1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Biddle Memorial Hall is located on the campus of Johnson C. Smith University at 100 Beatties Ford Rd., Charlotte, N.C. 28216.

2. Name, addresses, and telephone numbers of the present owners and occupants of the property: The present owner and occupant of the property is:

Johnson C. Smith University, Inc.
100 Beatties Ford Rd.
Charlotte, NC. 28216

Telephone: 704/372-2370

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains two maps. A tax line map depicts the location of the campus of Johnson C. Smith University. The second map depicts the location of Biddle Memorial Hall on the campus.

---

 

 

---

5. Current Deed Book Reference of the property: The land which comprises the campus of Johnson C. Smith University is listed in the following deeds in the Mecklenburg County Registry:

a. Deed Book 9. Page 323; Filed November 1. 1873, W. R. Myers and S. C. Myers to trustees S. S. Cushland, Luke Dorland, A. S. Billingsley, S. Mattoon, and William Richardson.

b. Deed Book 15, page 423; Filed November 11, 1876, S. C. Alexander and N. R. Alexander to trustees S. S. Murland, Luke Dorland, S. Mattoon, A. S. Billingsley, and Millard Richardson.

c. Deed Book 33, Page 239; Filed July 26, 1882, L. W. Perdue and A. S. Perdue to trustees.

d. Deed Book 55, page 598; Filed November 12, 1887, Mary R. Severs and H.C. Severs to trustees.

e. Deed Book 69, page 629; Filed November 1, 1894, W. R. Myers, Jr., to trustees.

f. Deed Book 124, Page 254; Filed March 30, 1898, Mary L. Mattoon et al .to trustee W. E. Thomas, Emma M. Thomas.

g. Deed Book 208, page 201; Filed February 13, 1906, D. J. Sanders and F. P. Sanders to trustees.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The history of Biddle Memorial Hall is intimately bound up with the history of Johnson C. Smith University. Johnson C. Smith University was founded by two white ministers (Rev. S. C. Alexander and Rev. W. L. Miller) under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church. It was known as The Henry J. Biddle Memorial Institute in honor of Major Henry J. Biddle, a Union soldier who was killed in action during the Civil War. During its formative years Mrs. Mary D. Biddle, the wife of Major Biddle, gave considerable financial support to the institution.

The school was originally housed in a small church located near the present location of Fourth and Davidson Streets. A few years after its feeble beginning, the old Confederate Navy Building located on East Trade St., below where the Civic Center now stands, was purchased. This building was to be moved to another location on Seventh Street, somewhere between College and Caldwell Streets. Colonel William R. Myers discouraged the ministers about moving to that site and offered them property where the school now stands. The gift of eight acres by this outstanding Charlotte citizen was the nucleus of the present site.

In 1883 the name of the institution was changed to Biddle University. In 1921 because of the many generous gifts which she had made to the institution in honor of her husband, Mrs. Jane M. Smith was notified by the Board of Trustees that the name of the institution had been changed to Johnson C. Smith University.

The first president of the institution was Rev. Stephen Mattoon. For nearly two and a half decades the presidents and most of the faculty members were white. In 1891 the institution had its first black president, Rev. Daniel J. Sanders. Since that time all of its presidents and the majority of the faculty have been black.

Biddle Memorial Hall was constructed in 1884. It was the first substantial building erected on the current campus (see appended photograph #1), and is the oldest surviving structure on the campus. Dominated by a massive but elegant clock tower, the structure contains 40,045 square feet of floor space. Its ornamentation and overall massing are typical of institutional architecture during the Victorian era. Originally it consisted of an auditorium with a balcony, the President’s offices the Registrar’s offices, the Business Office, the first library, classrooms, and restrooms. It currently serves as the general administration building of the University. Currently the building also contains portraits and pictures of the founders, presidents, benefactors, and of other individuals directly connected with the growth and development of the University.

7. 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 Survey Committee of the Commission has examined this structure and has judged it to be of architectural significance. The Survey Committee reports that the buildings, materials are of Flemish bond brick with sandstone cornices, pediment, and lintels. There are brick bearing walls, with possible post and beam construction. Additional details of the structure are:

 

• 1. Diagonal soldier coursing in line with window lintels.
• 2. Motif varies the window lintel treatment: sandstone lst and 4th floor, brick jack arch 2nd floor, brick spring arch on the 3rd floor.
• 3. Basket weave infill brick panels as surface reliefs.
• 4. Corbeled brick cornice.
• 5. Slate spires and roof.
• 6. Ornate detailing on chimney.
• 7. Octagonal apse.
• 8. Watch tower center pavilions.
• 9. The windows have been replaced with aluminum sash.The fact that the strucutre has been judged to be of architectural significance coupled with the fact that it is the oldest surviving structure on the campus of the only black institution of higher education in Mecklenburg County, suggests that Biddle Memorial Hall meets this criterion.b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The building is in generally good repair. As stated above, it is currently the general administration building for the University. The building is therefore highly suited for preservation.

  c. Educational value: The educational value of the building is substantial. First, it is the only example of this genre of institutional architecture in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. It also serves as a symbol of the rich heritage of Johnson C. Smith University, and of the local black community.

  d. Cost of acquisition restoration, maintenance, or repair: The Commission has no intention of acquiring this property. The cost of acquisition would be high. The structure is in need of some repair, especially to the exterior and the roof detail. However, the cost would not be unreasonable in relation to the overall worth of the building. The maintenance costs are currently carried by Johnson C. Smith University.

  e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The interior graciousness of this structure would permit many alternative or adaptive uses. However, it is assumed that the University will continue to determine the use of the structure.

  f. Appraised value: Attached to this report is a real estate appraisal card which reveals that the land and property itself is appraised at $1,019,680.00 Again, the Commission has no intention of acquiring this property. And the University is not required to pay taxes on this property.

  g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: It is assumed that Johnson C. Smith University shall continue to operate the property.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register: The Commission believes that the investigation carried out by the Survey Committee suggests that Biddle Memorial Hall might qualify for the National Register on the grounds of Criterion C — (properties) “that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values”. Biddle Memorial Hall would not meet the other criteria for inclusion on the National Register.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: Biddle Memorial Hall is highly significant in the history of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. It stands as a magnificent monument to what was accomplished by a newly-liberated people in an atmosphere that has been described as “hostile.” This structure was built under trying circumstances and by people who had very meager financial resources. It is the oldest surviving building of the first and only private institution of higher learning open to blacks in the immediate and surrounding counties. Over the years speakers of national renown, including a President of the United States, have spoken in this structure. Concerts, recitals, art exhibits, these are only some of the refined events which have graced the halls of Biddle Memorial Hall.

 

This report was written on July 5, 1985

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the R. C. Biberstein House is located at 1600 Elizabeth Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
R. C. Biberstein Estate
c/o Ms. Susan Causey
Trust Department
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
Box 31608
Charlotte, N.C., 28231

Telephone: 704/378-5084

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

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

---

 

 

---

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Deed Book 200, Page 185. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 125-111-21.

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

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

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 R. C. Biberstein House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) R. C. Biberstein (1859-1931), the designer and initial owner of the house, was a prominent mill architect during the era when Charlotte occupied a place of growing importance in the textile industry of the South; 2) the R. C. Biberstein House, an impressive example of the Rectilinear Style of architecture in Charlotte, is one of the few surviving residences on a once-grand suburban boulevard in Elizabeth, one of Charlotte oldest streetcar suburbs; and 3) the R. C. Biberstein House occupies a significant place in the streetscape of Elizabeth Avenue.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Ms. Lisa A. Stamper demonstrates that the exterior of the R. C. Biberstein House meets this criterion. It should be noted that Ms. Stamper could not gain access to the interior of the house. Consequently, a careful assessment of the architectural integrity of the interior could not be performed.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” It should be noted that the property known as the R. C. Biberstein House has the current appraised value: Improvement – $41,320. Land – $79,200. Total – $120,520. The property is zoned B2.

