview with Ann Williams, Hugh Torance House and Store Board, 18 May 1993.

7 “Cedar Grove,” unpublished report prepared by Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A., n.d., p. 1. Torrence Family Papers, Special Collection of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Library.

8 Boyte, “Cedar Grove,” p. 1.

9 Boyte, “Cedar Grove,” p. 2.

10 Boyte, “Cedar Grove,” p. 4.

11 Boyte, “Cedar Grove,” p. 3.

12 Interview with Ann Williams, Hugh Torance House and Store, 18 May 1993.


  1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is located northwest of the intersection of McAuley Rd. and Hwy. 73, near Davidson, N.C.
  2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The owner of the property is:

Hugh Allen White and Laura Anne White

PO Box 1431

Huntersville, NC 28070-1431

  1. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
  2. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains maps which depict the location of the property.  The U.T.M. coordinates of the property are 17 519842E 3922531N
  3. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: There is no individual deed recorded on the property.  The property was willed to the White’s by their father. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is : 007-451-01.
  4. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.
  5. A brief physical description of the property: This report contains a brief physical description of the property.
  6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:
  7. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and /or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
  8. The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is representative of burial practices of a certain strata of early white settlers in the region.
  9. The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is a rare survivor of a family burial ground in the Davidson vicinity.
  10. The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery contains an instructive collection of early and mid-19th century funerary art.
  11. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical description included in this report demonstrates that the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery meets this criterion.
  12. 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 total amount of acres in the tract of land on which the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is located is 69.81.  The total appraised value of the Tax Parcel is $20,288.  The property is zoned R3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: December 18, 2005.

Prepared by:  Dr. Dan L. Morrill

 

Historical Overview

 

Summary Statement of Significance

 Though not well kept or preserved over the years, the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery, also known as the Rocky River Baptist Church Cemetery, is representative of burial practices of a certain strata of early white settlers in the region.  At this writing there is reason to believe that the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is a rare survivor of what was essentially a family burial ground in the Davidson vicinity.  The cemetery contains a small but instructive collection of early and mid-19th century funerary art.   Until now the cemetery has survived largely because it has been hidden from public view. As development comes ever nearer, the site is worthy of protection as an important link to Mecklenburg County’s earliest white settlers.

 Historical Context Statement

One can best understand the historical significance of the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery by considering its place within the society and culture that emerged in Mecklenburg County with the arrival of white settlers.  A fundamental transformation of the Yadkin-Catawba territory occurred in the 18th century when the era of Native American domination of the region came to a precipitous end. European civilization became predominant within a very few years. The initial white settlers drove their covered wagons into the Carolina Piedmont in the 1740s, mostly along ancient Indian trading paths. First in a trickle then a virtual flood, these immigrants, who were mostly from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, came swarming down the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road to establish farms and homestead. Unlike the white traders who had preceded them, these families planned to stay.1

Most of the pioneers who moved into the Piedmont in the mid-1700s were Scots-Irish Presbyterians or German Lutherans. About 250,000 Scots-Irish immigrated to the New World in the first quarter of the 18th century, most entering through Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Lewes, Delaware. Learning that the land near the coast was already taken, the former residents of Ulster trekked inland and created farms until they reached the Alleghany Mountains. They then turned south and began filtering into Virginia and the Carolinas. Although both arrived in the Yadkin-Catawba region during the same years, the Germans and the Scots-Irish did not live side by side but settled in separate church-centered communities, the former along Buffalo Creek in what is now Cabarrus County and the latter in the southern reaches of the Catawba territory along the banks of Mallard Creek, Reedy Creek, Sugar Creek, Long Creek and the Catawba River.  The population of Mecklenburg County reached 11,395 in 1790.

The great majority of the early settlers of Mecklenburg County scratched out a meager living in the fields they labored to keep free from unwanted trees. Almost all of their humble log dwellings have long succumbed to insects or the hands of man. These subsistence farmers grew what they ate and made what they wore.  The staple crop  they raised on the land they owned or rented was corn, either eaten directly or indirectly after it had been used as fodder for the animals, mainly pigs. Some farmers did raise livestock  that they turned loose to graze on the open range of the Piedmont and herded periodically for drives to coastal markets. Some corn was distilled into whiskey and sold.  But most settlers knew nothing about commercial agriculture.  They were poor and malnourished.  Infectious diseases like measles, influenza, whooping cough, and dysentery could easily take anyone away.  The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery most probably contains the grave of at least one child.2

The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 was a transforming event for Mecklenburg County and the entire South.  Thereafter, farmers could ship about twelve times as much cotton to market than they could before, and the world price decreased by approximately one half.  This meant that industrious individuals, even in the Piedmont, who owned substantial amounts of land and the requisite labor supply could increase their annual income by 600 percent. One such enterprising person was Thomas Cashion, a native of Chesterfield County, Virginia, who moved with his wife, children, and cousins to Mecklenburg County in 1800 or 1801.3

Most slave owners in Mecklenburg County, like their counterparts elsewhere in the South, owned relatively small numbers of bondsmen and bondswomen. “In rough terms,” states Peter Kolchin, “about one-quarter of Southern slaves lived on very small holdings of 1 to 9.”  The percentage in such peripheral cotton growing areas as Mecklenburg County was even higher.  The majority of Mecklenburg farmers simply did not have enough money to compete with the planter elite.   Representative of this sizeable group was Thomas T. Sandifer , a physician, whose house still stands on Moore’s Chapel Road.

This is the Thomas T. Sandifer House.  The Cashion Plantation House might have resembled this structure since Sandifers and the Cashions came from the same social strata.

In 1860, Sandifer’s “personal estate was worth $7,000.00, and he held three slaves,” writes historian Frances P. Alexander.  “Sandifer’s slaves included two men, ages 33 and 20, and one woman age 31.”  The relationship of Sandifer and his slaves would have been personal and intimate.  “On farms with fewer than ten slaves,” says Kolchin, “masters could typically be found in the field, toiling alongside their slaves while bossing them and casually interacting with them.”

The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery

Thomas Cashion (sometimes spelled Cashon) was born in 1758 and married Tabitha Traylor in 1780, by whom he had 8 children.  Thomas was a member of the Virginia militia in the American Revolutionary War and fought at  Portsmouth, Camden, and Gum Springs.  It is reasonable to infer that Thomas Cashion became a slave owner of modest economic means.  At the time of his death in December 1834 he willed to his son Thomas “the plantation on which I live,”  “the negro Janet” to his son Joby, and $30 each to his grandchildren.  Even the family burial ground, in which he and Tabitha Cashion are buried (she died in 1844) bears witness to the fact that Cashion did not belong to the planter elite.  The grave markers, although distinctive, are much less ornate than those found in the John Dinkins Family Cemetery in southern Mecklenburg County, for example.4  Dinkins owned 34 slaves.  There are seven graves in the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery, four of which belong to the Cashions.  In addition to the graves of Thomas and Tabitha, their daughter-in-law Sarah Cashion is interred there as well as their granddaughter Sarah L. Cashion.5  The other three belong to the Moores, most likely members of Rocky River Baptist Church.6     At least one of the graves is that of a young girl, based on name and age at time of death.  According to Allen White, a direct descendent of Thomas and Sara Cashion, Thomas Cashion first became aware of the attractiveness of the land in this area because he traveled through Mecklenburg County during the American Revolutionary War.  He purchased the farm on which the cemetery is now located in 1802.  White conjectures that the cemetery was initially a family burial ground and later was used by Rocky River Baptist Church, which led to the Moores being buried in the cemetery.7

 

Physical Description

The property known as the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is located northwest of the intersection of McAuley Rd. and N. C. Highway. 73, near Davidson, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.  It is hidden from the road by a grove of trees.  At this writing, it is next to a white house that is a private residence on an adjacent parcel of land not owned by the owners of the cemetery.

