Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Colonial Homes in North Carolina
Author: Allcott, John V.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Colonial Homes in North Carolina" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



                             Colonial Homes
                                   in
                             North Carolina


                                  _By
                            John V. Allcott_

                           _Professor of Art
                     University of North Carolina_


                           _A Publication of_
             _The Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission
                        Raleigh, North Carolina_
                                  1963

                             _Reprinted by_
                   _Division of Archives and History
            North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources_
                                  1975


                    DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
                      Grace J. Rohrer, _Secretary_

                    DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
                    Larry E. Tise, _Acting Director_

                  NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL COMMISSION
                      T. Harry Gatton, _Chairman_

                          Gertrude S. Carraway
                            Helen G. Edmonds
                          Frontis W. Johnston
                             J. C. Knowles
                          Robert M. Lineberger
                         Edward W. Phifer, Jr.

  The Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission was established by the
  North Carolina General Assembly to “make plans and develop a program
  for celebration of the tercentenary of the granting of the Carolina
  Charter of 1663....” As part of this program the commission arranged
  for the publication of a number of historical pamphlets for use in
  stimulating interest in the study of North Carolina history during the
  period 1663-1763. This publication was part of that project.



                                CONTENTS


                                                                   _Page_
  Foreword                                                            vii
  Introduction                                                       viii
  Acknowledgments                                                      ix
  CHAPTER
  I. Colonial North Carolina Seen from the Air—_Old Maps of the
          State and of Colonial Towns_                                  1
  II. A Visit to a Colonial Home                                       18
  III. Kinds of Construction—_Log Houses, Houses with a Wooden
          Frame, Brick and Stone Houses, Roofs_                        26
  IV. Plan Ideas—_The Study of Floor Plans_                            55
  V. Interiors                                                         84
  VI. A Note on Later Colonial Architecture                            96
  VII. The Study of Old Architecture                                  101



                                FOREWORD


The following statement was published in the original printing of
_Colonial Homes of North Carolina_: “The Carolina Charter Tercentenary
Commission was established by the North Carolina General Assembly ‘to
make plans and develop a program for celebration of the tercentenary of
the granting of the Carolina Charter of 1663....’ As part of this
program the Commission arranged for the publication of a number of
historical pamphlets for use in stimulating interest in the study of
North Carolina history during the period 1663-1763. This publication is
part of that project.” Because of the widespread acceptance of this
particular pamphlet and continuing demand for it, the Division of
Archives and History of the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources is reprinting it. When the Carolina Charter Tercentenary
Commission went out of existence at the end of 1663, its stock of
publications was turned over to what was then the State Department of
Archives and History. Since that time several of the pamphlets
originally published by the commission have been reprinted.

Because of monetary limitations, it has not been possible to update this
publication. Readers should be aware of the fact that a number of
projects in progress at the time Dr. Allcott wrote the booklet, such as
the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts in Winston-Salem and Tryon
Palace in New Bern, have been completed.

Chairman of the Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission was the
Honorable Francis E. Winslow of Rocky Mount; executive secretary was
Brig. Gen. John D. F. Phillips, U.S. Army (Ret.).

The awareness of the importance of structures of historical significance
has increased with the recent emphasis on historic preservation. It is
appropriate, therefore, that Dr. John V. Allcott’s work on North
Carolina’s colonial homes be kept in print.

                                                      Memory F. Mitchell
                                 _Historical Publications Administrator_

July 1, 1975



                              INTRODUCTION


This booklet, planned for young student readers, discusses a group of
colonial homes scattered over North Carolina, which remain and can be
seen today. They begin in the early 18th century, for earlier homes have
long since disappeared. The fate of these first buildings is likewise
the fate of most of the churches, courthouses, and other non-domestic
structures built during colonial times. Homes, therefore, chiefly
constitute the first group or body of architecture remaining from the
early and mid-18th century.

Architecture of the final years of the colonial period will be mentioned
only lightly. During this later time new ideas of elegance came into
North Carolina architecture, as in the well known Tryon Palace, to which
we will refer later. For many people who have not thought very much
about colonial architecture, these elegant later buildings, and also
those of the early Republic, stand somehow for all or the best of
“colonial” architecture, and the exciting architecture of an earlier,
bustling, genuinely colonial period is not recognized. It will be useful
in this booklet, therefore, to focus on the architecture of the earlier
18th century and see the simple, vigorous ideas of this period.

These buildings are of surprising variety—they are made of brick, stone,
or wood; they are large and small, plain or fancy in one way or another.
A reason for such diversity is that the colonists, coming from different
foreign countries and settlements in America, brought with them
differing ideas about what a building should look like and how it should
be constructed. These early buildings, however, do hold together as a
group. More important, they show the rise of architectural ideas
especially suited to the hot Carolina summers. Thus, we view our
material both as expressive of a genuine “colonial” period, and as
establishing ideas which reflect Southern life.

    [Illustration: Inspecting a house plan]

Besides talking about colonial architecture as an important aspect of
colonial history, this booklet has two special purposes. One is to
interest the student in architecture itself. Some people go through
their whole lives without ever being conscious about buildings they like
or dislike; they do not wonder why one building looks gay, another
sober, and others pompous or unpretentious. This study will provide a
number of approaches to architecture. Using everyday vision, so to
speak, we will see photographs of buildings from outside and inside, in
long-shot and close-up. We will see buildings in plan views and diagrams
which show in a few lines what a photograph cannot. We will look down on
buildings and cities from high in the air (via maps). And we will look
with X-ray eyes into the construction of buildings. In these and other
ways a person begins to experience the manifold realities of
architecture and to understand how architecture ranks with painting and
sculpture as a great, compelling art. Buildings and cities are the
material frame created by man, in which he can breathe and live life as
he desires it.

    [Illustration: Inspecting a house foundation]

The other special purpose of this booklet is to induce the student to
investigate old buildings in his or her area—to find them, prowl through
their basements and attics to see how they were made, make sketches and
take photos of them, look up records, and talk to old citizens about
them. People who do this are detectives in a sense; it may take months
before the mysteries of a particular building are solved. This is very
important work. Each day old buildings are destroyed without any record
for architectural history. Such a record can be made only by someone on
the spot over an extended period of time—someone like the reader of this
study.



                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


In this booklet we enter the world of two dedicated students of North
Carolina architecture, Professor Louise Hall of Duke University, and Mr.
W. S. Tarlton, Superintendent of the Historic Sites Division of the
State Department of Archives and History. The manuscript was read by
Professor Hall and Mr. Tarlton, and also by Professor Joseph C. Sloane
and Miss Priscilla Roetzel, two of the author’s colleagues at the
University of North Carolina, and by General John D. F. Phillips,
Executive Secretary of the Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission.
These people, warmly interested in our project, made numerous important
suggestions which are reflected in the present booklet. Other North
Carolinians have aided our study of individual buildings:—Mr. Donald
Carrow and Don Carrow Jr., of Bath; Mrs. Guy Springle, Miss Annie L.
Morton, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Hatsell, and Mr. and Mrs. Marlin Reed of
Beaufort; Dr. and Mrs. William Wassink of Camden; Dr. William Jacocks,
Mrs. Jane Bahnsen, and Mr. William Powell of Chapel Hill; Miss Mary
Louise Phillips of Charlotte; Miss Elizabeth Vann Moore and Mr. David
Warren of Edenton; Mr. and Mrs. John M. Stuart of Elizabeth City; Mr.
and Mrs. L. A. Chenoweth, near Hertford; Mr. and Mrs. Chester Haworth of
High Point; Dr. Mary Claire Engstrom and Mrs. Edward Lloyd of Hillsboro;
Miss Gertrude S. Carraway, Mr. and Mrs. Tull Richardson, and Mr. William
F. Ward of New Bern; Mr. George W. Alexander of Nixonton; Mrs. Sprague
Silver and Miss Sue Todd of Raleigh; Mr. Frank L. Horton of Salem; Mrs.
Henry Fairley, Sr., and Mr. William D. Kizziah of Salisbury; Mrs.
Katherine N. McCall of Southern Pines; Mr. Edmund H. Harding of
Washington; the Misses Eleanora and Joanna MacMillan, near Wilmington;
Mrs. Peter Rascoe of Windsor; and Mr. Henry Jay MacMillan of Wilmington.

Illustrations in this booklet are gratefully acknowledged below. Figures
21, 24, 31, 33 and 60 are photographs by Frances Benjamin Johnston.
These photographs, and also photographs 67 and 70, the maps, figures 1,
2, and 49, and photostats of maps, figures 3, 4, and 10, are in the
Carolina Room, The University of North Carolina Library. Other
photographs come from State agencies in Raleigh: figures 12, 13, and 48
are from the Department of Conservation and Development, and figures 11,
28, 57, 58, 59 and 62 from the Department of Archives and History. Of
other photographs, figure 27 is from Old Salem, Inc.; figures 15, 32,
and 36 are by William Brinkhous; figure 35, from Mrs. John M. Stuart:
figure 71 is by William H. Jennings and is used with his permission.
Figure 5 is used with permission of Harcourt, Brace and Company. Figure
25 is reproduced by permission of Harvard University Press. Other
photographs and drawings are by the author.



                               CHAPTER I
               Colonial North Carolina Seen from the Air


    [Illustration: Aerial mapping]

We begin our study from the air. First, like an astronaut high in his
rocket ship, we will look down on colonial maps of North Carolina and
survey the whole 500-mile sweep of the land from mountains in the west
to meandering sea coast in the east. Next, as if in an airplane, we will
look at maps of colonial towns. Then, coming closer to the earth, as in
a helicopter, we will hover over a single home with its several
outbuildings and see what it is like. From this point on, with our feet
on the ground, we will look at buildings close-up.