Date of Preparation of this Report: July 5, 1985

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

Historical Overview  

by
Dr. William H. Huffman
June, 1984

The Biberstein house at 1600 Elizabeth Avenue is the last, at this writing, of the many elegant houses which used to form a row of fine homes along the street that is still being used as a residence. Eighty-eight-year-old Constance Biberstein has lived in the house since she, her brothers and parents moved in the newly-built home in November, 1906. ¹

Her father, Richard C. Biberstein (1859-1931), was a noted mill architect, and was reputed to have designed more cotton mills in this region than any other individual. ² He was born in the German settlement of Fredericksburg, Texas, the son of Herman R. von Bieberstein (R. C. later dropped the “von,” which denotes noble descent, and changed the last name spelling). His father was an engineer who came West in the 1840s, and laid out many of the Texas land lines that are still in use. R. C. Biberstein studied mechanical engineering at Worcester (Mass.) Polytechnic Institute starting in 1879, and graduated in 1882. After employment with the U.S. Electric Lighting Co. of Newark, N.J., the Western Manufacturing Co. in Richmond, Ind. and the Atlas Engine Works in Indianapolis, he stopped off in Charlotte on a trip and made contact with Col. Wilkes, who owned the Mecklenburg Iron Works, and began work there in 1887 as a draftsman-designer. ³

The story is told that one day a man came into the Iron Works and asked Biberstein where Col. Wilkes was. When he replied, “He’s over there,” the man asked him to repeat it, and Biberstein had to shout directions, for which the man was obliged. When he was subsequently introduced, the stranger turned out to be Thomas A. Edison, who came to Charlotte to try and perfect his gold-separation process by means of electricity. ⁴

About 1897, Biberstein went to work for the Charlotte Machine Company, which was a mill machinery supplier run by H. S. Chadwick. Several years before, R. C. had married Laura Eisfeld of Fredericksburg, and they lived on N. Caldwell Street. In 1902 or shortly before, he left Chadwick’s employ and took a position as an engineer for Stuart W. Cramer, whose company designed and built many mills in the region (including Highland Park #3 in Charlotte). About 1905, R. C. went into business for himself as a mill architect and engineer with offices in the Piedmont Building on Tryon Street. ⁵

That same year he bought a building lot on Elizabeth Avenue from the Highland Park Company for $1250.00. ⁶ Highland Park was incorporated in 1891 by ten stockholders, who included E. D. Latta, W. S. Alexander, P. M. Brown and Walter Brem among others, for the purpose of developing what is now part of the Elizabeth neighborhood, but was then known as “Highland Park.” Banker-developer Peter Marshall Brown was president, and after his death he was succeeded by W. S. Alexander, who headed the firm when it dissolved in 1915. ⁷ Although Elizabeth, Charlotte’s second streetcar suburb after Latta’s Dilworth, contained a mix of style and size of houses on the side streets, the main thoroughfares of Elizabeth, Hawthorne, Clement and Central were graced with the fine homes of a number of the city’s professional and business leaders. The trolley came down the hill along Trade Street from the Square, and back up on Elizabeth to Elizabeth College at the top of the hill (now the site of Presbyterian Hospital), made a left turn on to Hawthorne and turned back south on Seventh after passing Independence Park.

R. C. Biberstein did the design for his own house, which was reported to be the only residence he ever did. Recalling his years living up North, he put fireplaces in nearly every room and made a double front entryway to keep out the cold air. When the family moved in during November, 1906, they lived on one of the city’s finest suburban residential streets within easy reach of the city center. ⁸

Sometime about 1915, when World War I was raging in Europe, but before the U.S. involvement, Biberstein gave up his downtown office and moved it to the back of the first floor of his Elizabeth home. There he practiced mill architecture until his death in 1931. ⁹ Biberstein was reputed to be very exacting and demanding of perfection in detail, and it was probably that, in combination with his good education and training with the best machinery and mill designers in the area, which served him well in winning many mill design contracts. ¹⁰ Another fortuitous aspect of his career is that he came to Charlotte and practiced mill architecture during the entire period when the New South industrialization of the Piedmont region, primarily cotton mills, boomed from the 1880s to the 1920s. Charlotte’s designers, suppliers, investors and transportation links played a key role in this expansion.

When R. C. Biberstein died in 1931, his architecture firm, which still exists under the name Biberstein, Bowles, Meacham and Reed, was taken over by his son, Herman V. Biberstein (1893-1966), a 1914 N. C. State graduate, who had joined the firm after college and Army service. In the early 50s, the architects moved to separate offices further down on Elizabeth Avenue, and in recent years a number of businesses have rented the south half of the first floor. ¹¹ Among the mills R. C. Biberstein designed were the Lancaster Cotton Mill; the Boger and Crawford Spinning Mill in Lincoln Co.; the Hudson Cotton Mill and the Dixon Mills in Gaston Co.; in Belmont, the Imperial Yarn Mill, the Linford Spinning Mill, the National and Chronicle Yarn Mills; in Mt. Holly, the Union Cotton Mill; and in Mooresville, the Mooresville Cotton Mills. ¹²

Thus the stately white house at 1600 Elizabeth Avenue is not only an elegant reminder of a different era in the city’s history, but it was also designed by and lived in by one of the best-known and often-engaged mill architects of the Piedmont Carolinas. It has earned the privilege of being designated as historically important to the community.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Interview with Constance Biberstein, Charlotte, N.C. 25 June 1984.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.; The Journal, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, November, 1931, p. 30; Charlotte Observer, September 13, 1931, p. 10.

⁴ Interview with L. H. Meacham, 20 June 1984.

⁵ Charlotte City Directories, 1889-1907; Journal, note 3.

⁶ Deed Book 200, p. 185, 23 May 1905.

⁷ Record of Corporations, Book A, pp. 235 and 335; Ibid., Book 4, p. 283.

⁸ Interview with Constance Biberstein.

⁹ Charlotte City Directories, 1915-1931.

¹⁰ Interview with L. H. Meacham.

¹¹ Ibid.; interview with Constance Biberstein; Charlotte Observer, Jan. 21, 1966, p. 4B.

¹² Interview with L. H. Meacham.

Special Note: At the time of the preparation of this report, the R. C. Biberstein House stands empty.

 

 

Architectural Description  

by Lisa A. Stamper
June 7, 1985

In 1906, the Biberstein House was built and designed by the local mill architect, R. C. Biberstein as his family residence. This elegant though simply detailed home is of the Rectilinear Style of architecture, as is the Bruns House located only two doors down the street. Another fine residence from the same period is located between these two historic homes. The Rectilinear Style, though derived from Victorian Styles, rejected their lavish ornamentation.

The Biberstein House is two and one-half stories high and built of clapboard siding on a brick foundation. One of its most interesting features is its wide-eaved and simply bracketed roof. The main body of the house is covered with a steeply pitched hipped roof, with small hipped sections topping architectural features such as projections, dormers, and the porch. There is one dormer featuring two single pane windows on each side of the house. The rear section of the house has a steeply pitched gabled roof. Three brick chimneys pierce this configuration. There are two exterior end side chimneys near the front of the building plus one chimney near the center of the back section.

A grand front porch wraps around the front half of the home. The southern side of this porch was enclosed in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s. Simple, sturdy columns support the porch roof, which is decorated with delicated dentile molding.

Almost all of the original windows, being true to the Rectilinear Style, are wooden framed and double-hung with one-over-one panes of glass. Many of them have simple shutters. They have short sills and unornamental surrounds. There are two small windows on each side of the house in the foundations. They are near the front, with the one closest to the end being a half circle and the next a rectangle.

Of course the portico is located in the front (northeast side) of the house. The pedimented roof is incorporated into the porch roof. The portico has more elaborate brackets and more pronounced molding than the rest of the porch. The wooden double doors at the entrance are also of simple design, with horizontal panels at the bottom and a single glass pane at the top of each. A rectangular transom heads the doors. Today, wooden framed screened doors cover the wood and glass ones.

The southern half of the front porch has been enclosed and until just recently has housed various small businesses. A door leading into the enclosed porch has been placed to the left of the original door. To the other side of the main entrance is a single window. The second story of the front facade has three symmetrically placed windows.

The southeast facade is cluttered with various additions on both stories; however, an original two-story bay projection is still intact. Although it is difficult to discern the original features of the back half of the facade, the front half retains its early-twentieth century ambiance with a single window in the second story front and one window in each of the bay’s sides. The first story of the bay projection has a typical window in one side and a horizontal rectangular window in another. The remaining original side is covered behind the enclosed porch.

It appears that the northwest facade resembles the original southeast facade in balance of composition. The front porch extends to the rectangular projection located almost in the middle of the building. Both the first and second story front sections have two typical windows. The first story back section has one horizontally paneled door then three windows. The second story, which is approximately one-half the length of the first, contains a single window.

The treatment of the rectangular projection is quite interesting. The foundation brick extends approximately halfway up into the first story. One door and one window are symmetrically placed in this brick on the northwest side of the projection. Above the brick wall on this side is a set of two windows, then a horizontal single paned rectangular window is set above those. On the northeast side of the projection a small, delicately framed oval stained glass window is placed in the second story. The only opening in the southwest side of the projection is a small rectangular window set into the brick wall.