   
Intersection of McAuley Rd. and Highway 73 Grove of Trees surrounding Cashion Cemetery

The cemetery is situated on a relatively flat parcel among a grove of trees, and there is no formal entrance.  It is most accessible from the west.  The Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery is laid out like most cemeteries of the period. The headstones face east (roughly) toward the rising sun. The graves are arranged in rows roughly running north/south with the burial plots parallel to one another.  All the graves have headstones and footstones.  They are meager in design and do not have elaborate carvings.  The majority are simple rectangular slabs of stone with information about the deceased providing the only decoration.  Two of the headstones have the decendent’s name carved out in the shape of an arch.

The simple design of the funerary art suggests that the Cashions were not among the planter elite of Mecklenburg County.  Cultural folklorist Wade B. Fairey writes:  “Besides the cost of carving, there was a hauling fee and other funeral costs. Therefore, for those few people who could erect a tombstone, it became a statement of economic and social superiority, and the examples … read like a guide to the area’s social circles.”8  There are trees that have grown over burial plots, and the roots have undermined some of the headstones.  There is a thick covering of vines on the ground of the cemetery.  These vines often obscure the footstones.  The dates of death on the headstones range from 1834 to 1854, with Thomas Cashion being the first interred.

The Cashions who are buried on the plot are in the easternmost row of the cemetery.  Thomas Cashion’s grave is located farthest south, then Tabitha Cashion’s, wife of Thomas Cashion, then Sarah L. Cashion’s, wife of Thomas Cashion Jr., and then Sarah Cashion’s, Thomas’s and Sarah’s granddaughter, moving northward.  Thomas Cashion’s grave also has a marker at his footstone erected by the D.A.R. for his service in the Virginia Militia.  It is unclear when this marker was placed at the grave, though it is less worn than any of the other gravestones. It was probably erected in the early 1900s.  The graves of the Moore children are in their own row located to the west of the Cashion family row.  These headstones are in much greater disrepair than those of the Cashion family and are mostly undermined by tree roots.

   
Graves of the Cashions Graves of the Moores
   
Thomas Cashion’s Headstone. Tabitha Cashion’s Headstone

.

   
Thomas Cashion served in the Virginia militia during the American Revolutionary War. This marker was erected by the Daughters of the American Revolution, most likely in the early 1900s.

 

 

  1. The information in this report is largely taken from Morrill Book/Index.htm Information is also taken from Kylene Edson, “Survey and Research Report on the Cashion and Moore Family Cemetery,” December 16, 2005.
  2. This conjecture also results from the fact that the Moore graves are smaller than the Cashion graves.
  3. The estimation of the date Thomas Cashion arrived in Mecklenburg County is based upon investigations on the internet, see http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCMECKLE/1998-02/0888715965;  http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCMECKLE/1998-03/0889375694;and http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncomgs/cemetery1.htm  Other cemeteries in northern Mecklenburg County include:

Bethel Presbyterian Church Cemetery

Bethesda Methodist Church Cemetery

Cook’s Memorial Presbyterian Church Cemetery

Davidson College Cemetery

Davidson Family Cemetery

Gilead A.R.P. Church Cemetery

Hopewell Presbyterian Church Cemetery

Robin S. McGee Cemetery

Ramah Presbyterian Church Cemetery

Trinity Methodist Church Cemetery

  1. The most noteworthy and talented early stone cutters in Mecklenburg County were the Bighams.  Residents of the Steele Creek community of Mecklenburg County, the Bighams carved stones of intricate design, including elaborate coats of arms.  One can find Bigham stones in places such as the Dinkins Family Cemetery and the cemeteries of Hopewell Presbyterian Church and Steele Creek Presbyterian Church.
  2. This information has been provided by descendant.  He is Stephen Allan Patrick, PO Box 23118 Johnson City TN 37614.
    6.  At this writing the history of Rocky River Baptist Church remains undetermined.  One could assume that the burial ground was originally intended for church members and later became more directly associated with the Cashion family.  For details see http://cmstory.org/cemetery/details.asp?id=38. One of the Moore gravestones is for Juleann Moore.  Another is for Mary R. Moore.
  3. Interview of Allen White by Dr. Dan L. Morrill (December 20, 2005).
  4. Wade B. Fairey, “The Changing York County, South Carolina, Tombstone Business, 1750-1850,” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Vol. XVI, No. 2, Nov. 1990.

Carr, J.P. House

 

This report was written on January 28, 1976

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the John Price Carr House

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the J. P. Carr House is located at 200-206 N. McDowell St., Charlotte, N.C. 28204.

2. Name, addresses, and telephone numbers of the present owners and occupants of the property:
The official records of Mecklenburg County indicate that the present owner of the property is:

Mr. and Mrs. Wiliam R. Lee, Sr.
R.F.D. 7 Box 837
Charlotte, N.C. 28213

Telephone: 596-8682

The present occupants of the property are:

Mr. Walter Smith, Resident Manager
204 N. McDowell St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28204

Telephone: 332-4525

Mr. Edward Morrison, Tenant
Mr. Jim Miller, Tenant
Mr. James Robertson, Tenant
Mr. Craig Brown, Tenant
Mr. Charles Harton, Tenant

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property: A map depicting the location of the property is included in this report.

 

5. Current Deed Book Reference of the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Deed Book 3720, Page 27, as filed in the Mecklenburg County Registry. The Parcel number of the property is: 08009301 (Handwritten revision to 08009308)

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The house was erected in 1904 by John Price Carr. The son of Thomas Milton Carr ( a minister in the Methodist church ) and Rebecca Price Carr, he was born on November 25, 1854, near the present site of Trinity Methodist Church on the Beatties Ford Rd. Forced by the death of his father to leave school at an early age, Mr. Carr contributed to his family’s upkeep by hauling lumber in his native Hopewell Community. Through this and other enterprises he acquired a keen business sense which was to serve him well in adult life.