                       OLD MAPS OF NORTH CAROLINA

There are quite a number of old maps of North Carolina. Some are
small—the size of a piece of typing paper; others are huge—assemblages
of several large sheets of paper. Early maps, not very accurate in
detail, show a few settlements. Later maps are more accurate and show
the new towns as they were established.

Back of a colonial map stands a surveyor who travelled over the land
making careful drawings. He made the map for the King or other official
of government, for mariners or merchants, or for people like ourselves
who are curious about life on the land. These maps suggest the life of
the colonists, and their architecture, as will be seen.

The study of North Carolina maps has been facilitated by a recent book,
_The Southeast in Early Maps_, by William P. Cumming. Mr. Cumming, a
professor at Davidson College, spent many years searching for maps in
the libraries of our country and Europe. Much of the information and
inspiration for this booklet comes from his work.

One point before we begin looking at maps—words are often “misspelled.”
This happens because some words (as Indian names) were new and spelling
had to be invented for them. There are other reasons, the most appealing
one being that eighteenth-century writers enjoyed a freedom about
spelling.

Figure 1, “A New & Accurate Map of North ... Carolina...” is a detail
from a map of southeastern North America, “drawn from late Surveys ...
by Eman. Bowen.” This map was included in a geography book which Bowen
published in London in 1747. The scale of our illustration is slightly
smaller than that of the original map.

The map gives a grand and sober image of the New World. In the west are
the great “Charokee Mountains.” Individual peaks are shaded on one side,
making them seem massive and solid as they thrust up forcibly from the
land. At the eastern side of the range are little trees, delicate signs
of green timber growth. Big letters tell us that “Virginia” is at the
north, “North Carolina” is in the middle area, and “South” indicates the
beginning of South Carolina, below. A meandering, dotted line bounds
North Carolina, which was not considered as extensive then, as it is
today.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 1. DETAIL FROM “A NEW & ACCURATE MAP OF NORTH
    ... CAROLINA,” LONDON, 1747.]

In the middle and upper part of the map many rivers begin their courses
to the sea. Six or seven of them may be counted. They fan out as they
flow onward, the upper ones moving to the east, the lower ones more to
the south. Fatter and wider they become, finally creating Albemarle
Sound, “Pamticoe” Sound, and other features of the intricate shore line.
The sounds and wide river mouths provided good places for small ships to
land and for towns to be established. Light vessels could push far up
some of the rivers, and farmers and planters along the banks could ship
from their own private docks.

This seaboard area is densely labeled with names of places, an
indication of the extensive settlement of the region. Follow down the
coast, and one finds Edenton, Bath Town, New Bern, Beaufort Town, and
farther to the south are Wilmington and Brunswick Town. All these places
were founded well within the first half of the 18th century. Those who
spend vacations at Topsail Beach, Hatteras, Ocracoke, and other Carolina
beaches, will be surprised at the number of such places which had
already been given their names by 1747. To the west of our map are
unfamiliar Indian names of forts and settlements. Others have
English-sounding names. This map of 1747 does not show towns like
Hillsboro and Halifax, founded in the 1750’s, nor towns farther west,
like Salem, Salisbury, and Charlotte, founded in the 1760’s. In studying
early maps like this, one can feel the westward growth of North Carolina
in colonial times.

Since the map is rather small, it does not show all of the settlements
which did exist at its time, 1747. For example, Campbell Town, which
later became part of Fayetteville, is not shown. Our mapmaker, Mr.
Bowen, was too high in the air, so to speak, to note this place and
hundreds of individual farms. To see in greater detail the richness of
life on the land below, we will descend lower in our next map.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 2. ALBEMARLE SOUND REGION, FROM “MAP OF NORTH
    AND SOUTH CAROLINA....” MOUZON, 1775.]

Figure 2, the Albemarle Sound region, is a detail from a famous map of
North and South Carolina by Henry Mouzon, Jr., made in 1775. Like the
previous map, it was printed in England and is also reproduced in
slightly smaller size than the original. Mr. Cumming states that it may
be called the Revolutionary War map of North and South Carolina, because
it was used by American, British and French forces. So, in looking at
the fragment, reproduced here, a person might imagine that he is a
Revolutionary War general, studying the little towns, the ports, and
roads that wander through the country, and try to understand why a town
is where it is, what military importance it has, or how it might be
protected or destroyed.

Through Albemarle Sound runs a dotted line indicating the course for
ships. It may be seen where they could escape to or enter from the
Atlantic through the narrow, hazardous Roanoke Inlet.

At the left, near where the Chowan River empties into the Sound, is the
town of Edenton. Several roads came together here, and the little black
rectangles suggest buildings. There is a church in the town, with a
tower and steeple in front. Other churches shown elsewhere on the map
have exactly the same form as the one at Edenton, so one realizes that
this form is not meant to show what a specific church looked like, but
is a standard symbol for a church. Incidentally, notice how churches or
chapels stand alone at various places in the countryside.

Courthouses, like churches, are shown in towns, and here and there in
the country. They are indicted by a symbol which could be described as a
letter “U” which is squared rather than rounded. The courthouse at
Edenton is hard to identify; one can not be sure about it.

To the northeast of Edenton, on the Perquimans River, is the town of
_Hartford_, now called Hertford. Farther to the east is Nixonton, its
houses lying along both sides of a single road. Follow the road to the
south and see the farms which lie along Little River. Each farm is
marked by a spot representing the house, and carries the name of the
owner—the names Morris, Evans, Ancoup, and so on, can be read. In the
north, above this area, is the Great Dismal Swamp, looking very great
and dismal indeed.

Vivid as this map proves to be, we have not seen individual towns very
clearly. To get sharper ideas about them, we descend lower to the earth
and look at maps of individual towns.


                   MAPS OF COLONIAL TOWNS—TOWN PLANS

A map of a town shows streets and broad avenues crossing and interlacing
in some pattern, wide or narrow lots in rows along streets, and
buildings which are placed at the front or deep within the lots. Such
matters make one section of a town look different from another and are
part of the design or the _plan_ of a town.

Lewis Mumford, a man who has a great interest in cities and towns and
who has written a number of books on them, considers a town as a work of
art. He believes that just as a picture is a work of art, and a house is
a work of art, so is a town. The design of a town—the arrangement of
streets and lots—expresses the ideas of the people about the right
framework in which a good life can be lived.

For our study of colonial towns we are fortunate in having beautiful
maps of ten North Carolina towns, all made by the surveyor Claude Joseph
Sauthier. The Hillsboro map, figure 3, is one of these drawings.
Sauthier traveled over North Carolina between 1768 and 1770, surveyed
and made maps of Bath, Beaufort, Brunswick, Edenton, Cross Creek (now
Fayetteville), Halifax, Hillsboro, New Bern, Salisbury, and Wilmington.
The drawings were commissioned by Governor Tryon; most of them have
found their way to the great British Museum, in London.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 3. SAUTHIER’S “PLAN OF ... HILLSBOROUGH,”
    1768.]

The majority of the buildings shown on the maps have disappeared. The
maps thus enable us to see—what otherwise we could never see—North
Carolina towns as they once were. Sauthier did make occasional mistakes;
and some details (for example, the design of a flower garden) are not to
be read as literal fact; but for the most part the drawings may be
studied as aerial photographs. By great good fortune they were made at
the right time for us, and have survived.

To get some general ideas about colonial towns, we will look at the map
of Hillsboro. Our remarks about this map reflect observations of Dr.
Mary Claire Engstrom, scholar of 18th-century subjects, and a
vice-president of the Hillsboro Historical Society. The Sauthier map of
Hillsboro, dated October 1768, was made after the spring uprising of the
Regulators in that town and immediately following Governor Tryon’s
arrival there in September. From this it may be suspected that, in
commissioning the map, Governor Tryon had military thoughts in mind.
Hillsboro—the danger spot—was the first map in Sauthier’s series of ten
maps. The others were made as he travelled with Governor Tryon.

The little town is shown on the Eno River in the wooded land of Orange
County. The big star at upper left shows north, south, east, and west,
and one notes that the town seems to be laid out “properly” on these
directions. Roads leading to neighboring towns are carefully marked.
There are the Roads from Salisbury ... to Virginia ... to Halifax ... to
New Bern ... to the Quaker Settlement ... to Cross Creek. At lower left
is “Oakaneetche Mountain,” a great hump of earth overlooking Hillsboro.
Another of the Occoneechee mountains is seen at the edge of the map. The
Occoneechee Indians were one of several Indian tribes in the area.
Today, boy scouts in this part of Orange County belong to the
Occoneechee Council. They sometimes have camporees at the Hillsboro race
ground, not far from the “Race Ground” marked on our map. This Race
Ground lies neatly within a bend in the Eno River, as though the river
wanted to mark out this area of flat land for such special use.
Scattered here and there outside the town are farms. The rectangular
plots of farm land are clearly marked, and the farm houses and secondary
buildings are placed at corners convenient to the road.

For a better view of the actual town itself we look at an enlarged
section of the map, Figure 4. Buildings are indicated by small
rectangles which have heavy outlines on two sides—the right side and the
lower side. These two heavy lines may be regarded as a shadow cast by
the bulk of the building. They are a convention used by Sauthier to show
bulk or mass. The various rectangles which are shown within gardens also
employ this same thick-thin line convention, suggesting a mass of green
foliage rising above the surrounding paths.