The only major change from the original design of the southwest (rear) facade of the residence seems to be the enclosing of a first story, small, squarish porch on the south corner. Next to the enclosed porch is a single door. Next to that is a six-over-six paned window. Two symmetrically placed windows are located near the north corner. A three four-paned window set is located in the foundation underneath these northern windows. The second story gabled end contains only one six-over-one paned window.

The present condition of the interior can not be determined without taking a look inside. Unfortunately, this was not possible since the owner, Miss Constance Biberstein is no longer living in the home. Also, the business which occupied the south corner of the building has relocated. However, the original interior plan may be assumed from studying architect’s sketches of proposed renovations drawn in the 1940’s and 1950’s and presently located in UNCC’s archives.

The plan seems to be of Victorian Style, which is not surprising. One enters through the entrance doors, then through another door, and into the reception hall. Sliding doors (a common Victorian feature) connected the reception hall with the adjacent parlor. One may walk straight through the reception hall to an enclosed area containing the great stair, and a side door leading down to a couple small rooms and another door opening to the outside. The dining room is located behind the parlor and beside the great stair. It has a door entering into the parlor, the great stair, and a small room most probably used as a pantry, since the kitchen is located directly behind that. From the plans available, the rest of the first floor areas are not clear.

To give the first floor interior plan some reference to the exterior, the stairwell is located within the rectangular northwest projection. The exterior wall of the dining room is part of the southeast projecting bay. Therefore; the social areas were located in the front of the home while the more private and utilitarian areas were located in the rear. Of course all the main rooms had fireplaces.

The second floor plan sketch shows three large rooms resembling the same location and shape of the first story reception hall, parlor, and dining room. The original rear rooms can not be clearly defined. Usually the second floor of a residence is used for sleeping. It is safe to assume that most of these upper level rooms had fireplaces.

To the rear of the Biberstein House is a small building almost totally covered with shrubs and overgrowth. According to the 1925 Sanborn Map, it is located in the same spot that a garage was shown to have been standing. It is possible that this building is the original garage. Two other outbuildings shown on the Sanborn Map are missing from the present site. Today, an unpaved parking lot is located between the Biberstein House and its early twentieth-century neighbor. The three early residences left standing together on Elizabeth Avenue are surrounded by many modern one story rectangular commercial buildings.

Most of the exterior architectural features of the Biberstein House are still intact. Only the southeast side of the home seems to be marred by additions. Since almost all of the upper middle-class homes along early Elizabeth Avenue have been destroyed, the Biberstein House, the Bruns House, and their common neighbor are especially precious examples of the neighborhood’s post-Victorian architecture.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Bethesda Schoolhouse is located at 13129 Alexanderana Road in Huntersville, North Carolina.
2. Name and address of the present owner of the property:         

Merle King & Wife, Elizabeth L. King

2509 Mallard Creek Church Road

Charlotte, N.C., 28262

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
4. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.
5. UTM coordinate: 17516402E  3913276N 
6. Current deed book and tax parcel information for the property:

The Tax Parcel Number is of the property is 019-151-14.  The most recent reference to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg Deed Book 9879, Page 957.

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

1) The Bethesda Schoolhouse, a rural primary school for African Americans in Mecklenburg County, is significant as a rare surviving artifact of the early efforts by the county’s black residents to educate their children, a newly won privilege after the Civil War.

2) The Bethesda Schoolhouse is the oldest identified African American primary school in Mecklenburg County, and is significant as one of the county’s few surviving rural schoolhouses.

3) The Bethesda Schoolhouse is one of the earliest surviving non-residential African American buildings in the county, and is therefore important in understanding the broad patterns county’s history.

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 Bethesda Schoolhouse 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 total appraised value of the improvements is $700.00. The current appraised value of the lot is $23,800.00. The current total appraised value is $24,500.00. 
3. Portion of property recommended for designation: The exterior of the building and the property associated with the tax parcel are recommended for historic designation.

Date of preparation of this report: December, 2003

Prepared by: Stewart Gray and Dr. Paula M. Stathakis

Historic Statement and Context

 

Although North Carolina had developed a progressive system for public education by the eve of the Civil War, there was no guarantee that schooling would be available to everyone. Many poor whites could not attend school either because there was no school located conveniently near them or because their parents resisted the idea of general education for various reasons, the most significant of which was they needed their children home working in the fields. The upper classes, accustomed to the advantages of literacy, were not always comfortable with the extension of this privilege and power to the lower classes. Slaves were never educated.[1] Prior to the Civil War it was illegal to educate slaves in every state except Tennessee. Consequently, by 1860, ninety per cent of the Southern adult black population was illiterate.[2] By the war’s end, freedmen held high hopes for the meaning of freedom, and understood an education was the necessary first step in acquiring political and economic parity with whites.

The public school system in place in North Carolina in the ante-bellum period was non-existent by the end of the Civil War. By this time, the state was so impoverished that there were no funds to develop another school system. During this period the state’s black and poor white population were schooled by external agencies, most notably The Freedmen’s Bureau. An 1867 issue of the Western Democrat discusses the establishment of Freedmen’s Bureau Schools in the state noting that in Mecklenburg County there was at least one in each township. In North Carolina, over 20,000 children were enrolled in 400 Freedmen’s Bureau schools.[3] According to contemporary reports, adults and children enthusiastically attended these schools, desperately eager to learn to read and write. Many of the elderly wanted to learn to read to be able to read the Bible; others fully appreciated that literacy was central to economic advancement. Although The Freedmen’s Bureau was poorly funded and ultimately dissolved, newly-freed African Americans often pitched in to raise funds to buy land, build schools, and to pay teachers. Local funding came from various sources such as Northern benevolent societies and state governments as well as from initiatives within the freed black community.[4]

In spite of the great enthusiasm within the black community for the promise of education and the potential for opportunity therein, Southern white society was unreceptive to the idea of educating the large population of former slaves who had been previously held in check by enforced ignorance. The Freedman’s Bureau was able to mitigate only some of the harsh realities of freedom in a hostile society. The agency provided relief and assistance to both blacks and poor whites who found themselves bereft of advocates in the bleak and unsettled post-war period. In addition to economic stress, politically and socially explosive issues such as extending citizenship to all blacks and voting rights to black men tested the foundation of the southern social order as well as the Bureau’s ability to maintain it. In 1865, Freedmen’s Bureau officials recorded that Mecklenburg County Courts would not recognize changes in the status of the black population, and that a magistrate had recently beaten a black man on the street.[5] 

The dissolution of the Freedmen’s Bureau made life all the more difficult for Southern blacks. Without the bureau they had no advocates to help protect their newly acquired rights. Although the new state constitution established separate schools for blacks, funding was up to the discretion of local county boards. In general, public opinion regarding education remained apathetic, and any impetus for change and improvement during the post reconstruction period came from politicians, not from grassroots pressures. By 1880, the average school term was only nine weeks and only one-third of the state’s school age children attended school. Illiteracy was more prevalent in 1880 than in 1860, although within the black community, literacy rates were higher than they had been in 1860. In spite of this small gain, the statistics for North Carolina were bleak. The state population in 1880 was 1,399,750 and 463,975 were illiterates over ten years of age. Three-fifths of all illiterates were black, and blacks accounted for one third of the total population.[6]

In the 1870s, Mecklenburg County was beginning to rebuild its school system within the terms of the demands of the post-war era. D.A. Tompkins’s History of Mecklenburg claims that by 1874, there were 34 black schools and 46 white schools in the county. The first graded school for blacks in Charlotte was in an old tobacco barn in First Ward, and was later replaced by Myers Street School.[7] In addition to the surviving examples of Rosenwald Schools, the Reed School in Steele Creek and the Bethesda Schoolhouse are the only surviving rural African American school houses in the county.