Mr. John Price Carr

On February 14, 1878, (Valentine’s Day) Mr. Carr married Anna Eliza Little, daughter of William Price and Hannah Sifford Little. Mr. Little, who had served in the Confederate Army, was a farmer and a former sheriff of Mecklenburg County. As newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Carr rented the John McIntyre Log Cabin as their initial abode. For several years Mr. Carr and his older brother engaged in the raising and selling of cattle. Mr. Carr’s business activities, however, expanded into other pursuits. He secured an interest in H. M. Bassamon & Co., a firm which operated a cotton gin in Charlotte. Mr. Carr sold his interest in this enterprise on September 11, 1891. But the farm boy from Hopewell, now 36 years old, must have realized that the city was the place of greatest financial opportunity.

 The John McIntyre Log Cabin, the first home of Mr. John Price Carr and his wife Anna Eliza Little Carr.

On November 17, 1891, Mr. Carr began to assemble what eventually became a large tract of land to the northeast of the intersection of N. McDowell St. and E. Fifth St. Shortly after purchasing the final portion of the tract on February 15, 1895, Mr. Carr established his residence at what was then 903 Myers St., soon to be re-named E. Fifth St. From here he also operated a moving company, the enterprise which was to become his vocation for the remainder of his life. Obviously, he had selected this property because of its suitability for his business activities. Barns and other outbuildings were constructed behind the dwelling to house the mules and the equipment necessary to sustain the enterprise.

The single-story frame structure which housed the Carr family was becoming increasingly crowded with the birth of additional children. The fifth and last child, Annie Price Carr, was born in 1898. In 1904 Mr. Carr moved the family “up the hill” to their “new spacious house” at 200 N. McDowell St, “on the outskirts of Charlotte.” Mr. Carr personally supervised the construction of the house. To this task he brought an impressive array of skills. Because his company had already moved several houses in the City, Mr. Carr had a firm grasp on the principles of sound construction. Having worked in the lumber trade as a boy, he appreciated the aesthetic qualities of wood. Understandably, most of the lumber used in the house was cut in Hopewell and brought to Charlotte in Mr. Carr’s wagons. His administrative and financial skills enabled him to got the most for his money. The workmen who erected the house were paid by the day.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Carr selected the Queen Anne Style for his home. This was the most fashionable style of domestic architecture in Charlotte during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and by selecting it Mr. Carr no doubt sought to demonstrate to the community that his family had secured substantial status.

In subsequent years Mr. Carr continued to demonstrate that he was a man of substance and character. His business thrived. Replacing mules and wagons with an impressive collection of specialized vehicles, Mr. Carr became the local expert on moving heavy equipment. He transferred the presses of the Charlotte Observer from the railroad depot to the newspaper’s headquarters. He moved buildings of all types, sizes, and shapes. He played a major part in transporting materials to the site of Camp Greene. More routine business operations also occupied a considerable portion of his time. He was the major deliverer of merchandise which arrived at the Seaboard and Southern railway stations in transit to local merchants.

Mr. Carr was more than a successful businessman. He contributed greatly to the improvement of the community in which he resided. From 1905 until 1907 he served as the representative of First Ward on the Charlotte Board of Aldermen. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party in Mecklenburg County. He was a trustee of the Carnegie Public Library, the forerunner of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. For 42 years he participated in the activities of the Second Presbyterian Church, which later served an the nucleus of the Covenant Presbyterian Church of today. He was ordained a deacon, April 3, 1910, and an elders June 29, 1913. He served on building, finance, and other committees and was a leader in the Sunday School program.

Mr. Carr’s most lasting contribution, however centers around his efforts to rescue Presbyterian Hospital from oblivion. In July 1917, Presbyterian Hospital, then located at W. Trade and Mint Sts., stood on the brink of collapse. A fire had seriously damaged its facilities. Indeed, the patients were temporarily housed on the second floor of a downtown building. The Board of Directors of the Hospital, of which Mr. Carr was a member, held an option to purchase the vacated facilities of Elizabeth College for $225,000, A campaign to raise the funds, however, was $40,000 short, and the option was about to expire. Mr. Carr and four other men personally underwrote a loan for the necessary $40,000. With considerable justification one can claim that without John Price Carr there would be no Presbyterian Hospital today.

Pneumonia ended the life of John Price Carr. He died on April 7, 1927, in the hospital which he had done so much to save. The funeral services were conducted at the home by Dr. A. A, McGeachy, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church. Mr. Carr is buried in Elmwood Cemetery.

Mrs. Carr remained at the homeplace until 1951, when she sold the house to Mr. and Mrs. William R. Lee, Sr., and moved with her youngest daughter and her son-in-law to 111 Hermitage Rd. She died in 1956. Mrs. Annie Price Carr Wurzburg, the only surviving child of Mr. and Mrs. John Price Carr, lives with her husband on Hermitage Rd. She remembers her father as a loving and kind man who displayed throughout his life the highest ethical standards.

Mr. and Mrs. Lee lived in the Carr House for several years. More recently, they have rented the house to male boarders. The house was moved slightly in the late 1960’s to make way for a modification in the route of E. Fifth St.

Although current rumor suggests that the City of Charlotte has purchased the house under the auspices of the Community Development Department, the official records of Mecklenburg County indicate that this transaction has not been consummated.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: An architectural description of the property is appended to this report.

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

 

a. Historical and cultural significance: The historical and cultural significance of the property known as the J. P. Carr Home rests upon two factors. First, the evidence suggests that Mr. Carr mas a man of substantial significance in the history of Charlotte. Second, the house is one of the finest examples of the Queen Anne Style of domestic architecture in this city. It is certainly the most significant Victorian structure in the entire First Ward.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: A brief investigation suggests that the house is structurally sound. The exterior is beginning to show evidence of some structural decay. However, the house can be restored. And it is worth noting that it is still serving as a viable dwelling.

c. Educational value: The structure is located in an area of high visibility. Consequently, it can serve as a valuable tool for making the local citizenry more aware of its architectural history. Moreover, the career of Mr. Carr could interest a number of people in the history of Charlotte at the turn of the century.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance, or repair: The Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. It does, however, believe that the property can be adapted to a use which will justify the cost of restoring and maintaining the structure.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: As suggested above, the Comission sees this structure as well suited for adaptive use. Located near the Governmental Plaza, the house has interior spaces which could be adapted to a wide variety of uses.

f. Appraised value: The 1975 appraised value of the structure itself is $6,230.00. The appraised value of the land is $22,440.00. The Commission is aware that designation of the property would allow the owner to apply for a special property tax classification.

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

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion on the National Register: The Commission believes that the property known as the J. P. Carr House does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places because of its architectural merit and because of its association with an individual of outstanding local historical significance.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: The property known as the J. P. Carr House is significant to the history of Charlotte because of its architectural merit and because of the historical accomplishments of its builder, Mr. Carr, by saving Presbyterian Hospital from oblivion, made a momentous contribution to the life of this community.

 


Bibliography

An Inventory of Older Buildings In Mecklenburg County And Charlotte For The Historic Properties Commission.

Interview with Mrs. Annie Price Carr Wurzburg (December 18, 1975).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

The Charlotte Observer (July 26, 1917).