The buildings marked “A,” ... “B,” ... “C,” and so on, are identified
under corresponding letters listed under “Reference” at the upper right
of the total map. “A, Church” is toward the northern part of the town,
removed from the business area below. In assigning to the Church the “A”
(number one) position on his list, Sauthier pays respect to the idea of
the primacy of the spiritual order over civil law. At “A” is a rectangle
containing a number of crosses. This seems to suggest a fenced-off
cemetery. One does not find an actual church building, but a church did
exist on this ground shortly after Sauthier’s visit.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 4. DETAIL FROM SAUTHIER’S PLAN OF
    HILLSBOROUGH.]

“B, Court House” is located close to the crossing of two wide
streets—those two main streets from which roads lead off to the other
towns of the Colony. The courthouse was a “plain, barn-like structure.”
The present and very famous Old Courthouse, dating from near the
mid-19th century, stands near this site.

“C” marks the jail. The word _jail_ used to be spelled _gaol_, but
Sauthier spells it _goal_. It is shown within a small rectangle, perhaps
indicating a fenced-in yard. The jail may possibly have been a new
structure, for Dr. Engstrom has discovered that about six months before
Sauthier’s visit a former jail, at another location down town, was sold
to a private individual to use for business purposes. The new jail was
probably not an impressive building, perhaps only a log cabin, but
Sauthier thought it important to note that the town had this institution
to take care of wayward people. Incidentally, the jail seems a little
wayward itself, having strayed into the otherwise clear, wide street.
When the jail was built that street was perhaps just a well worn path,
and the jail may have been erected hastily without careful checking of
stakes for the street. In other colonial towns (for example, in the
placement of the church at Bath) it sometimes seems as though buildings
are incorrectly placed. The Hillsboro jail, for many years in the
general position shown, has recently been moved back to a less assertive
site.

“D, Market House,” directly at the main intersection and adjacent to the
courthouse, is shown as square. The “X” inscribed within this square
perhaps indicates that the market had a pyramidal, four-sided roof. The
building may have had open sides, like markets in certain other colonial
towns. The open market building is an idea brought from Europe. Other
buildings around this main intersection were stores or warehouses. At
the southwest corner was Johnston and Thackston’s store where Edmund
Fanning, the Clerk of Court and a Tory leader, took refuge from the
Regulators in 1770.

At “E, Mills” there are curious parallel straight lines which can be
read as canals. The mills, probably with water wheels, are built over
the canals. Where the river widens out at the left there may have been a
dam to hold back the flow of water in the river, and force it through
the canals. The curious marks on the canals could be gates.

The mills are the last structures identified on the map. Sauthier does
not mention the Commons, a field set aside for pasturing of the cattle
owned by people in a colonial town. On some of his other maps he
identifies such places as Tann Yard, ... School House, ... Tobacco
Store, ... Windmill.

The homes shown in the map are all built near the street. Behind are
fields or gardens divided into orderly plots. Most of the buildings are
simple rectangles in shape. Occasionally a building has an irregular
shape, perhaps meaning that an original rectangular structure was given
an addition. Similarly, lots with irregular shape may indicate additions
or subdivision of an original tract.

By way of contrast to the Hillsboro town plan, Figure 5 is a drawing of
Grenoble, a medieval French city. This drawing is reproduced from _The
Culture of Cities_, by Lewis Mumford. The winding streets are natural
paths that have become fixed as streets. Some curving streets mark the
location of early town walls, removed as the town grew and as larger
encircling walls were erected. Mr. Mumford speaks of this kind of town
as having a natural circular plan, with irregular blocks dictated by
topography and the original circular wall.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 5. MAP OF GRENOBLE, FRANCE, FROM _The Culture
    of Cities_ BY LEWIS MUMFORD.]

When American colonial towns like Hillsboro were founded, the streets
and lots were laid out in advance. The uniform rectangular lots were
easy to measure and ideal for fixing sale prices and for the assessment
of taxes. Later expansion of the town could also be orderly. The idea of
the colonial gridiron town speaks of “modern” men and their
institutions, as opposed to medieval men.

Figures 6, 7, and 8 suggest planning ideas found in early North Carolina
towns. Figure 6, recalling Hillsboro, could be called a plan for an
inland town. In our diagram two slightly wider streets mark a crossing
at the center of the town. The dot in the center of the crossing is to
indicate the placement of the courthouse. Such placement is not what we
saw at Hillsboro, but is shown on several of the Sauthier maps of North
Carolina towns (for example, Salisbury and Wilmington). This was a good
arrangement, for the courthouse, symbol of the civil law and order of
the area, might be seen from a long way off as the town was approached
from various directions. However, the early towns which began with the
courthouse astride the main crossing generally found later that this
location impeded the flow of traffic. Consequently, some courthouses
have been moved from their original sites, allowing traffic to flow
across the intersection. Pittsboro, however—although a relatively late
colonial town, having been laid out in 1785—still has its courthouse in
the central position.

Figure 7, to suggest the plan of a port town, seems like half of the
inland plan, above. A principal street of the town runs along or near
the water. It might be called Water Street, as at Bath.

Figure 8 indicates an idea found at Salem, laid out in 1765, and
elsewhere in the American colonies. A central square is left open and
principal town buildings are built around it. At Raleigh, laid out in
1792, the square is very large, and contains the State Capitol. A
central green belonging to the people, a place in which they might
gather, is still a pleasant reminder of community life and order in
those towns which possess them.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 6.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 7.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 8.]

Since colonial days our old towns have changed much. In the 19th century
mills and warehouses dwarfed the original buildings. The railroad, that
glamorous invention of the industrial revolution, appeared in the towns,
bisecting them. Especially in the 20th century, faster change and
“progress” have all but obliterated the charm of old towns. Downtown
streets become impossibly congested. Old residential areas are invaded
by filling stations and supermarkets. In a free country a man can buy a
beautiful old home, blast it out of existence, and erect an unsightly
factory over its ruins. Such “progress” has blighted and disfigured many
towns. But townspeople are becoming horrified by this, and now there are
citizen committees which bring about zoning laws under which the plans
for the use of land and for new buildings must be approved. Some towns
have Planning Boards, with a Planning Director in charge, who think not
only of the present but also of the far future. At the University of
North Carolina there is a Department of City and Regional Planning; it
trains young men and women for positions in planning.



                               CHAPTER II
                       A Visit to a Colonial Home


    [Illustration: FIGURE 9. CONJECTURAL SKETCH OF THE PALMER HOUSE,
    BATH.]

After looking at maps of North Carolina and its towns, we visit a
colonial home to see what it is like. The Palmer-Marsh house in Bath is
chosen for this purpose because it offers exceptional possibilities for
the kind of visit we want to make.

Figure 9 is a sketch of the big, sturdy house, its out-buildings,
orchard, and gardens which, taken together, look like a self-sufficient
farm. Our sketch of the surroundings is an estimate, based on the plan
of the “Col. Palmer” property seen in Sauthier’s 1769 map of Bath
(figure 10). The map shows the Palmer property “down town” on Water, or
Main Street, which runs along Bath Creek, the house being placed
directly on this business thoroughfare. The front room of the house was
planned for business purposes, and so it has its own door to the street.
Thus the chimney, which ordinarily would have been on this end wall, has
been moved around the corner to the side. The house, thought to have
been built in 1744, was sold to Colonel Palmer in 1764, just a few years
before Sauthier came to Bath.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 10. (BELOW), COL. PALMER’S HOUSE, SEEN IN A
    DETAIL FROM SAUTHIER’S “PLAN OF BATH, 1769.”]

Of the four out-buildings in a group, a well house is in the foreground.
The drawing shows the well covered by a square, open-sided structure
with pyramidal or hipped roof. The other square building with hipped
roof is a smoke house—where meat was hung and smoked. A smoke house
which exists today on the property is thought to contain the wood frame
of this original structure. Of the two out-buildings with ordinary gable
roofs, one could be a dairy and the other a barn. At the back of the
property are the extensive gardens and the orchard—represented in such
charming fashion on Sauthier’s map. We know that in 1911 the yard of the
house was full of pear, apple, and other fruit trees, the descendants,
perhaps, of the original trees in the orchard.

In the 19th century porches were added to the house (figure 11); but the
porches have recently been removed during a project to restore the house
to what it originally was (figure 12). The juxtaposition of these two
photographs brings the above ideas forcibly to our attention. It is
important to know that almost every colonial house has undergone changes
during the years, and to know the meaning of conscientious restoration.

In the 19th century the house was “modernized” in several ways. The
porches were a very natural addition, especially for hot Carolina
summers. The shutters were removed because they were considered archaic.
In the windows the small 18th century panes of glass were replaced by
larger panes available in the 19th century. Also, the street façade of
the house was made more up-to-date, as can be seen. The gable projects
emphatically and has two horizontal strips at the lower corners. The
gable suggests (vaguely) a pediment on a Greek or Roman temple. (A
_pediment_ is the low triangular gable end of a classical temple). Note
that the supports of the side porch also are classical; they are clean,
elegant Doric columns. The classical ideas mentioned above were popular
in the post-colonial period.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 11. THE PALMER HOUSE BEFORE RESTORATION.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 12. AFTER RESTORATION.]