Tom Hanchett writes that by 1882 the city established its first graded schools, “with separate buildings for black children and white.^”   The record of the establishment of rural schools is also imprecise. The state gave authority to the counties to operate schools, a plan that spared state funds, but gave free rein to county governance to determine where and how their limited funds were best spent. In some cases, the insufficient funding available to blacks was exhausted on building the schoolhouse leaving no money for teachers’ salaries.  Both black and white rural schools were often supported by contributions raised by local families.[8]

Even through the combined funding efforts of the county and local families, rural schoolhouses were generally little more than one-room cabins. Students walked to school, so schoolhouses enrolled as many who could get there on foot. Children who did not live within a reasonable walking distance to a school did not go to school. The terms were short and broken up so that children could help families with planting and harvesting, and black students’ school terms were shorter than that for white pupils. The average school term in North Carolina was 17 weeks for whites and 16.01 weeks for blacks. In addition to the difference of the school term, a greater proportion of whites than blacks were enrolled in school. In Mecklenburg County in 1903, nearly 70% of white school age children were enrolled in school, and nearly 60% of black school aged children were enrolled. These figures dropped for both groups in 1904 to 50% and 46% respectively.[9]

Public instruction seldom extended beyond the elementary grades for white children and never for blacks. The teachers, in many cases, were barely better educated than their students. State and federal oversight was practically nonexistent; and the quality of the buildings, classroom materials, and teachers was determined by the social and political whim of county authorities. It was standard practice to pay white teachers more than African American teachers. Funds were not evenly allotted to all schools. Affluent districts had good schools, but public resources rarely found their way into the impoverished areas. As most Southern rural areas were poor, the schools in poor locales tended to remain inadequate.[10]

Section 24 of the North Carolina School Law placed the appropriation of school funds under the control of the County Board of Education with only one restriction, the apportionment of these funds was to be made with an effort to provide equal term lengths for all schools under the board’s jurisdiction. In 1904, African American schools in North Carolina received $244,847.38 to pay teacher salaries, build schools and educate 221,545 children. In contrast, white schools received and spent $929,164.26 for the same purpose and to educate 462,639 students. The fact that blacks, one-third of the school population, received only one-fifth of the available funds constituted such an egregious disparity that the State Superintendent for Public Instruction castigated anyone who would complain that white tax dollars were put toward education for blacks:

 

…if any part of the taxes actually paid by individual white men ever reaches the Negro for school purposes, the amount is so small that the man who would begrudge it or complain about it ought to be ashamed of himself. In the face of these facts, any unprejudiced man must see that we are in no danger of giving the Negroes more than they are entitled by every dictate of justice, right, wisdom, humanity, and Christianity.[11]

 

Prospects for blacks and for poor whites improved somewhat in the late nineteenth century. During the 1880s and early 1890s, the county purchased a number of sites for black and white schools and probably provided some funds for construction, operating costs, and teacher salaries. In 1886 the Board of Aldermen acquired a lot in Second Ward from Col. W.R. Myers on which they built the two-story Myers Street Elementary School, a graded city school for African American children.[12]

Although educational opportunities for African Americans in Mecklenburg County by the turn of the century were inadequate compared to those available to whites, the county nonetheless subsidized black schools. The policy to support schools for both races was mandated in the state constitution. However, it was also part of a developing agenda that evolved to some extent under the leadership of Governor Charles B. Aycock and owed some of its advancement to the climate of dynamic economic growth experienced by and encouraged in the county in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Governor Aycock [1901-1905] was inspired by the abysmal fact that the state’s system of public education had steadily declined since the 1870s and that less than half of the state’s school age children attended school on a regular basis. An advocate of universal education, Aycock believed that education was an essential investment in the future. He argued that educated people were better workers, better citizens, better parents, and more prosperous than uneducated people. Under Aycock’s direction, increased and more efficient funding was appropriated by the General Assembly in an effort to raise standards in poor counties; high school education became more prevalent in rural and urban areas; and the concept of consolidating rural school districts was introduced. Part of Aycock’s underlying agenda was to provide equal educational opportunities for boys and girls, but primarily for boys who could grow up to become qualified voters; a privilege not available by law to women or in practice to African American men.

By the 1890s, racial segregation laws and disfranchisement practices effectively guided Mecklenburg’s social and political patterns, and segregated schools fell neatly into this new standard. Providing a limited education that was touted as separate but equal for the improvement of the local African American population was part of the important civic task of promoting the county’s significant assets, such as productive agriculture, a thriving textile industry, an educated population, and a law-abiding, peaceful citizenry both in the black and white communities. Local “boosters” were not interested in equal opportunities, but they understood that newcomers with capital would only invest it in places that were socially stable as well as economically viable. By the turn of the century, the majority of the county’s African American population was rural and had a limited education, but a strong middle and professional class was a highly visible part of the city population. Charlotte was promoted as a town where the races peacefully co-existed and where “the Negro is welcomed in the pursuits to which he is best adapted, and there is nothing of the race prejudice felt elsewhere and he is given every opportunity to better his own condition and that of his children.”[13]

In spite of Charlotte’s growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Mecklenburg retained a largely rural character until after the Second World War. By the close of the nineteenth century, Mecklenburg County led the state in cotton production; but although Mecklenburg County produced a significant amount of cotton, its dependency on the crop doomed the local agricultural economy to stagnation and deterioration. By 1920, American agriculture began a steady decline that was exacerbated by the Great Depression of the 1930s. Southern farmers who were dedicated to cotton production and mid-western farmers who were dedicated to wheat production had no recourse when the international market prices of these commodities plummeted in the 1920s and 1930s. The overarching response to the crisis was overproduction, which worsened the situation, leading to increased foreclosures and an increase in tenancy. Like many of their southern counterparts, Mecklenburg farmers were hampered by inefficient methods, such as one or two crop agriculture, and by crop liens. The consequences of this system were that the number of land owners, both white and African American, decreased over time; and that tenancy increased, swelling the ranks of poor rural whites and blacks. Rural African Americans already tended to be poorer than the majority of rural whites and more likely to be landless and bound to some form of tenancy.

Of the 4344 farmers identified in the 1920 Census of Agriculture for Mecklenburg County, 1647 were African American, and of these only 150 were farm owners, and 1497 were tenants, compared to the 2690 farms operated by whites, of which 1492 were owner-operated, and 1184 were operated by white tenants. This data not only illustrates the vast economic gaps between black and white farmers in the county in the early part of the century, and it also raises the perplexing question of why there were so few African American farmers of any type when the rural African American population in Mecklenburg in 1920 numbered over 12,000. Somewhere scattered around the county in unincorporated areas and in the small towns outside of Charlotte were approximately 10,000 African Americans, and slightly over half of them were over the age of twenty-one. They were likely employed as domestics, as skilled and unskilled workers in the small towns, on the railroad, and in processing jobs affiliated with agriculture such as cotton ginning.[14] An education was often the ticket to a job that paid cash wages and permitted some degree of social and economic mobility, and the only means for African Americans and poor whites to detach from the debilitating cycle of sharecropping and dependency.

The Bethesda Schoolhouse

 

In light of the inequities inherent in the public school system both in the state and in the county, rural schoolhouses that were accessible to either blacks or whites were invaluable assets in the development of the county’s children. The lucky ones who lived within a reasonable walking distance to a school could at least acquire a fundamental education, and this was usually the only hope of breaking out of the dead end of tenancy and rural poverty.

The Bethesda Schoolhouse was one small remedy to the pernicious effects of ignorance, poverty and dependency. Located at 13129 Alexanderana Road in the northern part of the county, Bethesda is the oldest extant school building for African Americans in the county. Officially designated as the Bethesda Colored School of Mallard Creek Township, School District # 3, it served the African American community of Mallard Creek  and Croft from approximately 1899 until the 1940s when it was closed as part of the state program of school consolidation.[15]  Historian Matthew Thomas, a UNCC graduate student, notes its significance as “the last remaining archetype of Mecklenburg’s rural black schoolhouses that were so important to advancing education among the county’s black farming communities.” Thomas found reference to the school in County deed records in which the one-acre of property where the school is situated was acquired by the County Board of Education under the directorship of W. M. Anderson, John McDowell and M. A. Alexander from Mr. Burwell Cashion on December 4, 1904 for the sum of fifty dollars.[16] Thus, Thomas contends the Bethesda schoolhouse pre-dates the Julius Rosenwald schools by approximately fifteen years. This information underscores the significance of the schoolhouse as an immensely important historical find for the County. To further illustrate the meaning of Bethesda’s survival into the twenty-first century, Thomas offers the evidence of what the county has lost in terms of rural African American schoolhouses, using a map of Mecklenburg, circa 1911, produced by civil engineers C. A. and J. B. Spratt which enumerates fifty-nine colored schools within the county’s jurisdiction. The Bethesda Schoolhouse is the last one known to remain in existence.[17]

                Mr. Merle King, owner of the building, believes it was built in 1899. Popular local legend is that the school was constructed in either 1898 or 1899 by a prosperous and well-liked black farmer of the area named John Young.[18]  A “Colored School No. 4” in Mallard Creek is listed in the Operating Budget for the Mecklenburg County Schools in 1899, which may have been the Bethesda School. Its allotted operating expenses for the year were $80.00.[19]

John Young’s actual role in the establishment of the school is vague, but his involvement with the schoolhouse is clearly a matter of record, and local accounts seem to tie him firmly to the establishment of the school. History shows that it was not uncommon for local community leaders to direct the promotion of necessary social improvements such as education. Young was listed in the Mecklenburg County Board of Education’s Operating Budget dated 1909-11, which authorized expenses paid to him for the annual delivery of firewood and for various repairs to the school. The Budget Records also show a Colored School in District #3, Mallard Creek, called the Youngsville School. This school had 46 students taught by two teachers, Lula Wood who instructed grades 1-3 and earned $55.00 a month, and Sarah Byers, a certified elementary teacher who was responsible for grades 4-7 and earned $70.00 a month.[20]

According to Mrs. Kathleen Harris, her husband Robert Harris attended the Bethesda School from around 1922 until 1930.  Mrs. Lucile Henderson Alison attended the school for two years starting in 1937, when she was in the second-grade.  At that point she recalls that it was a two-room building, heated by a woodstove. The daily routine at Bethesda would have been similar to that in the several other rural schoolhouses in the county. Louis Caldwell, who attended the Lawing School in Shuffletown, recalled that in the winter, the schoolhouse would be horribly cold and the first children to arrive were responsible for building a fire in the old coal stove.[21] All grades would have been taught in the same room, and the lives of the students revolved around the patterns and demands of the local agrarian economy.