The Charlotte Observer (April 8, 1927).

The Charlotte Observer (January 26, 1936).

 

Date of Preparation of this report: January 28, 1976

Prepared by: Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission

Telephone: 332-2726

 

Architectural Overview

At 200 North McDowell Street cornering on East Fifth Street is the turn of the century late Queen Anne style residence known as the “Carr House.” This house is highly visible to Charlotteans since it is located on the perimeter of the bustling governmental plaza area of the Queen City. The architecture of the house offers such variety and intriguing detail that most local residents, as well as chance visitors, are drawn to lingering study of the charm of the house as they drive by.

An important outgrowth from the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition in 1876 was an interest in several half timber buildings erected at the exhibition by the British Government. These buildings embodied fresh new design freedom from the traditional classical of early Victorian, and were admired by The American Builder magazine as “wonderfully adaptive to this country, offering comfort and livability”, being plain enough and yet capable of the highest ornamental development, the style was enthusiastically endorsed. This was actually a reaction against high Victorian so much in vogue during the 70’s and 80’s, and showed a renewed interest in the picturesque qualities of a more rural manner. This new style was soon developed by architects and designers into a uniquely American architecture, characterized by irregular outlines, light frame construction, steep pitched roofs, open interior spaces, and verandas and porches.

In Charlotte this style was widely used in the growing residential neighborhoods of First Ward, Fourth Ward and along the affluent blocks of Tryon and Trade Streets. Only here and there are remaining vestiges of these lovely old Charlotte neighborhoods, and the Carr House is a fine example of this heritage.

The exterior illustrates the extraordinary plan irregularity with two story, gabled wings extending boldly from each axis. Across the front and curving down each side of the front bay, and sheltering the main entrance and a lesser side door is an expansive porch covered with a low tin roof. This porch is supported by delicate paired Doric wood columns set on solid panelled pedestals. While Queen Anne was the popular style of the late nineteenth century, and the Carr House an outstanding example of the style at the turn of the century designers were looking back with some nostalgia to colonial architecture. These porch columns show evidence of this nostalgic look backward and presage the coming colonial revival of the early twentieth century. Some interior work also reflects this influence.

The house rests on a solid red brick foundation wall interrupted at regular intervals by glazed, wood frame foundation vents. The entire exterior is covered with narrow horizontal beveled weatherboards. Starting above a molded drip cap over the foundation wall the siding rises to a wide molded frieze. At a moderately wide second floor roof overhang the cornice is defined with carefully molded cove and crown trim, and built-in concealed gutters blend into the overhang configuration. This molded roof overhang band is a strong design element which serves to unify the elaborate exterior massing – carrying as it does across the gable faces and segmenting the oval tower which accents the street corner facade. This turreted tower rises well above the main roof line and creates a lofty focal point. It is sheathed with narrow, tight green “fish scale” wood shingles through its full height. Queen Anne design popularly faced rounded turrets to street corners, and this house was precisely proper in this respect. It is worthy of note that of the several extant Queen Anne houses in Charlotte all have, or at one time had, street corner towers.

The four main roof gables are covered with similar wood shingles and each is pierced by a large bulls eye gable window with glazed fan lights and trimmed with wooden voussoirs at quarter points in the circle.

The front bay wing has angled corners with narrow high windows in the angles at each floor. The gable wall frames above this bay create angular canopies over the corner windows and are decorated with suspended beaded grill work and turned, drop pendants. Windows are all large double hung, weight balanced single units, each sash with one large undivided glass. Over the massive panelled entrance doors at the front and side the frames are topped with finely detailed stained glass leaded transom windows. The many surfaced roof is covered with square edge slate shingles interrupted at mid slope with several courses of rounded ‘fish scale’ units. At the crown of each gable rake and at the main, hipped center ridge the roof is topped with molded cresting.

On the Fifth Street side a recessed veranda adjoins the rear kitchen. This porch offered an outside summer dining or screened sitting area and provided a screened and sheltered service entrance. The veranda has been, at some past time, solidly enclosed and is no longer open. However, some of the original diagonal screen slats and other trim remain.

Once inside the front door the elegance of the fine original oak millwork is immediately apparent. From a large hall, panelled and trimmed with golden oak, one is led through wide pocket doors to a formal parlor at the front, to a large dining room toward the rear, or to a private hall leading to family sitting rooms and bed chambers adjoining the side entrance. Rising from the other side of the entrance hall three flights of stairs lead to the second floor. In all important first floor rooms there are delicately crafted oak mantels with beveled oval or rectangular mirrors in over-mantels. These mantels are all classical in design, Georgian as well as Adam, and feature small glazed Italian tile in remarkably good condition. All rooms on the first floor are uniformly finished with warm oak wainscoting, elaborate door and window millwork, and were unstintingly trimmed by highly skilled craftsmen. Built-in window-seats, glass door cupboards and small storage cabinets were inserted in numerous nooks and crannies.

On the second floor a carefully finished hall, again wainscoted with the same fine oak, meanders about as it leads to various bed chambers, all of which are richly decorated and above whose doors high transom windows flood the hall with natural light.

The house embodies an exciting array of the best of Queen Anne detailing. Without exception the exterior escapes any chance of monotony, and the interior includes a high degree of elaboration. The design could be called an essential treasure in Charlotte’s architectural heritage and the need for its preservation is absolutely undeniable.

The HPC will likely be a party to any plans for the building, and it is suggested that immediate contact with the local authority having jurisdiction be considered.

JOHN PRICE CARR HOUSE

The Carr House, 200-206 N. McDowell St., located across the street from Charlotte’s main post office, was erected in 1904 by Mr. John Price Carr, and was designated historic by City Council on July 28, 1980. The house is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The son of Thomas Milton Carr, a minister in the Methodist Church, and Rebecca Price Carr, John Price Carr was born on November 25, 1854, near the present site of Trinity Methodist Church on Beatties Ford Road. Forced by the death of his father to leave school at an early age, Mr. Carr contributed to his family’s upkeep by hauling lumber in his native Hopewell Community. Through this and other enterprises he acquired a keen business sense which was to serve him well in adult life.

On February 14, 1878, Mr. Carr married Anna Eliza Little, daughter of William Price and Hannah Sifford Little. Mr. Little, who had served in the Confederate Army, was a farmer and a former sheriff of Mecklenburg County. As newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Carr rented the John McIntyre Log Cabin as their initial abode. For several years Mr. Carr and his older brother engaged in the raising and selling of cattle. Mr. Carr’s business activities, however, expanded into other pursuits. He secured an interest in H. M. Bassamon & Co., a firm which operated a cotton gin in Charlotte. Mr. Carr sold his interest in this enterprise on September 11, 1891. But the farmboy from Hopewell, now 36 years old, must have realized that the city was the place of greatest financial opportunity.