By contrast, the restored house of today is much closer to what is
characteristic of the earlier 18th century in North Carolina. The whole
street façade of the house registers in the viewer’s mind as one simple
plane, without strong overhang at the top, and without any suggestion of
a classical pediment. It is interesting to note that the design and
color of the restored shutters are based on one old red shutter found in
the attic of the house.

Figure 13 shows the back of the house, with its famous double chimney,
an unusual feature rarely found. The windows in the chimney give light
to closets on the first and second floors. In the plan of the first
floor, figure 14, it may be seen how a closet is placed between two
bedrooms, serving one of them. On the floor above, the closet serves the
bedrooms on the other side, thus demonstrating a desire to play fair
with bedrooms on both sides of the house.

At the front of the house is the room planned for business. At various
times through the years it was used for store, courtroom, and parlor. In
the center of the house is a large hall room; it has two outside doors,
and an open stairway to the second floor. The dotted line (· · ·)
indicates a great, central beam used in the construction of the house,
having the exceptional length of 51 feet. The dashed line (- - -)
indicates the former location of a partition; the back bedrooms were
lengthened at the expense of the hall. In the recent restoration of the
house the location of the original partition was discovered, and it has
been restored.

If one compares the plan of the house in figure 14 with that shown on
the Sauthier map, figure 10, it is seen at once that the general
proportions are not the same. Sauthier made a mistake; he got the main
facts, but was unable to take time to measure every single building he
showed.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 13. PALMER HOUSE, SHOWING FAMOUS CHIMNEY.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 14. PALMER HOUSE, PLAN.]

Figure 15 shows an interior of the Palmer house. Glance at the plan,
figure 14, and see how this room fits within the total house. Notice the
great beam running across the ceiling and, parallel with it, the beam at
the side wall. Notice also that the side entrance door is framed at the
right by a post which rises to the ceiling. Such exposed beams and posts
suggest the wood skeleton of the house. Skeletal structure is concealed
in most colonial homes that remain today, but is found occasionally as
here in the Palmer house. More will be said later about exposed
construction and about interiors.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 15. PALMER-MARSH HOUSE, INTERIOR.]

Our visit to the Palmer house has provided a glimpse into modern,
careful restoration. The house was restored by the Historic Bath
Commission, in co-operation with The Beaufort County Historical Society,
and with assistance from the Historic Sites Division of the North
Carolina Department of Archives and History. The restoration project
included much more work than we have shown. For example, archaeological
study of old foundations in the yard around the house revealed various
uses of the basement and the existence of a 19th-century outside dining
room and kitchen, as was common during this later time.



                              CHAPTER III
                         Kinds of Construction


    [Illustration: Log Cabin]

    _Log Houses, Houses with a Wooden Frame, Brick and Stone Houses_

Much of the special charm of a colonial home lies in its structure so
quaint and different from the construction used in homes of our day.
Some colonial homes are “log cabins,” others have a wooden frame or
skeleton, and still others are made of brick or stone. Sometimes a
builder could choose his materials and kind of construction. At other
times and places a builder had little or no choice of materials and was
limited to using the simplest tools and construction methods. In order
to understand the meaning of colonial architecture one looks carefully
at structure.


                               LOG HOUSES

We begin our study with log houses because they seem the simplest of the
several kinds of construction. Log homes or “log cabins” were not built
by the first colonists, however. It is true that such houses had been
built in northern European countries since very early times, but this
type of construction was not introduced in the colonies for houses until
late in the 17th century. From that time on, log homes were continuously
built in the colonies for pioneer cabins, barns, outdoor kitchens, and
other simple structures. In colonial times log construction was also
used for jails, forts, and for the first courthouses. We shall note a
number of designs for log houses and the various ways in which logs were
cut and joined together.

The illustration on page 26 gives the flavor and the feeling of the
pioneer log cabin. This drawing of a cabin near Fayetteville is from a
travel book, _A Journey in the Slave States, 1856_, written by Frederick
Law Olmsted. Olmsted, who won fame as the designer of Central Park, in
New York City, was also interested in traveling and seeing how people
lived and how they built homes. The drawing shows how the logs fit
together at the comers, each log being notched so that it locks with the
other logs above and below. The chimney is also made of logs—or, rather,
of small sticks—and is plastered inside with mud. The open spaces
between the big logs of the house should also be filled or chinked with
mud, but Mr. Olmsted observed that they were not. The roof, it will be
noticed, is covered with huge shingles, or shakes.

Although there are many log cabins in North Carolina, most of those from
the colonial period have disappeared. The Britten Sanders log cabin in
Southern Pines (figures 16 and 17), is a well-known example which has
survived. It is more elegant than the cabin seen in the preceding
sketch. The round logs have been somewhat squared-off. The great chimney
is of stone. The roof extends far out on the chimney side to protect
clay mortar in the chimney from rain. The clay mortar as well as the
clay chinking between the logs has now been replaced with cement for
permanence. In the restored chimney it may be observed how the cement
does not extend flush to the outside surface. Instead, it is kept deep
within the stones in imitation of clay mortar which has partially washed
away.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 16. LOG CABIN, SOUTHERN PINES.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 17. LOG CABIN, SOUTHERN PINES.]

The Sanders cabin is a restoration project of the Moore County
Historical Association. The Association took the cabin from its original
country site and moved it to Southern Pines. The chimney had fallen
down, but the stones were picked up and are used in the present chimney.
The cabin is on the grounds of the Shaw house, an early 19th-century
home. It seems appropriate that the old cabin should be sited on the
property of the later house, for this was the practice of the early
settlers. After out-growing their first cabin home, they would build a
larger house, continuing to utilize the original cabin for cooking,
weaving, and other purposes.

In the close-up photograph of the door and wall of the cabin may be seen
a latch cord hanging from the door. A row of rafter ends shows just
above the door. One rafter end is missing on the right; this marks the
point where an inside stair rose to the loft. The present stair and the
flooring of the cabin were taken from another old house.

The Blair-McCormack house, near High Point (figures 18, 19 and 20),
presents some further ideas about log houses. This building is the Enos
Blair log cabin, constructed around 1750, later enlarged, and now the
Jimmy McCormack house. The original cabin is surrounded by porches front
and back, and additions on the left and right sides. At first glance the
house seems quite recent and unremarkable; old log houses do not always
reveal themselves in first casual view.

The logs of the cabin are joined as shown in the sketch, figure 19. This
joint shows brilliant structural development beyond the simple saddle
joint seen in previous examples. The craftsman who chopped the squared
log ends had great skill as he cut the intricate geometrical teeth which
lock together so securely and accurately. One can imagine him at
work:—he would cut a joint and lay the log in place. If the joint
fit—fine. If it did not quite fit, he would remove the log and make
further necessary cuts. This type of joint sheds water very well.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 18. BLAIR-MCCORMACK, HOUSE NEAR HIGH POINT.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 19. DETAIL.]

Because of the side additions to the Enos Blair cabin, nowhere around
the present house can one see two outside walls as shown in our sketch.
However, other cabins in North Carolina do show the complete joint as
drawn.

The plan of the original cabin is given in figure 20. It shows what we
have not seen before, a chimney completely inside of the house. The
chimney, thus protected from rain, is laid with clay mortar. A narrow
stairway at one side of the chimney winds up to the loft above. On this
stairway the visitor is face to face with the great chimney, and can
scoop out a sample of “mortar” with his finger nail, proving that the
stones were indeed laid in clay.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 20. PLAN.]

Figure 21, the Gregg Cabin, in the mountains of Caldwell County, is a
further example of beautiful craftsmanship. The photograph shows changes
that time has brought to the original house, but attention should be
focussed on the lower walls in the foreground. Here the logs have been
cut down to great planks, and so squarely cut that chinking seems almost
unnecessary. The design of the corner joint, simpler than that of the
Enos Blair cabin, is called “dove tail”—each plank ends with a shape
something like the tail of a dove.

Figures 22 and 23 show designs for double cabins—two cabins under one
roof. The first idea, called the _Saddle-Bag_ cabin, has two rooms
attached to one central chimney. This plan gets its name because it
resembles two saddle bags hanging over the back of a horse.

The second design, called the _Dog-Run_, has a chimney on each end, and
an open breezeway—or dog run—through the center. This plan is also known
as the _’Possum Trot_. No doubt the design was a favorite for large
families, for it provided an out door play area for children in good
weather and bad.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 21. THE GREGG CABIN, CALDWELL COUNTY.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 22. “SADDLE BAG” CABIN, PLAN.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 23. “DOG RUN” CABIN, PLAN.]

Look back at the Gregg cabin (figure 21); by study of its roof line the
plan of the cabin can be understood and named.

Both the Saddle-Bag and the Dog-Run plans are simple—just two cabins
under one long roof. It seems appropriate therefore, that they should be
of simple log construction.

Figure 24 is the John Knox cabin in Rowan County, built about 1752 but
recently destroyed by fire. This illustration shows interesting
developments in design. At first glance the structure does not seem to
be a log house at all, but rather a medium sized clapboard house with a
porch cut into one corner. But where the clapboards have been torn away
one may see chinked log construction underneath. On the surface of this
inner wall are vertical strips to which the clapboard siding is nailed.
It is not uncommon for log structures to disappear beneath siding added
at some later date. With the John Knox cabin we know the siding was
added _after_ the porch and shed because the siding sweeps without break
across the whole side of the structure.