According to Mrs. Harris the school was no longer in operation in the 1940’s, and county records show that the Board of Education sold the property to John and Bertie Young on July 10, 1946.[23]  Between 1938 and 1952, many small Mecklenburg County schools, both black and white, were closed as part of a statewide push to consolidate students into larger, more modern schools.  Even after the building had outlived its use as a school, it remained a focus for community social gatherings, with annual picnics held there until the 1960s.[22]    Long-time resident Robert Dixon, who lives a short distance from the school, reminisced that Mr. Young and his family hosted fish-fries at the school for as long back as he could remember and that local people, both black and white, would come from miles around to socialize there. Silas Davis remembered that the immensely popular fish fries started on the last Wednesday of August and lasted until Saturday night. The fish were gutted and “fried with the head, tail, bones and all” and were then “just slapped between two pieces of bread.” Mr. Dixon and Mr. Davis both believed that the fish fries ended sometime in the mid nineteen-sixties.[24]

 Lax county funding forced African Americans to find alternative sources of money from their own communities. There are several examples of this in Mecklenburg County.  Fish fries were not only popular ways to gather the community together for relaxed socializing, but were often used as fund raisers for local schools and community centers. For example, the Crestdale Community,  the historic African American neighborhood in Matthews, raised necessary funds to support its community school by having fish fries, and by assessing the parents $25.00. Farmer and neighborhood leader Logan Houston of Davidson organized many fundraisers selling ice cream, made with milk from his own cows to support the Davidson Colored School.  

The resourcefulness and determination of local African American community leaders to maintain their small schools in the face of municipal indifference is a powerful statement of their understanding of the implications of the significance of educating their children. Long denied the benefits of education, African Americans clung purposefully to the promises made possible by literacy. The unassuming rural schoolhouses such as Bethesda were able to provide a modicum of education to the surrounding population, and this basic schooling was but a  step in the improvements in education available to future generations. The small Bethesda Schoolhouse made possible by those who worked to build and support it helped improve the lives of the African American children of Mallard Creek, the descendants of slaves and the parents of children who would enjoy even greater educational opportunities. 

Architectural Description

The Bethesda Schoolhouse is a one-story, cross-gabled, frame building situated on a one-acre lot in northern Mecklenburg County, in the Croft Community south of the town of Huntersville.  The setting is rural.   The schoolhouse sits near the intersection of Alexanderana and Eastfield Roads.  Alexanderana runs north-south, 140’ west of the schoolhouse, and Eastfield runs roughly east-west, 65’ south of the building.  The site’s gently rolling landscape slopes down from a north-south Norfolk-Southern Railroad line that runs 80’ to the east of the schoolhouse.  Large open fallow farm fields extend eastward from the railroad tracks.  A modern metal church building neighbors the Bethesda School to the north, and the Maxwell House, a large 19^th century farmhouse, is located about one hundred yards to the south across Eastfield Road. 

Now a T-plan building, the Bethesda Schoolhouse features two-types of metal roofing and a distinctive row of five tall windows typical in school buildings.  The original building and the later addition were erected on brick piers that are now infilled with both bricks and cast concrete blocks.   The roughly 40’ by 20’ side-gabled original section of the building dates from around 1900.  Many of the building’s construction details help to date the building.  The standing seam metal roof on the original section is typical for late 19^th century and early 20^th century construction.  Framing is rough-sawn with cut nails visible in the framing and the siding.  While cut nail use in siding continued well into the 20^th century, cut nail use in framing usually indicates pre-1900 construction. 

Original brick pier with in-fill curtain foundation walls

Originally the side-gabled schoolhouse was oriented south with the entrance, now boarded-up, near the building’s southwest corner.  Though much of the original façade is now obscured by an early 20^th century addition, original paired windows close to the southeast corner survive.  The rear elevation of the principal section appears to be unaltered and features a row of five, tall six-over-six double-hung windows that are now covered with plywood.  The west elevation contains another tall six-over-six double-hung window centered in the wall, and a second, shorter window that was added later to accommodate a bathroom.  The east elevation, which faces the nearby railroad track, is blank.

Extending from the south elevation of the principal section is a substantial gabled wing that appears to date from the early years of the 20^th century.  The wing’s steeply pitched roof is covered with metal shingles, a typical late 19^th and early 20^th century roofing material.  With the addition of the wing, the schoolhouse’s orientation shifted to the west.  The wing’s west elevation features a shed-roofed porch protecting a five-panel door, and two tall six-over-six double-hung windows.  Like the principal section, the east elevation of the wing is blank.   The gabled south elevation is two bays wide, containing two windows and a louvered vent in the gable.  Patched-in siding indicates that some of the wing’s windows were originally taller, like those on the principal section.

The schoolhouse features small interior brick flues in both sections, and a block flue was added to the corner where the wing attaches on the east side of the original school building.  While basically intact, the building’s exterior is in poor condition, with some deterioration and loss of siding, and many damaged window sashes. 

The interior of the original building most likely consisted of a single large classroom, lit by natural light coming from the schoolhouse’s many windows.  The early 20^th century wing addition also served as a classroom.  The unadorned utilitarian design of the building’s exterior was reflected in the interior.  The trim around the doors and tall windows is simple square stock.  Walls and high ceilings were covered with tongue-and-groove beaded-board. When constructed, electricity would not have been available and original plumbing was limited to the hand pump still located to the northwest of the schoolhouse.

The schoolhouse’s interior reveals a lowered ceiling and  beaded-board behind the wall boards.	A beaded-board ceiling is intact above a later ceiling

The interior is now in poor condition, and has been divided into several smaller rooms.  The high ceiling has been lowered with framing and wallboard, supported by stud walls that divide the space and obscure the original walls.   It appears that some, if not all, of the original walls and ceilings are intact behind the newer interior walls.

The Bethesda Schoolhouse has retained a good degree of integrity, meaning that many of the historic building materials and features of the design of the building have survived.  While a major addition was constructed, it appears that the addition is of sufficient age and appears to have the requisite integrity to contribute to the significance of the property.  The building’s condition is poor, and if the deterioration of the building is allowed to continue, the integrity and the significance of the building could be negatively affected.

Architectural Context

A survey of Mecklenburg County’s African American historic resources conducted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission in 2001-2002 identified only three pre-1900 rural building with structural integrity.  While more 20th century African American buildings were identified, most rural sites are now facing either neglect or pressure from development.  The vast majority of historic African American buildings in the county are homes, and all surviving commercial and institutional buildings are very important in understanding how the black communities in the county functioned.  While several Rosenwald School, such as the Huntersville Colored School, Billingsville, and McClintock, have been preserved and are relatively similar in size, setting, and construction, none is as old as the Bethesda Schoolhouse.

Croft Schoolhouse, 1890	Rural Hill School, 1890

All surviving rural 19th century and early 20th century school buildings in Mecklenburg County are so rare that any school building with a good degree of integrity in terms of setting, design, and/or material is a significant artifact, important for understanding the history of Mecklenburg County, which was largely rural until the Second World War.  While both the Bethesda Schoolhouse and the nearby 1890 Croft Schoolhouse are simple utilitarian structures, the much larger size of the Croft Schoolhouse may demonstrate the advantages offered white students.   Another northern Mecklenburg white schoolhouse, the 1890 Rural Hill School is similar in size and design to the original section of the Bethesda Schoolhouse. 