On November 17, 1891, Mr. Carr began to assemble what eventually became a large tract of land to the northeast of the intersection of N. McDowell St. and E. Fifth St. Shortly after purchasing the final portion of the tract on February 15, 1895, Mr. Carr established his residence at what was then 903 Meyers St., soon to be re-named E. Fifth St. From here he also operated a moving company, the enterprise, which was to be his vocation for the remainder of his life. Obviously, he had selected this property because of its suitability for his business activities. Barns and other outbuildings were constructed behind the dwelling to house the mules and the equipment necessary to sustain the enterprise.

The single-story frame structure which housed the Carr family was becoming increasingly crowded with the birth of additional children. The fifth and last child, Annie Price Carr, was born in 1898. In 1904, Mr. Carr moved the family “up the hill” to their “new spacious house” at 200 N. McDowell St. “on the outskirts of Charlotte.” Mr. Carr personally supervised the construction of the house. To this task he brought an impressive array of skills. Because his company had already moved several houses in the City, Mr. Carr had a firm grasp on the principles of sound construction. Having worked in the lumber trade as a boy, he appreciated the aesthetic qualities of wood. Understandably, most of the lumber used in the house was cut in Hopewell and brought to Charlotte in Mr. Carr’s wagons. His administrative and financial skills enabled him to get the most for his money. The workmen who erected the house were paid by the day.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Carr selected the Queen Anne Style for his home. This was the most fashionable style of domestic architecture in Charlotte during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and the style is anything but monotonous. With its magnificent streetcorner tower, four gables, shaped shingles, high hipped roof, stained glass windows, porch, and colunms, the Carr house is a visual treasure in an area now dominated by concrete and glass. Downstairs, the house featured a large entry hall, panelled and trimmed with golden oak, a formal parlor, a kitchen, a large dining room, several sitting rooms and bedrooms and three flights of stairs leading to the second floor. Nearly every room in the house featured a fine oak mantel with a beveled oval or rectangular mirror in an over-mantel. The mantels were all classical in design, Georgian as well as Adam, and featured small glazed Italian tile in remarkably good condition. Built-in window-seats, glass door cupboards, and small storage cabinets were inserted in numerous nooks and crannies in the house. oak wainscoting, and elaborate door and window millwork, were trimmed by highly skilled craftsmen. Transom windows were over the doors.

In subsequent years Mr . Carr continued to demonstrate that he was a man of substance and character. His business thrived. Replacing mules and wagons with an impressive collection of specialized vehicles, Mr. Carr became the local expert an moving heaving equipment. He transferred the presses of the Charlotte Observer from the railroad depot to the newspaper’s headquarters. He moved buildings of all types, sizes and shapes. He played a major part in transporting materials to the site of Camp Greene. More routine business operations also occupied a considerable portion of his time. He was the major deliverer of merchandise which arrived at the Seaboard and Southern railway stations in transit to local merchants. Mr. Carr was more than a successful businessman. He contributed greatly to the improvement of the community in which he resided. From 1905 until 1907 he served as the representative of First Ward on the Charlotte Board of Aldermen. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party in Mecklenburg County. He was a trustee of the Carnegie Public Library, the forerunner of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. For 42 years he participated in the activities of the Second Presbyterian Church, which later served as the nucleus of the Covenant Presbyterian Church of today. He was ordained a deacon, April 3, 1910, and an elder, June 29, 1913. He served on building, finance and other committees and was a leader in the Sunday School program.

Mr. Carr’s most lasting contribution, however, centers around his efforts to rescue Presbyterian Hospital from oblivion. In July 1917, Presbyterian Hospital, then located at W. Trade and Mint Streets, stood on the brink of collapse. A fire had seriously damaged its facilities. Indeed, the patients were temporarily houses on the second floor of a downtown building. The Board of Directors of the Hospital, of which Mr. Carr was a member, held an option to purchase the vacated facilities of Elizabeth College for $225,000. A campaign to raise the funds, however, was $40,000 short, and the option was about to expire. Mr. Carr and four other men personally underwrote a loan for the necessary $40,000. With considerable justification one can claim that without John Price Carr there would be no Presbyterian Hospital today.

Pneumonia ended the life of John Price Carr. He died on April 7, 1927, in the hospital which he had done so much to save. The funeral services were conducted at the home by Dr. A. A. McGeachy, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church. Mr. Carr is buried in Elmwood Cemetery.

Mrs. Carr remained at the homeplace until 1951, when she sold the house to Mr. and Mrs. William R. Lee, Sr., and moved with her youngest daughter, Mrs. Annie Price Carr Wurzburg, and her son-in-law to 111 Hermitage Road. The stalwart Mrs. Carr didn’t want to move and it is reported that the movers had to carry her, sitting in her rocking chair, from the home where she had lived for half a century. Mrs. Carr died in 1956. Mrs. Wurzburg described the house where she grew up as “always a happy place, very full of life. Papa and Mama did so much entertaining. It was quite a grand place … quite the biggest in the neighborhood. It really was a wonderful place to grow up.”

Mr. and Mrs. Lee lived in the Carr House for several years. The house, moved slightly in the late 1960’s to make way for a modification in the route of E. Fifth Street, was later rented out to male boarders. The house fell into disrepair in the 1970’s and was purchased by the Community Development Department of the City of Charlotte. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, worked with Mr. T. Bragg McLeod, owner of Moss Trucking Company and McLeod Trucking and Rigging Company, to save the house. Renovation of the house took more than eighteen months to complete and cost over $400,000. Under the direction of architect Jim Johnson and with the aid of interior designer Nancy Thomas and the Andrew Roby Co., the house was painstakingly restored to its original grandeur. Mr. McLeod took a special interest in the property due to the fact that Mr. Carr had been in the heavy moving business as he is.

Mr. McLeod’s nationally known companies have handled nuclear generators, textile machinery, entire plants, and structural steel. The companies have gained wide recognition for hauling Tweetsie to Blowing Rock, a Sherman tank to Charlotte’s Freedom Park and the nation’s 60- foot Christmas tree from North Carolina to the White House lawn in 1972. On March 17, 1981, dedicatory ceremonies were held for the opening of the renovated John Price Carr House. The conversion of the house by Mr. McLeod into offices necessitated the construction of a parking lot on the northern side and to the rear of the house. Great care was taken to preserve the “feeling” of the front yard and those portions of the back yard which were not dedicated to parking. No major changes to the property have occurred since 1981. Today, the Carr House is a living reminder of Charlotte’s romantic Victorian heritage. It provides contemporary Charlotte an elegant link to its architectural past and the history of a major industry.


Carolina Transfer and Storage Building

Carolina Transfer and Storage Building

  1. Name and location of the property. The property known as the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building is located at 1230 West Morehead Street in Charlotte, North Carolina.  UTM Coordinates:  17 512562E 3898260N
  2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property.