Olmsted noted this kind of cabin on his travels in South Carolina and
was very appreciative of its features, which he described in some
detail. In cabins of the better type, he said,

  The roof is usually built with a curve, so as to project eight or ten
  feet beyond the log wall; and a part of this space, exterior to the
  logs, is inclosed with boards, making an additional small room,—the
  remainder forms an open porch. The whole cabin is often elevated on
  four corner posts, two or three feet from the ground, so that air may
  circulate under it.... The porch has a railing in front.... The logs
  are usually hewn but little, and, of course, as they are laid up,
  there will be wide interstices between them. They are commonly not
  ‘chinked’ or filled up in any way; nor is the wall lined inside.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 24. THE JOHN KNOX CABIN.]

That such cabins were indeed of a better class becomes painfully clear
when Olmsted adds a note about the cabins of poorer people. These cabins
were “mere pens of logs, roofed over, provided with a chimney, and
usually with a shed of boards, supported by rough posts before the
door.”

    [Illustration: FIGURE 25. 17TH CENTURY FRAMED HOUSES.]


                          WOODEN FRAME HOUSES

Houses with wooden frames or skeletons were built in North Carolina long
before the log houses seen above. Framed houses represent a tradition of
building dating from medieval times which the colonists brought from
Europe.

The earliest framed houses in the South have disappeared almost without
a trace, but scholars are able to form general ideas about their nature.
For example, figure 25, showing several kinds of framed houses, is from
Henry Formans’ book, _Architecture in the Old South_. The drawing
depicts the kind of wall surfaces which might possibly have been seen in
Jamestown, Virginia, very early in the 17th century. All the houses are
of wooden frame construction, either exposed or covered. Houses with
framework exposed are called “half-timbered.” From left to right in the
drawing the houses are described as follows:—half-timber work with brick
filling; plaster; weatherboarding or clapboards; half-timber work with
plaster; and tile-hung. Several of the houses have a projecting second
story. All have steep roofs. Windows are of the hinged casement type,
with small pieces of diagonally set glass.

Houses of this general sort—especially those with exposed wooden frame
and projecting second story—are frequently shown in illustrations in
European history books. In England they are called Jacobean, because of
their association with the Jacobean period in 17th-century England which
followed the Tudor era.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 26. THE BROTHERS HOUSE IN SALEM.]

As the 17th century gave way to the 18th, the “medieval” open-framed
house was generally supplanted by the house with clapboard siding, like
the third house in figure 25. This wall surface offered better
protection against rain and cold winds than the open-frame house which
leaked on all sides. In the 18th century the use of a projecting second
story was discontinued. Larger panes of glass for windows became
available in the 18th century, and sliding sash windows, like those
noted in the Palmer house, came into general use.

Almost all of the medieval open-frame structures in America have
disappeared, but North Carolina still has a remarkable example in the
Brothers House in Salem (figure 26). Those who have visited Salem in
past years may be surprised to learn this and to see the strange-looking
building in our sketch, for they recall no such structure. Instead, the
Brothers House is remembered as a simple clapboard building. However,
the house was built originally as in our sketch; the clapboards, added
in the early 19th century, are currently being removed and the house
restored to its original character.

Salem and the Brothers House date from near the end of the colonial
period—a time long after colonial builders had generally abandoned the
earlier, medieval construction. However, we show the Brothers House
because it calls up for us the earlier colonial period with houses now
destroyed and forgotten, built in such construction.

The town of Old Salem is a show place in North Carolina, one of those
few towns anywhere in our country where a whole early settlement is
preserved. Salem was established in 1766 by members of a religious
group, the Moravians, who planned their town and their life quite
differently from other settlers. For example, the Brothers House, built
in 1769, was a place for unmarried men to live and to work at carpentry,
pottery and other trades, and to teach these trades. The house is one of
several early structures in Salem built in the medieval way with open
timber construction or with wood framework covered by plaster. The
builders were aware that wood siding would have given better protection,
but it was “the most expensive method of surfacing a house” according to
a Salem report of 1768. Therefore, some of the early houses were built
in the older way. The curious apron roof encircling the walls above the
first story somewhat protected the lower walls from rain and also
provided a sheltered path for pedestrians.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 27. THE BROTHERS HOUSE IN SALEM.

    WORKMAN REMOVING 1826 CLAPBOARDS FROM THE 1769 HALF-TIMBERED WALL.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 28. THE PALMER HOUSE, BATH, DURING
    RESTORATION.]

In 1786 the house was given a brick addition on the left, and around
1800 was plastered over. Perhaps at this time the apron roof was
removed. The plastering was apparently not successful, for in 1826 the
weatherboard siding was added and remained until its recent removal.

The photograph, figure 27, was taken in the summer of 1962; it shows a
workman removing the siding of 1826. The skeleton of the house is made
of great squarish timbers. Toward the right of the photograph may be
seen the wooden pegs which hold the timbers together. Bricks are cut as
necessary to fit within the wooden framework. The photograph suggests a
question which visitors ask:—what holds the brick panels in place and
prevents them from falling out? The explanation is simple and shows the
cleverness of the designers. The brick panels fit into frames that have
been slightly hollowed out on their inner sides. Through the window one
has a glimpse of an inside wall. It has exposed timber construction too.

In discussing Old Salem we should note plans for opening a new museum,
the Museum of Southern Decorative Arts. The museum will contain a series
of rooms secured from 18th- and 19th-century homes. This is a new kind
of museum for the South and is another reason for visiting Salem.

Elsewhere than Old Salem all the surviving wooden-frame colonial homes
in North Carolina have wooden siding. They were probably planned from
the start to have this “modern” siding, and hence their skeleton
construction was not quite like that in the Brothers House. In order to
get an idea of what the new construction was like, we look at Figure 28.
This is the structure previously examined, the Palmer house, during
reconstruction. The photograph was taken after the later porch was
removed, thus exposing the original wooden frame of the house.

At first glance one might take this to be a 20th century house, with
vertical studs and horizontal laths to which plaster has been applied
from the inside. Drips of wet plaster show clearly in the photograph.
However, a closer look shows that the variously sized and irregularly
placed wood members come from an age before factory-cut 2 × 4’s.
Nevertheless, the preponderance of vertical studs does suggest that the
builder had a clear idea of “stud construction” in mind. The studs
provide a good nailing surface for the laths inside and the clapboards
outside. To speculate on this design is to be dazzled by its beauty and
simplicity. The builder must have felt that he was really living in a
modern age.

Looking further at the photograph one may visualize the craftsman at
work, cutting and fitting his wood together in ingenious ways. At the
left is a great vertical post which rises through two stories. It is
notched on right and left to hold the horizontal beam which passes
behind it. These two members are locked together by wooden pegs. The
doors is framed by two thick posts, with two light studs between. The
window above the door is also framed by thick posts. But because the
window is narrower than the door, it requires only one stud between its
posts. At the right, a large post is braced by diagonal sticks, one on
either side. This post corresponds to the post noted on far left, but
that post was made of one long piece of wood, and this one is made of
two pieces. Details such as these suggest that the builder “played it by
ear”—decided upon joints and bracing as he went along.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 29.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 30.]

Figure 29 is inserted here to suggest the variety of clever ways in
which colonial craftsmen fitted wood pieces together. Such junctions are
called mortise and tenon joints. They are cut with a chisel and mallet.
One can well imagine the satisfaction derived by the craftsman in
deciding upon the particular kind of joint to cut. When the two pieces
fitted together perfectly, a hole was drilled through them with an
auger, a peg was cut and driven into the hole, and the proud workman
moved on to the next joint. Sometimes, in details such as windows and
cabinets, the pegs are as narrow in diameter as the lead in a pencil,
but are fitted so perfectly that one must look hard to find them.

Figure 30 concerns the attic of a colonial house. This diagram shows the
fascinating mortised and pegged joints on display at the Sloop Point
house, which will be mentioned later. At floor level a rafter is cut and
locked with a floor beam. At the ridge of the roof two rafters are
beautifully mortised and pegged together.

When visiting an old house, it is often rewarding to ask the owner what
he knows about its construction details. Sometimes under a stairway or
along a damaged plaster wall one may see into the skeletal structure.
Walls are not always hollow as in the Palmer house; sometimes they are
filled with brick or clay bats, thus recalling medieval construction.
Basements, as well as attics, are good places in which to find hewn
joints. On the outside of a house the trim at the corners and at the
roof should be studied. The problem on the outside is _water_—rain water
which may get into the ends of a piece of wood, or into joints, thus
causing rotting. This problem should be kept in mind when examining the
trim on a house; colonial builders were very aware of it.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 31. THE CUPOLA HOUSE, EDENTON]

Figure 31, the Cupola House in Edenton, is one of the oldest remaining
wooden frame houses in North Carolina. It is famous for its exterior
with cupola and overhanging second story, and for its interior rooms,
lavishly carved. Sauthier’s map of Edenton clearly shows the house
facing its own wharf on the bay, a fine view of which can still be had
from the cupola. The house is dated between 1724, when Richard Sanderson
purchased the lot “unimproved,” and 1726, when he sold the lot with a
house on it. Toward mid-century another owner installed the carved
interiors. At present the building serves as the Edenton Public Library.

The overhanging second story supported on brackets recalls the sketches
of 17th-century houses previously seen, and the Cupola House has been
praised as the finest framed Jacobean house in the South. Our
photograph, taken some years ago, shows scalloped shingles around the
cupola and ordinary shingles on the roof. The latter are replacements,
for, of course, houses have to be reshingled at intervals. Since this
photograph was taken the Cupola House has been reshingled completely
with scalloped shingles in an effort to restore the original appearance
of the roof.