 

 

Bibliography for the Architectural Description:

Edwards, Jay D., and Wells, Tom. Historic Louisiana Nails: Aids to The Dating of Old Buildings.  Baton Rogue, Geoscience Publications, 1993.

 

Gray, Stewart. “Early 20^th Century Barns in North Carolina’s Southern Piedmont” Preservation Brief , Graduate Project, Department of Interior Architecture, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2001.

 

Jordan, Steve.  “Metal Shingles: Roofing in Victorian stamped steel and copper is still practical today” The Old House Journal, Restore Media, LLC, 2003.

[1] William S. Powell, North Carolina Through Four Centuries, [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989, pp, 418-419.

[2] Eric Foner, Reconstruction. America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877,  (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), p. 96.

[3] Janette Greenwood, The Black Experience in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 1850-1920, Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1984, p. 3-31; Powell, North Carolina, p. 419.

[4] Foner, Reconstruction, pp. 97-98.

[5] Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People. Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900, [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985], p. 129.

[6] Powell, North Carolina,p. 420.

[7] Janette Greenwood, The Black Experience in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 1850-1920, 3-31.

[8] Tom Hanchett, The McClintock Rosenwald School and the Newell Rosenwald School, 1987.

[9] Ibid; Biennial Report and Recommendations of the Superintendent for Public Instruction of North Carolina to Governor Charles B. Aycock  fo rthe Schoalstic Years 1902-1903, 1903-1904, [Raleigh, N.C.: E. M. Uzzell & Co., State Printers &Binders, 1904], pp. 16-17, 36, 96-97.

[10] Hanchett, The McClintock and Newell Rosenwald Schools.

[11] Biennial Report and Recommendations of the Superintendent for Public Instruction, pp. 73, 79.

[12] Ibid; Greenwood, The Black Experience in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 3-31.

[13] The Greater Charlotte Club, Charlotte, [Charlotte, N.C.: 1913] “Charlotte’s Negroes.”

[14] U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1920; U.S. Census of the Population, 1920.

[15] Matthew Thomas, “Historical Sketch of the Bethesda Schoolhouse” 2003; Stewart Gray, “Bethesda Schoolhouse” 2002, survey file from The Survey of African American Buildings and Sites, Mecklenburg County 2002.

[16] Deed Book 195, P. 500, 29 April, 1905.

[17] Thomas, “Historical Sketch of the Bethesda Schoolhouse.”

[18] Thomas, “Historical Sketch”; Gray, “Bethesda Schoolhouse.”

[19] Operating Budget 1899, Mecklenburg Schools. Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

[20] Thomas, “Historical Sketch”; Mecklenburg County Board of Education Operating Budgets.

[21] Survey of  African American Buildings and Sites, 2002.

[22] Stewart Gray, “Bethesda Schoolhouse.”

[23] Deed Book 1200, P. 31, 10 July, 1946.

[24] Thomas, “Historical Sketch”; Gray, “Bethesda Schoolhouse.”

This report was written on May 5, 1976

1. Name and location of the Property: The property knom as the Berryhill House is located at 324 W. Ninth St., Charlotte, N.C.

2. Name, addresses, and telephone numbers of the present owners and occupants of the property:

The present owner of the property is: Berryhill Preservation, Inc.
c/o Mr. Gibson L. Smith
2500 Jefferson First Union Plaza
Charlotte, N.C. 28282

Telephone: 332-4525

The present occupant of the property is: Mr. David Roy Seymour
324 W. Ninth St.
Charlotte, N.C.

Telephone: 372-3672

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

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

 5. Current Deed Book Reference To the Property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3822 at Page 462. The Parcel Number of the property is: 07803103. This report contains a Chain of Title from 1870 to the Present.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The Berryhill House was erected in 1884 by John H. Newcomb. He and his brother, George E. Newcomb. had come to Charlotte in 1879. Brought from White Plains, NY, by Brown and Weddington, Inc., to establish a bellows factory, the Newcomb brothers supervised the construction of the plant on East Ninth St. along the western side of the railroad tracks just east of College St. From here blacksmith bellows were shipped by rail throughout the region. John Newcomb lived with his wife and two children in a house at the intersection of East Fifth and North Caldwell Sts. His wife, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. G. W. Moseman of Now York City, was Annie Augusta Newcomb. Commonly known as “Gussie” she had given birth to two children before coming to Charlotte. A son, George H. Newcomb, was born in 1869; and a daughter, Gussie Newcomb was born in 1871. They had no other children.

The Newcombs prospered in Charlotte. By 1884 John and his brother had acquired sole ownership of the bellows factory and had greatly expanded the scope of its operations. Now known as Newcomb Bros., it manufactured windows and sashes. Moreover, the brothers had entered the building construction business. Gussie Newcomb and her sister-law, Susie A. Newcomb, were also active in the local business community. One afternoon in 1881 they entered Miss Gray’s Millinery Store at 24 W. Trade St. to learn that Miss Gray, who was from Baltimore Md., had to leave the city immediately because of a death in her family. Consequently she wanted to sell the business, A sale was negotiated that very day and Gussie and Susie opened S. and G. Newcomb’s Millinery Store the next morning. It is reasonable to assume that the two ladies must have rushed to E. Ninth St. to obtain funds for the purchase. If so, John and George were wise to respond affirmatively. Gussie and Susie catered to the wealthier ladies of the community. Gussie would travel to New York City to acquire the finest material and ribbons. The making of the elaborate hats of that era, resplendent with ornamental trimming was done in the store by several milliners. To say that your hat came from Newcomb’s was enough said. The store was a resounding success.

On February 16, 1884, Gussie and Susie Newcomb jointly purchased two vacant lots to the northeast of the intersection of N. Pine and W. Ninth Sts. The price was $1400. This was expensive land for that day. No doubt the Newcomb families were ready to build homes which would reflect the status of their financial position in the community. The site was probably selected because it stood approximately midway between the manufacturing plant on E. Ninth St., and the millinery store on W. Trade St. On May 1, 1884, the families secured a loan of $3600 for purposes of building the two houses. John’s house stood on the corner lot. Both were occupied in the second half of 1884.

The early years of occupancy were for the most part uneventful. The routine of daily life proceeded normally. John and George were busy at Newcomb Bros. Gussie and Susie operated the store. From time to time Gussie would travel to New York City on buying trips. John and his family were active in St. Peter’s Episcopal Church. John was a mason and a member of the Royal Arcanum, a benevolent association in the town which met on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at City Hall. John celebrated his fortieth birthday on January 30, 1885. Gussie turned forty on September 13, 1890. The loan for constructing the houses was paid off on August 20, 1889.

In 1891 the stability which the Newcombs had known began to end. George and John sold the manufacturing plant. On August 8, 1891, common ownership of the two lots was terminated. Gussie now owned the corner lot; Susie owned the lot next door. Soon thereafter George and his family sold the house and lot next door and moved to Richmond, Va. John erected a bellows factory immediately behind his home. He was returning to the trade that he knew best. His son, George E. Newcomb, assisted his father in this new enterprise. But the greatest transformation in the life of the Newcombs came on July 27, 1892. John H. Newcomb died at the age of 47. The newspaper account of his funeral reveals that he had gained the respect and affection of his fellow citizens. “the funeral services over the remains of Mr. J. H. Newcomb,” the Charlotte Observer reported, “were held last evening at 6 o’ clock at his late residence by Rev. P. C. Reed. The house and yard were thronged with friends of the deceased, seldom there been a larger funeral in Charlotte. After reading several passages from scripture, Rev. Reed made a short talk, full of comfort to the bereaved, and of admonition to the living to ‘be ye also ready.'” Gussie Newcomb carried on with the millinery store until 1898, when failing health forced her to sell it to Miss Minnie Shuart of Baltimore, Md.

Happiness was not unknown to the Newcomb in the 1890s. Gussie’s son George E. Newcomb, operated the bellows factory to the rear of the house. In 1897 he married Mary E. Kendrick of Charlotte and established his residence on W. Fourth St. Shortly after her father’s death, Gussie Newcomb married Earnest Wiley Berryhill, whose parents had resided for many years in the 300 block of N. Poplar St. In 1894 Gussie gave birth to her only child, J. Newcomb Berryhill. In 1898 Mr. Berryhill purchased the grocery store at 401 W. Ninth St., and moved his family into the house with his mother-in-law. Only then did the name “Berryhill” become directly associated with the house.