The present owners of the property are:

suite # name

102 Edward Lee Harris

104 West End Development Associates LLC

106 Fergusson Nye LLC

108 Team Lighting LLC

110 Eubert Wesley McLeod Jr.

112 Eubert Wesley McLeod Jr.

114 Patricia A. Ganster

116 Robert Trevor Williams

202 Edith R. Saxton

204 Neighboring Concepts LLC

206 B & P Holdings LLC

208 Thomas Investments LLC

210 Neighboring Concepts LLC

212 Gary N. Wirth

214 DRG Properties LLC

302 Thomas Michael Todd

304 West End Development Associates LLC

306 Off Third Properties LLC

308 Bobby M. Morrison

312 West End Development Associates LLC

402 Keith Properties Inc.

404 Twelve Thirty W. Morehead LLC

406 Wilhelm Hedrich

The mailing address for each of the above owners is 1230 W. Morehead St., suite # ___, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28208.

  1. 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.
  2. Maps depicting the location of the property. This report contains two maps depicting the location of the property.
  1. Current deed book reference to the property. The most recent deeds to this property are recorded in the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office:

unit # tax parcel # Deed Book/Page

102 733-244-25 11244 / 767

104 733-244-26 11298 / 917

106 733-244-47 11148 / 353

108 733-244-27 11156 / 399

110 733-244-28 11175 / 968

112 733-244-29 11175 / 968

114 733-244-30 11305 / 440

116 733-244-31 11210 / 536

202 733-244-32 11220 / 401

204 733-244-33 11306 / 680

206 733-244-34 12126 / 328

208 733-244-35 11240 / 152

210 733-244-36 11306 / 697

212 733-244-37 11152 / 220

214 733-244-38 10983 / 176

302 733-244-39 12744 / 001

304 733-244-40 11298 / 917

306 733-244-41 10958 / 082

308 733-244-42 11494 / 822

312 733-244-43 11298 / 917

402 733-244-44 10972 / 382

404 733-244-45 10928 / 225

406 733-244-46 11163 / 157

  1. A brief historical sketch of the property. This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.
  2. A brief architectural description of the property. This report contains a brief architectural description of the property.
  3. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-400.5.
  4. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance. The Commission judges that the property known as the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The four-story fireproof warehouse was built in 1926 using the state-of-the-art “flat-slab” construction method. This technique uses concrete slab floors supported by distinctive mushroom columns. The configuration allowed for a more open floor plan without sacrificing strength–particularly desirable for a storage facility. The concrete and brick elements were left exposed, and thus the construction method is clearly reflected in the design of the building. The Carolina Transfer and Storage building is a good, intact example of a flat-slab warehouse building from the 1920s.

2) The Carolina Transfer and Storage building reflects the boom years of

the 1920s in Charlotte and the consequent need for businesses of every kind to meet the demands of the new economy. It was one of the first to be erected on West Morehead Street west of the Southern Railway tracks–an area that quickly developed into a commercial and light industrial corridor. Carolina Transfer and Storage was a family business that supported four generations of Wilkinson family members.

  1. 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 Carolina Transfer and Storage Building meets this criterion.
  2. 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 values are as follows:

unit # land building total value

102 $ 70,000 $ 134,800 $ 204,800

104 70,000 82,730 152,730

106 75,000 112,260 186,260

108 75,000 250,510 325,510

110 75,000 244,380 319,380

112 60,000 52,860 112,860

114 75,000 187,070 262,070

116 78,000 308,310 386,310

202 75,000 159,640 234,640

204 80,000 396,900 476,900

206 60,000 65,010 125,010

208 75,000 250,510 325,510

210 75,000 202,890 277,890

212 75,000 86,590 161,590

214 75,000 259,850 334,850

302 75,000 152,490 227,490

304 85,000 615,450 700,450

unit # land building total value

306 $ 75,000 $ 250,510 $ 325,510

308 75,000 203,570 278,570

312 75,000 83,890 158,890

402 75,000 152,490 227,490

404 85,000 373,220 458,220

406 80,000 378,280 458,280

The property is zoned URC.

Date of preparation of this report: January 7, 2002

Prepared by:

Mary Beth Gatza

428 N. Laurel Avenue, #7

Charlotte, NC 28204

(704) 331 9660

 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Carolina Transfer and Storage building is historically and architecturally significant to Charlotte. The four-story, all-masonry warehouse was built in 1927 using state-of-the-art warehouse design concepts. It was constructed using the “flat-slab” technique, which consists of continuous concrete slab floors supported by mushroom columns. This method was particularly well-suited for storage facilities because it allowed for a more open floor plan without sacrificing weight capacity. The construction method is evident in the design of the Carolina Transfer and Storage building. The concrete frame, slabs and columns were all left exposed, though the wall surfaces were infilled with brick (exterior) and terra cotta (interior). Having this new, modern, fireproof building enabled the company to expand its business.

Carolina Transfer and Storage was founded in 1922 by three brothers–Fabius A., John L. and W. D. Wilkinson. The company was wholly family-owned and operated, and over the years employed four generations of the Wilkinson family (as well as some non-related workers). The building was one of the first to be erected on West Morehead Street west of the Southern Railway tracks (beyond Mint Street), which quickly developed into a commercial and light industrial corridor. It reflected Charlotte’s growth in population and economic activity, and the consequent need for businesses of every variety to meet the demands of the new economy.

 

HISTORICAL SKETCH

Overall economic and demographic trends favored the business climate in Charlotte during the 1920s. The United States census counted 46,388 people living in Charlotte at the beginning of the decade, and 82,675 people in 1930–an increase of seventy-eight percent, or 36,287 people.1 According to data collected by Miller Press (publishers of the annual city directory), about 6,000 of the new residents arrived between 1926 and 1927 2–just as Carolina Transfer and Storage was expanding its facilities. Drawing on information from the Standard Statistics Company of New York, an April 1928 newspaper article declared that “the volume of business in Charlotte for the month was reported to be 80 percent above the average for 1920-1924.”3  Undeniably, an increase in people and businesses in the area provided a larger customer base for the transfer and storage industry in Charlotte. In 1920, there were seven such companies listed in the city directory under the heading “transfer.” By 1930, there were eighteen companies listed.4

The location on West Morehead Street was within the city limits in the mid-1920s, although it had not yet been fully developed. The nearby neighborhood of Wesley Heights, located just north of this area, had opened in 1921.5 When it was built in 1927, Carolina Transfer and Storage was the last (westernmost) building on West Morehead Street. The only neighbors were a small commercial structure across the street and a similar warehouse, the Union Storage and Warehouse Company, two blocks to the east. West Morehead Street developed steadily over the next few decades, filling in and pushing westward to its junction with Wilkinson Boulevard.6 The West Morehead Street location had the advantage of being close to the city and convenient to the newly-opened Wilkinson Boulevard,7 North Carolina’s first state highway. Additionally, the site was equipped with a Piedmont and Northern Interurban Railway spur line, so freight arriving by rail could be handled easily. The P & N, as it was informally referred to, was a light rail system between Charlotte and the textile mills of Gaston County to the west.