                         BRICK AND STONE HOUSES

A few early 18th-century brick houses remain in North Carolina. They
exhibit a special kind of shimmering beauty. Figure 32, the Jordan farm
house, near Windsor, thought to have been built in 1713, is one of the
earliest of these houses. It burned in the 1920’s, and its new dormers
and wood details are not of colonial design, but the original brick mass
of the house has been preserved to be seen and enjoyed. The brick
surface has a sparkle, a checkerboarding of light and dark, which
results from using bricks which are glazed on their ends, but left
unglazed on their sides. The bricks are laid in courses in which ends
(headers) alternate with sides (stretchers). This system of laying brick
is called Flemish bond; it differs from the method used today in which
only the stretchers are exposed. The colonists presumably felt that
Flemish bond was strong and proper, and they certainly were charmed by
the appearance of the walls.

There is a further special effect to be noted in brick houses such as
the Jordan house. The chimneys are set inside the wall, and so do not
break the smooth outside surface of the wall. The basement, although
projecting slightly, is made of the same stuff as the upper wall. Thus
the whole lower part of the house registers in one’s mind as a very
clean, rectilinear form placed directly on the ground. By contrast,
framed houses are more complicated in their geometry, with brick
chimneys projecting at the sides, and with brick foundations showing in
obvious contrast to clapboard walls.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 32. THE JORDAN FARM HOUSE, NEAR WINDSOR.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 33. NEWBOLD-WHITE HOUSE, NEAR HERTFORD.]

Figure 33, the Newbold-White house near Hertford, is also of the early
18th century, but is smaller and closer to the ground than the Jordan
farm. The wooden lean-to on the right is a later addition. This side
with three dormer windows was once the front of the house. The base has
been plastered over, to protect the brick which at this level often
disintegrates.

This picture was made by the master photographer, Frances Benjamin
Johnston. It brings out the dazzling brick surface of the old structure
and other details of brickwork design, such as the window tops set in
gentle arches and the horizontal line which runs across the end wall.
This line is a shadow cast by two slightly projecting courses of brick
and marks the division between first and second floors; on the inside,
the offset courses provide a ledge on which to lay floor beams.

Brick, as may be inferred from above, was used in a number of structural
and decorative ways; some are suggested in figure 34. Flemish bond
(figure 34_a_) we have already noted. English bond (34_b_) has courses
entirely of stretchers alternating with courses entirely of headers.
This bonding system is illustrated in chimneys from the Palmer house,
figure 13, and from the Sloop Point house to be seen later. Sometimes
all the bricks in a course were set diagonally, thus producing a
remarkable accent line (34_c_); or the square ends of a row of bricks
were molded or rubbed into curves (34_d_). In some brick houses
remaining from the later 18th century, as in the Salisbury area, bold
and gay patterns were created through use of glazed, and lighter and
darker bricks (34_e_).

    [Illustration: FIGURE 34. A.]

    [Illustration: B.]

    [Illustration: C.]

    [Illustration: D.]

    [Illustration: E.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 35. THE OLD BRICK HOUSE, ELIZABETH CITY.]

It may be supposed that masons enjoyed such improvisation, just as
woodworkers took pleasure in the design of joints. When visiting a brick
house and studying its details, the mortar should be examined also.
Sometimes it will be found to contain bits of shells, for the colonists
made an inferior sort of lime by burning oyster and other shells.

Figure 35, the Old Brick House, near Elizabeth City, demonstrates that
some colonial houses had chimney walls of brick with front and back
walls of wood. This well-known, early 18th-century house stands on the
Pasquotank River, which can be seen in the illustration just beyond the
house on the right. Not a little of the fame of this beautiful house
comes from the legend that Blackbeard the pirate once lived here,
mooring his ships at his own landing, nearby.

Each face of the house is clearly symmetrical, bespeaking the sense of
balance which was so important to the 18th century. The end walls are in
Flemish bond; the walls of the basement are of stone, the individual
stones being like huge pebbles, rounded by centuries of washing on some
beach. Such stones in colonial homes are often called “ballast stones”
because sometimes they were shipped over as ballast in vessels from
England and other shores. However, there is some doubt that this was so
in the case of the present house, because it is unlikely that a ship in
ballast could have sailed into the shallow Pasquotank River.

The floor plan and the famous interiors of this house will be discussed
later in this booklet.

To be noted along with brick houses are a few stone houses in the
Piedmont, remaining from late colonial and early republican times.
Figure 36, the Michael Braun house, near Salisbury, built between 1758
and 1766, is an impressive example. Its orange-hued walls are two feet
thick. Some years ago the house was in poor condition, remove this
phrase, but was repaired by the Brown (Braun) family. It has now been
purchased by the Rowan Museum, Salisbury, and is being restored by that
organization.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 36. MICHAEL BROWN HOUSE, NEAR SALISBURY.]

Like so many of our early houses, the Braun house is unusual in several
ways. Immediately striking is the non-symmetrical division of the stone
façade, not at all like the Old Brick House and other 18th-century
houses. The wooden structure at the right is the kitchen. In the kitchen
is a great fireplace along the stone wall of the house, with the chimney
containing ingenious flues to heat adjacent rooms in the house. The
kitchen is a restoration.


                 ROOF IDEAS—GABLE, GAMBREL, AND HIPPED

In discussing the structure of colonial homes we add a note on the
several kinds of roofs which were used. After a builder had raised the
masonry or wood walls of his house, the roof was a major design and
construction problem. The type of roof selected represented what the
builder thought was good-looking and appropriate for his special needs.

Our diagram, figure 37, shows a _gable_ roof on the left, contrasted
with a _gambrel_ roof on the right, each type having a dormer window to
light the attic space thus making it more pleasant and usable. The gable
roof is simpler in construction, and was the type most generally used in
the colonies; but our diagram suggests how it cramps free movement
within the attic. The gambrel roof, although calling for more involved
construction, affords more head room. Apart from the space
consideration, the gambrel roof is rather cheerful and attractive when
seen from the outside, a factor that may have been responsible for the
18th-century fad for them.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 37.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 38.]

Both the houses shown in the diagram are called “story-and-a-half.”
Neither has a full second story like the Palmer house. Many believe that
in colonial times the tax on story-and-a-half houses was less than that
on two-story houses, and that for this reason people built the former
type.

Figure 38 shows the _hipped_ roof, in which four roof planes, one on
each side of the house, all slope back toward the center above, thus
shedding water from all sides. The vertical walls of the house end in a
top horizontal line which extends uninterruptedly around the house. Thus
the lower part of the house, especially from the standpoint of the
little figure on the ground in the illustration, asserts itself as a
clean cube. In late colonial and early republican times this effect was
much appreciated by enthusiasts of “modern art,” but home builders in
the earlier 18th century did not show enthusiasm for the hipped roof,
perhaps because it reduced the area of living space on the top floor.
However, in early 18th-century public buildings, where an attic space
was not of great value, the impressive-looking hipped roof was used.
This type roof was used also on smoke houses and well houses, as was
seen in the Palmer house.



                               CHAPTER IV
                               Plan Ideas


    [Illustration: ]

                       _The Study of Floor Plans_

The construction schemes we have discussed up to this point—for walls
and roofs—have to do with the obvious appearance of a house as it is
seen from the outside. But the floor plan of a structure is not such an
immediate and recognizable element. It is necessary to go inside a house
and wander about in it before one can begin to understand its plan. The
plan, however, was clearly in the mind of the builder as he worked; for
us, a clear image of the floor plan is important for a full
understanding of a building.

The reading of plans is a vivid, very real, architectural experience.
For example, let us look at figure 39, a simple one-room cabin. The
cabin is entered through one of the doors—doors are indicated by a break
in the contour line. The heroic character of the great fireplace is
sensed—the fireplace and masonry walls are shown by heavy lines.
Opposite the fireplace is found a window—windows are shown by a thin
segment of contour line. As one walks up the stairs, turning at the
corner, the lines fade away as the level of another floor is approached.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 39.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 40.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 41.]

The above experience began with lines on paper and ended by “seeing” the
house in three-dimensional space. This happens in reverse when a house
is actually visited. As the rooms through which one moves become more
familiar, gradually the floor plan takes shape. This plan can be
retained in the mind and can easily be drawn on paper. When the plan is
known, much thinking and talking about a building can be done.


                           SIMPLE FLOOR PLANS

Figures 39 to 45 show a number of first floor plans found in North
Carolina colonial homes. Figure 39, which we have already “visited,”
begins the series with the simplest one-room plan. It is something like
the Blair cabin, already seen (figure 20), except for the chimney built
inside the house in the earlier example. Both plans have stairs, but
another cabin might have only a ladder leading to the loft.

Figure 40 is a simple two-room plan. The larger room, with the
fireplace, is for family living. The smaller room, for sleeping, would
be cold in winter, but would receive some warmth from the larger room.

Figure 41, with three rooms, is called the Quaker plan or the Penn plan
because William Penn, the famous Quaker founder of Philadelphia,
recommended it to his colonists. Quakers who came to North Carolina
brought the plan with them.

Figure 42 shows a center hall plan, a great advance toward privacy and
better living. The hall, as may be seen, permits entry and movement in
the house from one room to another without using any room for passage.
This is the plan of the brick Newbold-White house, previously discussed
(figure 33), and so is shown with thick walls. This design is called a
“primitive” example of the center hall plan, for two reasons: the hall
is quite narrow, strictly a passage, and not overly pleasant; and the
stairway, although entered from the hall, remains within space which
belongs to an adjoining room.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 42.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 43.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 44.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 45.]