In 1899 misfortune struck the Newcombs once more. An infant child was born dead to George H. Newcomb and his wife. In 1905 George’s wife died at the age of 34. In 1906 George lost one of his three sons, James K. Newcomb, to death at the age of 9. Not surprisingly, Mr. Newcomb’s ability to cope with life was lessened by the events. He returned to live with his mother and his sister’s family on W. Ninth St. He had to call upon his brother-in-law, S. W. Berryhill, to assist with the bellows factory. But life was never the same for George E. Newcomb. The bellows factory closed and was torn down in 1914. Shortly thereafter George left Charlotte. He died in 1925. He was survived by two sons, John and George, who resided in Detroit, Michigan.

Earnest Wiley Berryhill lived in the house until his death on February 7, 1931. For all these years he operated the store at 401 W. Ninth St. His wife, mother-in-law, and son had enormous respect for Mr. Berryhill. An honest and compassionate man, Mr. Berryhill had a heart of gold. His delivery wagon carried many a basket of groceries to the needy from whom he expected no money. He knew how to make friends and keep them. The most compelling illustration of Mr. Berryhill’s character and personality appears in an article by Mrs. Sam Presson in the Charlotte Observer of March 31, 1940.

 

The writer grow up with Mr. Berryhill, and shall never forget when as children we attended a Sunday school picnic at the Catawba River. I had the misfortune to slip and fall into the river where the water was over my head. When I came to the top, I yelled, “Save me! Save me!” Mr. Berryhill helped pull me out and after that I never saw him that he didn’t throw up his hands and with a twinkle in his eye, say: “Save me! Save me!”

Mr. Berryhill’s son, J. Newcomb Berryhill, worked along side his father in the grocery store. He married Miss Helenora Lanier on December 20, 1920. He moved out of the homeplace and established his residence on what is now N. Graham St. Amzi Rosman, a black man, also assisted Mr. Berryhill.

On February 9, 1931, the Berryhill House gave shelter to its second funeral. Earnest Wiley Berryhill had died two days before after an extended illness. Rev. W. W Peele, pastor of the First Methodist Church where Mr. Berryhill had been an active member, conducted the ceremonies. Mr. Berryhill had made his mark upon this community. In addition to the grocery business, he had served as a founder and director of the Citizens Savings Bank, an institution which specialized in loans to the so-called common man.

Annie Augusta Newcomb outlived her son-in-law. She had lived in the house for over 45 years. She had witnessed the death of her husband, her son, a daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren. Her brother-in-law, Henry L. Landridge, who had come to Charlotte with his wife to live in the Berryhill House had died in 1930. George and Susie Newcomb had died in Richmond, Va., some years earlier. One can imagine the serenity with which Mrs. Newcomb contemplated her own death. Ironically, she died on her 83rd birthday, September 13, 1933, Again, the funeral was hold in the house. At 4 o’clock on the afternoon of September 15, 1933, the ceremonies began. Rev. Edgar A.Dillard of the Tenth Ave. Presbyterian Church officiated.

Mrs. Newcomb’s sister, Mary M. Landridge, died in 1934, leaving Gussie Newcomb Berryhill alone in the house. J. Newcomb Berryhill continued to run the grocery store across the street however. In 1940 Gussie suffered a stroke. Her son was forced to place his mother in a nursing home. Her departure marked the end of occupancy of the house by members of the family. It was now transformed into a four unit apartment house. Having sold the grocery business but not the building itself, Mr. Berryhill devoted the majority of his time to managing the apartment house in the old homeplace. In the early 1950s he occupied the house to the immediate rear of the grocery store as his residence. Gussie Newcomb Berryhill died on September 7, 1956, at the age of 84. The grocery store on W. Ninth St. closed the same year. J. Newcomb Berryhill and his wife moved from N. Pine St. to Mamolake Dr. in 1958. The Berryhill House, continuing to serve as a four-unit apartment, could not escape the overall decline experienced by Fourth Ward in the 1960s. Its eventual destruction seemed certain. But on October 28, 1975, the Junior League of Charlotte purchased the house and made plans to renovate the structure. At this writing the renovation of the house is underway.

The Berryhill House promises to become a viable dwelling once more. But no future activity will overshadow the past events associated with the structure. Indeed, Elmwood Cemetery contains a number of graves which will stand as reminders of the joy and suffering of the family that built and occupied the Berryhill House.

John H. Newcomb (1845-1892)
Infant (1899)
Mary S. Newcomb (1871-1905)
James K. Newcomb (1897-1906)
George H. Newcomb (1869-1925)
Henry L. Landridge (1851-1930)
Earnest W. Berryhill (1865-1931)
Gussie A. Newcomb (1850-1933)
Mary M. Landridge (1855-1934)
Gussie N. Berryhill (1872-1956)

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description prepared by Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria 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 Berryhill House rests upon three factors. First, it is one of the few structures which forms the domestic architecture of late nineteenth Charlotte that has not been destroyed. Admittedly, if Charlotte possessed a large number of Victorian structures, the Berryhill House would probably not be of outstanding architectural significance. Within the existing local context, however, the Berryhill House stands as a indispensable link in the architectural evolution of this community. Second, the Berryhill House possesses substantial cultural significance as a basic element in the overall ambiance of Fourth Ward. Third, the structure has associative value in that it reflects the lifestyle and values of a middle class Charlotte family of the late 1800’s.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The Berryhill House is currently being renovated. While not being returned to its original condition, the structure will become a viable dwelling once more.

c. Educational value: The Berryhill House will become one of the best known houses in Charlotte. It will have enormous educational value, both as an example of historic preservation and as reminder of the early appearance of Fourth Ward.

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

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The Commission concurs with the present owner’s intention to sell the property for use as a residence.

f. Appraised values: The current tax appraisal value of the structure is $720.00. The tax appraisal value of the land is $12,770.00 The Commission is aware that designation of the property would allow the owner to apply for a special 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. Clearly, the present owner has demonstrated the capacity to meet the expenses associated with renovating the structure.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission Judges that the property known as the Berryhill House does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Fundamental to the Commission’s position is the following explanation of the nature of those criteria which has been provided by Dr. Larry Tise, State Historic Preservation Officer.

 

It is absolutely true that the National Register has undergone a significant change from its inception in 1966 to reflect a much broader preservationist philosophy. As long as there is an evolution of the meaning and use of the National Register criteria, there is likely to be a discussion of the merits of a broad or a restrictive approach to historic preservation.

With regard to the specific question of what meets National Register criteria, it is absolutely true that many properties meet the criteria today that would have been rejected in 1969 or even 1973. The criteria seem to operate much like the national Constitution in that different courts and different judges in different ages see different applications of the criteria.

(Letter of Dr. Larry E. Tise to Mr. James A. Stenhouse, May 3, 1976).

Also basic to the Commission’s judgment is its knowledge of the fact that the National Register of Historic places functions to identify property of local and State historic significance. The Commission believes that the property known as the Berryhill House is of local historic significance and thereby meets the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of histroical significance to Charlotte-Mecklenburg: As noted earlier, the property known as the Berryhill House is of local historic importance for three essential reasons. First, it is architecturally significant as one of the few remaining examples of Victorian architecture in the City of Charlotte. “This building,” Mr. Boyte writes, “is significant locally because it is very nearly alone in illustrating the once widespread Eclectic Victorian residential design in Charlotte.” Second, it is significant to the overall ambiance of Fourth Ward. Mr. Boyte contends that “the work of various groups and individuals on the development of an environment of significance in Fourth Ward is greatly enhanced by the preservation of such structures as the Berryhill (or Newcomb) House” Third, it has associative value in that it reflects the middle class values and lifestyle of late nineteenth century Charlotte.

 

---

Bibliography

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

Interview with Mr. J. Newcomb Berryhill (April 1976).

Charlotte City Directory (1879, 1882, 1889, 1893-94, 1896-97, 1897-98, 1899-1900, 1902, 1903, 1907, 1910, 1914).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Sanborn Insurance Maps (1885, 1896, 1900, 1905, 1911, 1929).

Charlotte Observer (February 8, 1931).

Charlotte Observer (September 15, 1933).

Charlotte Observer (May 5, 1935).

Charlotte Observer (March 31, 1940).

Charlotte Observer (September 8. 1956).

Daily Charlotte Observer (July 27, 1892).