Carolina Transfer and Storage was a local company owned and operated by members of the Wilkinson family. W. H. Wilkinson (1847-1928) brought his wife, Marya Caldwell (1852-1928) and children to the Paw Creek section of Mecklenburg County from Catawba County around 1890. After reaching adulthood, all five of their sons relocated to Charlotte.9  In 1922, three sons, Fabius A. (1877-1945), William D. (1879-1946) and John L. (1886-1952) joined together to establish Carolina Transfer and Storage Company.10

The first president of the company was William D. Wilkinson. He was married to Ida Lenora Saine in Paw Creek on April 25, 1906, and they moved to Charlotte shortly thereafter. In 1908 he was working as manager and treasurer for the Carolina Realty Company. By 1916, he was serving as president of that company and had also branched out into the insurance business, forming the firm of Wilkinson and Lee with a partner, B. P. Lee. That was a short-lived business, but by 1922, he and his brothers had established Carolina Transfer and Storage Company. William D. Wilkinson served as president from 1922 through the early 1930s, when he moved to Columbia, South Carolina. He died there in 1946, survived by his wife, Lenora and son, William D. Wilkinson, Jr.11

John L. Wilkinson first appeared in the Charlotte city directory in 1907 (the same year his brother W. D was first listed). A year later, in 1908, he married Louise M. Bradley (1889-1951). He worked for a time with J. W. W. Sons Company, but became secretary of the Cochran and Ross livery stable by 1918. In addition to stabling horses, Cochran and Ross provided transfer, moving, packing and storage services around this time. Perhaps his exposure to the business convinced John that profits could be made, though motor trucks were fast replacing horse-drawn wagons. John served as vice-president of Carolina Transfer and Storage from its founding in 1922 until his brother stepped down in 1934. At that time, John assumed the role of president, a post which he held until 1950 when his health failed. John was undeniably active in business and civic affairs. His obituary lists his many activities, including memberships in the Charlotte Traffic and Transportation Club, the Charlotte Executives Club and the American Trucking Association (board of directors). He served as Charlotte City Councilman (1935-1941) and Mayor Pro Tem and was chairman of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce transportation committee. Additionally, he was president of the National Furniture Warehouse Association, Allied Van Lines, and North Carolina Motor Carriers Association. John died in 1952, survived by a two daughters and a son, John L. Wilkinson, Jr. His son and two sons-in-law all had long careers at Carolina Transfer and Storage.12

Fabius A. Wilkinson joined his younger brothers in forming the Carolina Transfer and Storage Company in 1922. Apparently he did not move to Charlotte that early, but probably remained a county resident through the late 1920s. He was a vice-president in the family business through 1934, after which time he served as treasurer. He died in 1945. His two sons, Clyde L. and William E., both worked for Carolina Transfer and Storage.13

The second generation of Wilkinsons to run the family business included children of four of the five original brothers.14  Brothers Augustus M. “Gus” (1872-1957) and Mack R. (1896-1918) did not work for the company, but their sons did. In all, the second generation included: Ray S. and Adrian M. (sons of Gus), Clyde L. “Dick” and W. E. (sons of Fabius), John L. Jr. (son of John L.), E. R. Brietz and F. H. McNeely (sons-in-law of John L.), and Mack R. and Charles R. (sons of Mack R.).15  Some had brief tenures and entry-level jobs, while others had long careers and high positions.

The third generation of Wilkinsons to work in the company included two family members.16  Robert W. was Adrian’s son (and Gus’s grandson), while and W. E., Jr. was W. E.’s son (and Fabius’s grandson).17  Robert W.’s son, Robert L., also worked for the company briefly in the mid-1950s, thus representing the fourth generation of Wilkinsons at Carolina Transfer and Storage.18

Carolina Transfer and Storage was a success from the start. They were located downtown initially, and apparently recognized the need for a new modern warehouse building a mere four years after establishing the business. The Charlotte News announced in 1926 that “what is believed to be the largest single contract for moving ever executed in Charlotte was signed Friday afternoon by John L. Wilkinson, of the Carolina Transfer and Storage Company, and…Southern Railway Lines” for relocating the Southern Railway offices. The lot on West Morehead Street was purchased in September 1926, and just two weeks later, they applied for a building permit. The plan was drawn by an engineer, G. T. Barnes. The building was constructed quickly, and was open for business by early February 1927.19  The “flat-slab” construction method was state-of-the-art for warehouses during the early-twentieth century, and the new facilities allowed the company to offer expanded services. In 1924, their city directory entry said simply, “hauling, moving and packing.” But in 1927, after the new building opened, they boasted “transfer, hauling, moving, packing and bonded warehouse.” Thus, the building enabled storage to become a significant component of the business. The all-masonry building was hailed as being fireproof–a feature that would constitute a competitive advantage in the storage business. In fact, they touted the fact that the place was both bonded (insured) and fireproof directly on the building. The West Morehead Street facade was originally a blank wall which was painted with a full-sized advertisement for the company. Along with the telephone number (#609), it read:

“CAROLINA TRANSFER & STORAGE CO.

MOVING–PACKING–STORING

Bonded FIRE-PROOF Warehouse”20

In time, the advertisement would change, and a 1948 photograph shows that the size of the advertisement had grown to accommodate a picture if a delivery truck, but still included the words “BONDED FIREPROOF WAREHOUSE.”21   By that time, Carolina transfer and Storage had become affiliated with Allied Van Lines, a national company.22

Over the decades, the principals of the Carolina Transfer and Storage Company aged and died off. The business dwindled and finally closed sometime during the 1970s. The property was renovated and converted to office suites with individual ownership (office condos) in 1999. The Carolina Transfer and Storage building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1999.

 

ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION

Setting

The Carolina Transfer and Storage Building is located on the north side of West Morehead Street, in the 1200 block, about a mile from the center of Charlotte. This section of West Morehead Street contains primarily commercial and light industrial structures dating from the middle decades of the twentieth century. Morehead Street, which runs generally northwest to southeast, curves to the west in this section. It intersects the side streets here at an angle, and thus the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building lot is an irregular polygon shape. The Morehead Street side of the otherwise rectangular lot slants at an angle of about fifty degrees. The building occupies the front half (approximately) of the lot, and the rear (north) portion of the lot is paved and used for parking. The main facade (south elevation) abuts West Morehead Street, the west elevation stands along Calvert Street, the north elevation opens up to the parking lot, and the east elevation is next to the driveway and parking lot. Beyond the lot lines, commercial and light industrial buildings line West Morehead and Calvert Streets, and the I-77 off-ramp borders the property on the east side.

Description

The Carolina Transfer and Storage Building is a four-story all-masonry warehouse building constructed in 1926 (photo #1). The building’s footprint conforms to the shape of the lot and is therefore an irregular polygon–that is, a rectangle with one side deeply slanted at an angle of about a fifty-degrees. The building materials are reinforced concrete, brick and terra cotta tiles. Thus, the building was constructed to be fireproof, which was an important quality for safeguarding the contents stored inside.