Figure 43 shows a developed center hall, a wide and pleasant place in
which to linger. The stairway, now within the hall, is not boxed in—as
in the example above, but stands in open space. It rises half a flight
to a landing which runs across the hall; the upper half of the stairway,
of course, is not shown in this first floor plan. Looking at the three
downstairs rooms, one recognizes the Quaker plan in grand, developed
form, with a fireplace in each room.

Figure 44 shows a four-room plan and also serves to suggest the small
variations and special features which may be incorporated into any plan.
The drawing represents the original plan of the Old Brick House, already
noted, (figure 35), and is based upon information from the present
owners. Reading from left to right, there are back-to-back corner
fireplaces on the left wall, both served by one chimney, thus
economizing on masonry costs. The central hall is wide, but no open
stairway is mounted there; instead, the boxed-in stair is located in
space stolen from a side room, as in plan 42, above. The main room at
right has a fascinating chimney wall; a storage space on one side of the
chimney is balanced on the other side by a closet with window. The
famous carving which adorned this wall will be shown later.

Thinking of the exterior appearance of this house, and remembering that
18th-century men admired symmetry, note how each entrance door is
centered on its façade, even though the hall is pushed slightly to one
side. And note the quiet symmetry of the two windows on the right,
serenely independent, yet obviously a determining factor in the
combination of installations along the interior of this wall. Further,
the flue to the off-center fireplace on this wall manages to work toward
the center of the wall as it rises, so that it can emerge in a chimney
properly centered to balance the chimney on the other side of the house.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 46.]

Figure 45 shows a side hall plan. It is like a center hall house
deprived of one of its wings. This design was popular in fine late
18th-century city houses, where the hall was an important show-place in
the house. In our diagram the stair rises in a straight run.

The sketches above presented simple one-, two-, and three-room plans;
then center hall plans with two, three, and four rooms. All these
divisions of space were found within the basic rectangle enclosed by the
outside walls of the house. Further divisions were used, too. For
example, consider where the Palmer house (figure 14) fits into the plans
seen in this discussion.


          HOUSES WITH LEAN-TO AND BIG PORCH—THE SOUTHERN HOUSE

Figure 46 shows a simple rectangular house on the left; on the right the
structure has sprouted a lean-to in the rear and a porch across the
front. These two sketches illustrate a common development in the
expansion of the simple rectangular house. A lean-to simply “leans
against” the main frame of the house. The porch, often a precarious
structure on its delicate posts, depends for its support upon the stable
frame of the main block of the house also.

While some owners of simple rectangular houses enlarged them by adding
the lean-to and the big porch, other colonists, seeing the
attractiveness of this plan, built the whole house, lean-to and porch,
at one time.

In driving through North Carolina one sees hundreds of houses similar to
the one on the right. It has been called the typical North Carolina farm
house. It became popular in towns as well as on farms. The big porch
sweeping across the front provided very welcome living space during the
hot summer months, and the porch offered a sheltered place for children
to play in during inclement weather.

It may be surmised that the colonists also appreciated a beauty in the
design of this house. Where the earlier house on the left is boxy and
stiff, the house on the right has a roof line that reaches out
pleasantly from the center ridge to the front and back. The front porch
looks inviting and friendly, like a room opening to the outside world.
The other house, with only a stoop at the front door, is really closed
to the world.

Consider the two houses as geometrical forms:—the first house is merely
a simple block. By contrast, the expanded house has a more complicated
geometrical nature for us to think about and enjoy. It can be described
as a central block which has two, paired appendages, one of which is
transparent.

Although the lean-to was found everywhere in the colonies, the big porch
is of Southern origin. It was employed first in the North Carolina
seacoast towns that conducted trade with the West Indies, where similar
colonnaded porches existed.

Turning now to the plans shown in figure 46, it may be seen how the
lean-to neatly adds two small rooms to the rear of the structure. The
main hall of the house continues through the lean-to, and front and back
doors give through-ventilation to this long “room.” It was often the
favorite place for family living during hot summer months. The stair in
our plan begins in the back. However, there were many variations in the
location of the stair and, indeed, in the use of this general design.

In figure 47 are shown some of the variations of the lean-to and porch
design in North Carolina houses of greatly differing aspect. In figure
47_a_, the basic house has a gambrel roof. This is particularly
charming, with three crisp roof planes on either side of the central
chimney. Beginning at front or back the roof planes fold up to the
center ridge and then fold down again.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 47. A.]

    [Illustration: B.]

    [Illustration: C.]

    [Illustration: D.]

    [Illustration: E.]

Figure 47_b_ shows the whole house under one massive gable. It looks
particularly strong in contrast to the movement and delicate grace of
the roof in sketch 47_a_.

In sketch 47_c_ the center block of the house pops up for two full
stories, towering above the low porch and shed.

Sketch 47_d_ shows a gambrel house with a lean-to but without a big
porch sweeping across its front. This sketch is introduced to show that
either the lean-to or the big front porch alone may occur on a house.

Sketch 47_e_ shows two-tiered porches on both front and back. If one big
porch is considered desirable, two—or four—are better. Two-tiered
porches often are found on the great mansions and plantation houses.
Such porches were also a feature of inns, providing ample sheltered
space for guests and their friends. It is just one step from the
two-tiered colonial porch shown here to the great porches of the early
republican period (for example, Mount Vernon, of the 1780’s) where giant
columns or piers rose through two stories.

Having seen the sketches above, we now discuss a few actual houses which
incorporate the lean-to and big porch design.

Figure 48, the Hummock house, exhibits one of the porches inspired by
the West Indies which are characteristic of its town, the old port of
Beaufort. The group of visitors in our photograph reflects the fame of
this house which attracts sightseers to the town.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 48. THE HUMMOCK HOUSE, BEAUFORT.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 49. DETAIL FROM A MAP OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    1738.]

The house is called by several names: _Hummock_, _Hommock_, or
_Hammock_. These unfamiliar words are variants of, or are related to,
the common word, _hillock_; and the house does stand on relatively high
ground in the eastern part of present-day Beaufort. Years ago the house
was called the White House, as old inhabitants remember. Today it is
white for sure, its chimneys having been plastered over, it stands there
gleaming, its two great dormer eyes staring out to the sea as if
searching the horizon. And once, no doubt, pilots of ships at sea looked
toward the land, seeking this white house to guide them through the
narrow Beaufort channel.

Figure 49, a detail from James Wimble’s mariners’ map of “The Province
of North Carolina,” published in London in 1738, shows a ship lining
itself up with the “White house.” As recommended by Wimble whose purpose
was to show mariners how to avoid sand bars and shallow water in finding
their way to ports such as “Beauford,” the line of sight from a ship at
the point shown to the easily identifiable landmark leads over the bar.
If this White house shown on the map is, indeed, the White House of
present-day Beaufort, then it was built before 1738, the date of the
map.

Figure 50 depicts a fragment of the foundation of the house. At left the
great wooden sill rests upon a brick pier. A heavy cross beam is
inserted into the sill and is held in place by two large wooden pegs
with nicely carved heads. Out on the cross beam a joist is inserted, a
sliver of wood being driven under the joist to bring it to proper height
and snugness. This sketch evokes the vision of colonists with huge logs
and simple hand tools engaged in the heroic project of building a house.

Figure 51 is a diagram of the foundations of the house; dotted lines
encircle the fragment which was sketched above. Heavy lines show the
major floor beams; a few lighter, parallel lines indicate joists. The
heavy beams divide space in a way to suggest the lean-to design:—there
are two front rooms, each with a fireplace at the middle of its wall,
while the rear section contains a small room on either side of a hall in
the center. In the diagram a stairway is included in the hall also. This
is said to be the original stairway, since removed. Not shown in the
diagram is the back porch, which appears to be a later addition.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 50.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 51.]

The Sloop Point house (figure 52) is another well known house with a
large porch. As much as any colonial house, it is filled with novelties
and mysteries. Also known as the MacMillan house for the family which
has owned it for well over one hundred years, the structure stands
facing the Inland Waterway, at Sloop Point, just east of Wilmington.
Construction is thought to date from the late 1720’s.

Our photograph shows the impressive profile of the house, all under one
great gable roof, the porch end resting on massive square piers. The
chimney serves fireplaces in two adjoining rooms and recalls the double
chimney previously seen in the Palmer house (figure 13). In the Palmer
house closets were constructed between the twin fireplaces, but in the
MacMillan house there are outside doors to first floor and to basement.
The present porch between the fireplaces is a recent addition. The
chimney is laid in Flemish bond and, as can be seen, the upper part of
the chimney, blown off by a storm a few years ago, has been replaced
with brick laid in our 20th-century fashion.

In figure 53 the single chimney on the other side of the house is shown.
Below, the ballast stone base reveals a fascinating collection of beach
stones and coral in many colors; above, the brick is laid in English
bond which, as mentioned earlier, contains alternating courses of
headers and stretchers. The different bonding systems used in the two
chimneys suggest that the chimneys were not built at the same time,
which is one of the mysteries of the house.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 52. THE SLOOP POINT HOUSE.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 53. SLOOP POINT HOUSE CHIMNEY.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 54. PLAN OF THE SLOOP POINT HOUSE.]

Figure 54, a plan of the Sloop Point house, illustrates some of the
novelties in the house. The designs of a central block, plus a big porch
in front and a shed addition in the rear is readily apparent. The dotted
line through the main block represents a partition which was installed
during the 19th century to create a central hall. Before this addition,
three rooms existed in simple Quaker plan. The hall is intended solely
for service, being only about 3½ feet wide. When the partition wall was
added no attempt was made to reproduce the original cornice and wainscot
panelling of the big room.