 

Date of Preparation of this report: May 5, 1976

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

Telephone: 332-2726

 

---

Chain of Title: 1870 to the Present

1. September 28, 1870 (Book 6, page 999).

Grantor: Robert F. Davidson & wife, Eliza B. Davidson
Grantee: Miss M. S. Alexander & Miss A. L. Alexander

2. February 16, 1884 (Book 36, Page 418).

Grantor: Mary Sophia Alexander & Alice L. Alexander
Grantee: Annie A. Newcomb & Susie A. Newcomb

3. May 1, 1884 (Book 37, Page 414).

Grantor: George E. Newcomb & wife, Susie A. Newcomb John H. Newcomb & wife, Annie A. Newcomb
Grantee: T. R, Robertson & the Mechanics Perpetual Building & Loan Association

4. August 8, 1891 (Book 81, Page 37).

Grantor: George S. Newcomb & wife, Susie A. Newcomb
Grantee: Mrs. Gussie Newcomb (wife of John H. Newcomb)

5. July 2, 1913 (Book 314, Page 180).

Grantor: Mrs. Gussie Newcomb (widow)
Grantee: Mrs. Gussie Newcomb, wife of B. W. Berryhill

6. June 29, 1923 (Book 498, Page 283).

Grantor: Mrs. Gussie Newcomb
Grantee: Mrs. Gussie N. Berryhill

7. March 24, 1949 (Book 1366, Page 327).

Grantor: Mrs. Gussie N. Berryhill (widow of E. W. Berryhill)
Grantee: J. N. Berryhill

8. March 22, 1961 (Book 222, Page 353).

Grantor: J. N. Berryhill
Grantee: J. N. Berryhill & wife, Leonora L. Berryhill)

9. October 28, 1975 (Book 2796, Page 798).

Grantor: J. N. Berryhill & wife, Lenora L. Berryhill
Grantee: The Junior League of Charlotte, Inc.

10. February 9. 1976 (Book 3822. Page 462).

Grantor: The Junior League of Charlotte, Inc.
Grantee: Berryhill Preservation, Inc.

 

An Architectural Description  

by Jack O. Boyte, A. I. A.

During the decades immediately following the Civil War Charlotte experienced, along with much of the country, a period of rapid and chaotic growth. Larger concentration of people and the accelerating growth of industry involved new conditions and new experiences. This increasing variety of circumstances found expression in greater diversity of building than had been known in the American past. A romantic mood lingered over the entire scene. Mark Twain called this the “Gilded Age”. Leading Architects drew inspiration from many sources for their exuberant new designs. Numerous new ideas were developed, usually with deference to a dominant theme such as Greek, Gothic, Tuscan, Egyptian, etc. Often they were combined in a single eclectic style known vaguely as ‘Victorian’. From R. M. Hunt, H. H. Richardson, A. J. Davis, Stanford White, and other leading architects came trend setting designs. Their work was published regularly and provided regional inspiration for widespread use of these new ideas.

In the carefully developed grid street pattern of Fourth Ward, well-to-do citizens purchased newly available lots, and built an astonishing variety of ‘Victorian’ houses. On the corner of West Ninth and Poplar Streets the brothers John and George Newcomb bought side-by-side lots and built identical houses in 1883-84. Today the house of John Newcomb remains on the corner, a well-preserved and remarkable example of Eclectic Victorian Architecture.

Basically the house is a two story square form with a classic center hall plan. Drawing strongly from the work of Charles Eastlake, the exterior ornamentation is highly elaborate and reflects the obvious fact that the Newcomb brothers operated a planing mill a few blocks from the house where Ninth Street met the North Carolina Railroad.

Variations in the form are achieved with a wide covered front verandah wrapping around each side of the house, a projecting front tower with a peaked roof added to the house in later years, and a low roofed kitchen wing on the left rear of the house. There are later additions at the rear which have no historical significance.

The house rests on uniformly spaced high, red brick piers on the exterior perimeter and at regular intervals under the interior first floor framing. These interior supporting piers were whitewashed, probably at an early date since they were exposed to view. Where the interior chimney foundations occur under the house arched brick alcoves were built into these masses to minimize their bulk. The foundation wall is now solid, having been bricked in at a later date.

Starting with a sill band with a molded drip, the exterior surfaces are horizontal square edged, narrow, lapped, siding rising two stories to a broad molded frieze. At close intervals on the frieze, heavy carved brackets form a console supporting a wide overhang and a molded facia which conceals a built-in gutter. The main roof surface was originally low sloped tin not visible from the ground. At the front and extending half way down each side, the covered verandah creates the dominant exterior feature. Set high above the ground, the verandah has a narrow wood strip floor, beaded ceiling, and a low tin covered roof supported by extraordinary columns and brackets. Fabricated of solid eight inch square posts, the columns rest on elaborate carved pedestals rising to rail height. Above this, chamfered edges have turned half round members with knob ends applied to each edge. At eye level there are molded capitals creating imposts for elaborate carved brackets which flare to the sides and front where they support a moderate overhang. Centered on the front an offset verandah section emphasizes the main entrance with even heavier bracketing.

The porch railing consists of closely spaced turned balusters– much like table legs – capped by a relatively simple rounded hand rail, molded at each edge. At the center front on Ninth Street a wide stair, originally wood and now concrete, rises five feet to the extended verandah platform. Above this platform the verandah roof is raised several feet and forms, at the house wall, a base for the center projecting tower bay. With four high narrow windows across the front and a square peaked roof this tower gives the front a strong Italianate flavor borrowed from Etruscan Villa designs. The tower roof rises from a pronounced overhang resting on small scroll brackets. The high tower surfaces are covered with small square edge slate tiles and terminate in a turned finial at the peak.

Windows are all full length double hung units rising from a sill near the floor to a height of nearly eight feet. Sash are glazed with two large lights and one center vertical muntin, conforming to the typical vertical lines of the period. Exterior window trim features pedimented heads with simple carved inserts. At the lower edges of the trim slightly flared blocks add a classical touch. All this is reminiscent of the Second Empire mode. The main entrance, centered under the tower, consists of nine foot high double doors of oak, half glazed with oval headed windows, and with lower molded panels. Two sets of double doors create a shallow entrance vestibule defined on the exterior by paneled side walls which flare outward. Above the doors delicately patterned transom windows extend up to the ceiling of the porch.

Inside the entrance a center hall forms a relatively narrow foyer at the front. The main stair begins at the right center of the hall. This stair was originally a single run, rising along one wall thirteen or more feet to the second floor. In recent years the stair was altered and now rises in two runs in the front section of the hall. At the rear, new bath rooms have been installed in the original hall areas on both floors. The stair features an unusually massive turned newell post at the first floor and two delicate turned balusters on each tread. A plain oval rail completes the balustrade. One might notice in the undisturbed first run of the stair curious triangular pressed tin dust shields at the juncture of treads and risers adjoining the closed strings.

Interior finishing trim is relatively simple and shows little of the rich decorative characteristics usually found in Victorian houses. The first floor entrance hall contains a heavy molded chair rail which has been recently replaced. There are no wood paneled wainscoted areas. Floors are all wide pine planks. Walls and ceilings are plaster on wood lath. From the foyer, double divided light doors open to a sitting room on the left. Here the walls have decorative panel molding applied at a later date over earlier wall paper. At the ceiling a narrow crown mold shows elaborate leaf carving said to have gilded originally. In this room an elaborate fireplace mantle provides the feature of most note. This mantle has classical detailing with small round Doric columns at each flank and molded trim under the mantle shelf with egg and dart motif. In the over mantle a fine beveled mirror is also surrounded with egg and dart molding. To the rear through another pair of divided light doors one enters the dining room. Here the trim is also very simple. There is a fireplace with milled mantle trim reflecting no classical influence. Adjoining the dining room at the back is a one story kitchen wing, showing little distinction in the finishing trim.

At the front right of the entrance foyer another pair of divided light doors open to a parlor. Here there was originally another fireplace which likely had a elaborate mantle and over mantle similar to that in the sitting room. This feature has been removed, however, and the opening plastered over. To the rear of this parlor is a smaller library or study trimmed with the simplest of millwork. In the original plan all first floor rooms opened to the central hall which extended from front to rear.

On the second floor there are four original bedrooms, and two rooms in a later addition. In these rooms the detailing is restrained. The four original bed chambers have small fireplaces finished with simple wood mantles showing little elaboration. At each fireplace on both floors, the hearths and fireplace opening surrounds are faced with small glazed marbleized tile.

At the front of the second floor hall the tower windows are set out from the main walls and create a shallow bay. Evidence of original window construction in the main wall confirms the fact that the tower was added subsequent to the original construction.

In Fourth Ward as well as in all other early neighborhoods in Charlotte, the list of remaining historic structures is distressingly limited. And, of course, the work of various groups and individuals on the development of an environment of significance in Fourth Ward is greatly enhanced by the preservation of such structures as. the Berryhill (or Newcomb) House. This building is significant locally because it is very nearly alone in illustrating the once widespread Eclectic Victorian residential design in Charlotte. The present commendable effort of the Junior League toward refurbishing the house demonstrates a growing community awareness of the need for saving Charlotte’s architectural past. This effort should be vigorously supported.