The construction method used in the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building is called the “flat-slab” technique. The framing is made entirely of poured, reinforced concrete. The floors are continuous thin slabs of concrete resting on round columns. The columns are flared at the top, thus enlarging the surface area which supports the weight above it (photo #8). This distinctive shape is called a “mushroom” column and is particular to this method of construction. For further stabilization, a square concrete pad, called a “drop panel” lies between the column and the slab. With this method, only the slab itself separates the floors–the floor of one level is the ceiling of the level below.

The flat-slab construction method was developed simultaneously by Swiss and American engineers in the first decade of the twentieth century. Robert Maillart (1872-1940), is credited for inventing the method around 1900, although his first flat-slab building (the Beschellschaft Company warehouse in Zurich, Switzerland) wasn’t built until 1910.23   Meanwhile, in America, Claude A. P. Turner filed a patent for the technique in 1908.24  The primary benefit of the system is that it eliminates the need for beams and girders to support the floors, thereby saving space and materials. Also, compared to earlier methods, it supports a greater amount of weight while allowing for a more open interior.25  This is an obvious advantage for a warehouse building.

The flat-slab construction method is reflected in the design of the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building. The horizontal and vertical components (slabs and columns) of the concrete frame are visible on the exterior of the building. The spaces between them are filled in with terra cotta tiles (on the interior) and brick (on the exterior), and pierced by industrial steel sash windows. The concrete pilasters on three sides (north, west and south) have simple molded capitals (photo #5). The shortest side of the building is the east elevation–it has only four bays (photo #1). The main facade (the south, or Morehead Street side) has a shallow stepped parapet concealing the building’s flat roof (photo #6). There is a double-door entrance in the center of this seven-bay facade. A similar door is located on the north elevation, which also has seven bays (photo #2, #3). On the north elevation, six of the bays are fenestrated, with original industrial steel sash windows. The seventh (westernmost) bay is solid, and in fact protrudes higher than the rest of the building. It holds the elevator shaft and stairwell.

Alterations

Originally, only the north and south sides of the building were fenestrated. There were no windows on the east and west sides, probably reflecting that the need for wall space on the interior was greater than the need for illumination. The south side directly abutted a spur line of the Piedmont and Northern Railway. This elevation was solid above the first story, and had three recessed truck bays on the ground floor. While fine for a warehouse, this arrangement was not as suitable for modern uses. When the building was converted to office space in 1999, the ground floor was filled in with large, multi-paned windows, and the upper stories were pierced with windows that closely resemble the original windows. Likewise, the west elevation was fitted with new windows. Except for the window openings, no other original material has been removed. The integrity of the structure is good.

On the interior, as befitting a warehouse, the building was originally one large open space. New walls and doors were added in the process of subdividing the building for office space. The old freight elevator was replaced by a bank of two modern elevators for safety and convenience. A hallway now runs off of the elevator lobby, through the center of the building, angling off to the left and branching off to the right, accessing the various office suites. There are presently twenty-three office suites ranging from 775 to over 6,000 square feet in size. All of the original wall surfaces and mushroom columns were left exposed and unchanged. Mechanical systems (HVAC and electrical) were run along the ceiling and are also exposed–hiding them would have required that a drop ceiling be added, which would have concealed the concrete slab construction.

  1. LeGette Blythe and Charles R. Brockmann, Hornet’s Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (Charlotte: McNally of Charlotte, 1961), p. 449;  Thomas W. Hanchett, Sorting Out the New South City: Race, Class and Urban Development in Charlotte, 1875-1975 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), p. 2.
  2. The Charlotte News, 16 April 1927, p. 11.
  3. The Charlotte Observer, 21 April 1928, p. 11.
  4. Charlotte City Directories, 1920 and 1930.
  5. Gatza, Mary Beth, “Wesley Heights Historic District,” Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (1995), p. 7-2.
  6. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1927;Sanborn Map Company, “Insurance Maps of Charlotte, North Carolina,” 1929 and 1951.
  7. Wilkinson Boulevard was named after W. C. Wilkinson, who was not a member of this family.
  8. The Charlotte Observer, 20 April 1928, p. 1;Moore’s Chapel Methodist Church, cemetery roster (electronic record found at www.cmstory.org);United States Census, North Carolina, Catawba County, 1880 (soundex).
  9. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1902;The sons are: Augustus M. Wilkinson (1872-1957), Fabius A. Wilkinson (1877-1945), William D. Wilkinson (1879-1946), John L. Wilkinson (1886-1952) and Mack R. Wilkinson (1896-1918).
  10. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1922.
  11. Mecklenburg County Marriage License, 23 April 1906; Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1907; United States Census, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, 1900 and 1910; The Charlotte Observer, 7 April 1946, p. B-2;
  12. Mecklenburg County Marriage License, 15 August 1908; Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1907; United States Census, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, 1910 and 1920; Blythe and Brockmann, Hornet’s Nest, p. 452; The Charlotte Observer, 25 June 1952, p. 16-B.
  13. Mecklenburg County Marriage License, 6 November 1901; Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1921; United States Census, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, 1900; The Charlotte Observer, 14 January 1945, sec. 2, p. 4.
  14. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1921.
  15. Ray (1920-1996) was a driver in the mid-1940s; Adrian was a driver in the mid-1950s; Dick (1904-1960) was assistant manager around 1930 and secretary from the mid-1930s through the mid-1950s; W. E. (1904-1990) retired after forty-five years with the company, first as warehouse manager and later as president; John was vice-president in the mid-1940s through the mid-1960s and was president in the early 1970s; E. R. Brietz was treasurer from the mid-1940s through the early 1970s; F. H. McNeely was secretary from the mid-1940s through the early 1970s; Mack retired after forty-one years, rising from clerk to warehouse manager; Charles worked there from the mid-1940s through the mid-1950s.
  16. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1921.
  17. Robert W. was and was employed as a driver and warehouseman from around 1930 through the mid-1960s; W. E. Jr. was vice-president in the 1960s.
  18. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1921; The Charlotte Observer, 2 July 1976, p. 21-A.
  19. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1921; The Charlotte News, 9 October 1926, p. 12, 6 February 1927, p. 7-C; Charlotte Building Standards Department, Building Permit #7193, 5 October 1926.
  20. The Charlotte News, 6 February 1927, p. 7-C.
  21. Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, “Charlotte, North Carolina: Focal Point of the Carolinas,” booklet, c. 1948.  On file in the Carolina room at the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
  22. Charlotte City Directories, various years after 1927.
  23. Carl W. Condit, American Building: Materials and Techniques From the Beginning of the Colonial Settlements to the Present.  (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 243; Aly Ahmed Raafat, Reinforced Concrete in Architecture.  (New York: Reinhold, 1958.), pp. 75-76; John Fleming, Hugh Honour and Nickolaus Pevsner, A Dictionary of Architecture.  (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), pp. 183-84.
  24. Condit, American Building, p. 243; Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. “(Former) Carolina Transfer and Storage Building.” Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (1998), p. 8-2.
  25. Condit, American Building, p. 243; Charles Merrick Gay, John W. MacGuire and Harry Parker, Materials and Methods of Architectural Construction, 3rd ed.  (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958), pp. 598-601.