Between the twin fireplaces unusual twin doors may be noted. They swing
in and out from the corners of the fireplaces in such a fashion that one
room at a time is opened to the porch. When both doors are swung out,
there is passage between the two rooms. The twin room toward the back of
the house has three doors along its rear wall; one leads to the hall;
the other two are believed to have led to closets in the past.

Now we present two diagrams to aid in discussion of the growth of the
Sloop Point house from an early, smaller structure (figure 55) to the
house of today (figure 56). The roof of the house was raised or “lifted”
in the early 19th century, according to one historian, but exactly what
changes were introduced at that time is not now known. The “before and
after” sketches are shown in order to demonstrate the extent to which
the house has evolved since its original construction. Almost every old
house shows evidence of changes; efforts to determine the reasons for
these modifications can tell the student much about the fashions of
times past and the character of the people who dwelled in the structure.

The smaller, earlier house is built over a low basement (suggested by
dotted lines) the masonry walls of which serve as the foundation of the
building. The light porch has delicate carved columns and a railing with
banister posts. At its outer side the porch rests on masonry piers; at
the inner side the porch’s floor beams are inserted into the foundation
wall of the house. Stucco, applied over the ballast stone foundations,
has incised lines in imitation of stone blocks, as suggested in the
diagram. Today fragments of this incised stucco may be seen here and
there on the front and side foundations.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 55.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 56.]

The larger, present-day house with raised roof (figure 56) has
full-height second story rooms in the main block of the house and
additional space in front and back. Details _P_ and _R_ indicate parts
of the construction which use lumber salvaged from some previous
structure. _P_ shows where four carved porch posts are used as floor
beams. _R_ indicates three banister rails used as studs in the back wall
of an upper room. Both the posts and the banister rails could have come
from an earlier porch on this house. The present porch uses massive
posts to support the heavy roof. To support the porch on its house side,
brick piers have been added in front of the original ballast stone
foundations. There are other details of the house which suggest stages
in its development; we hope someone will study them someday.

To return to further examination of the curiosities suggested in diagram
56, dotted lines are shown to represent the flow of air through an
ingenious cooling system. Toward the back of the house a hole in the
floor allows air to rise from underneath to ventilate a bedroom. At the
front of the house, an opening in the porch ceiling allows air to rise
to a closet on the second floor front, and thence to bedrooms.

One last unusual detail is the stairway in the back hall, the banister
posts of which are set diagonally, that is, perpendicular to the hand
rail rather than the steps.

Figure 57, a drawing of a house from Brunswick Town, near Wilmington,
introduces an amazing new chapter in the story of colonial architecture
in North Carolina, a chapter which is just being opened up in our day.

This house, the Hepburn-Reonalds house, built between 1734 and 1742, is
of a type not seen before in this study. The structure had a family
porch without steps down to the street, rather like a balcony, a
protected place to sit and look at life on the street. Below, in the
basement was a shop, and in the illustration a man is seen about to
enter the street door of the shop.

Unfortunately, the house does not exist today; the drawing is
“conjectural,” that is, it is an estimate based upon study and analysis
of ruins (figure 58) at Brunswick Town. Knowledge of this kind of house
in North Carolina, and of the town is a dramatic development of the last
few years.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 57. CONJECTURAL DRAWING OF THE
    HEPBURN-REONALDS HOUSE, BRUNSWICK TOWN.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 58. RUIN OF THE HEPBURN-REONALDS HOUSE.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 59. DETAIL FROM SAUTHIER’s DRAWING OF
    BRUNSWICK TOWN IN 1769.]

Brunswick Town, founded in 1726, was a thriving port town in colonial
times, as might be imagined from the map (figure 59), a detail from
Sauthier’s drawing of Brunswick Town in 1769. At the time of the
Revolution the town was burned and fell to ruins. During the War between
the States, many bricks and stones were taken from Brunswick Town’s
ruins for use in the construction of Fort Anderson, adjacent to the town
site. Our photograph of the ruins of the Hepburn-Reonalds house shows
this-one may see that many of the stones and bricks from the chimneys
have been removed. During the century after the war the remaining
foundations of the town’s buildings all but disappeared into the ground,
being covered by washes of soil and dense jungle of brush and trees.
Only the great brick walls of St. Philip’s Church (marked “A” in the
map) remained as a reminder of the once thriving town. In 1958, however,
the State Department of Archives and History began a project to clear
the land, dig out the foundations of houses, and search for objects left
by the colonists, all in order to recover an image of the town and the
way of life of its citizens.

Thus far some sixty ruins have been discovered by the archaeologist in
charge of the work. In digging around a ruin he works very carefully;
all the soil removed is sifted, thereby bringing to light coins,
buckles, broken pottery, door hinges, and other items. Some of the
richest finds have been uncovered in garbage and refuse pits.

While the work of the archaeologist continues, Brunswick Town has been
opened to the public as an open air museum—quite an unusual exhibit, one
found in few places in the world. As one walks down the streets there
are display cases at individual ruins. The cases contain objects found
at the site, as well as drawings of houses as they probably looked
before burning.

One of the most interesting of Brunswick Town’s houses is the
Hepburn-Reonalds house. According to Stanley South, archaeologist in
charge,

  the second floor porch was an architectural feature borrowed from the
  West Indies, where this style of architecture was popular. Many of the
  homes in Brunswick were of this type, with a cellar partly sunk below
  the surface of the ground and a garret above the main floor of the
  house.

If the photograph and drawing are examined carefully, the steps which
lead down and the path to the basement door may be seen. The photograph
also reveals the remaining foundations for the posts which supported the
porch. The basement is divided into two rooms; the nearer room was a
kitchen which was entered from the rear of the house.

On the Sauthier map (figure 59) the Hepburn-Reonalds house is marked by
an arrow. Looking carefully at the map one sees indications of certain
details shown in the drawing, such as the fence running along the
street, the barn and garden, and the fence leading to the barn. The
drawing was made by Don Mayhew, staff artist of the Brunswick Town
project.

One question the reader may have in mind: how does one know the name and
date of this house? Very complete records of the sale of property in
Brunswick Town have been preserved in nearby Wilmington and Southport.
By careful study of these records and of the Sauthier map it has been
possible for the archaeologist to identify and date the various ruins in
the town.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 60. WAKEFIELD, RALEIGH.]

Wakefield (figure 60) is the oldest house in Raleigh. It was built in
1760 by Joel Lane, who later sold the original tract of 1,000 acres of
land for the new state capital. The sale, it is said, took place in this
house on Joel Lane’s farm. The house was moved a few years ago to its
present site—not far from its original location—and now is owned and
maintained by the Wake County Colonial Dames.

As the photograph shows, it is a gambrel house with shed addition in the
rear, but, unlike houses we have just been discussing, it has only a
small porch in front. It is probable that the house originally looked
quite differently, for construction details in the vicinity of the roof
suggest that it once had a gable roof. Further, the smooth sheathing
over the front of the house (often found under the porches of colonial
homes) suggests that originally a shed porch ran across the entire front
of the house. With long porch and gable roof, Wakefield would have
looked like the typical farm shown in the sketch, figure 46.

In the Joel Lane house as it stands today, the porch, the chimneys, and
the modern shingles differ slightly in design from those elements seen
in old photographs and drawings of the dwelling. In the back of the
house, barely noticeable in the photograph, is an addition beyond the
lean-to. This later appendage was once attached to the left side of the
house; in its present relocation it is occupied by the caretaker of this
exhibition house.

Figure 61 shows plans, elevations and details of Wakefield. Such careful
drawings are the sort which present-day architects prepare for the use
of carpenters building a house. While the colonial architect or builder
did not make such elaborate drawings, the plans of important old
buildings, are today being made as an historical record. The drawings
shown are from a collection being developed at State College, Raleigh,
further explained at the end of this booklet.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 61. WAKEFIELD, MEASURED DRAWINGS FROM THE
    PROJECT IN HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH, STATE COLLEGE, RALEIGH.]

The first floor plan at lower right shows the porch, the main block of
the house, and a room of the lean-to in rear. In the main block are a
larger and a smaller side room, with a hall between. The entrances at
front and back of the hall are wide double doors, facilitating good
ventilation during hot summer days in Raleigh. The door to the larger
room is centered “as it should be”; but the corresponding door to the
opposite room has necessarily been pushed forward by the stairway. It
will be noted that whereas the outer framed walls of the house are
fairly thick, the walls which partition the hall are extremely thin—a
point which will be discussed presently.

At upper left in the page of drawings is a transverse section through
the hall. We see how the stairway folds neatly within the main block of
the house as it rises. The stair has a railing, but no procession of
banister posts, thus bespeaking an economy and rugged plainness—but a
visitor must watch his step. At the top, the stair ends in an upper hall
lighted by a dormer window. At the back is a corresponding dormer. As
our drawing is a section through these windows, it does not give an
immediately clear notion of the gambrel roof. However, just beneath each
window can be seen part of the lower plane of the roof.

Figure 62 shows the large front room of Wakefield, as restored and
furnished by the Colonial Dames. The room with one wall of plaster and
the other of wood, looks almost “modern.” The wood wall showed in the
plan as very thin, as we have noted. The similar wood partition on the
other side of the hall shows through the open door. To have covered
these partition walls with plaster would have been quite an additional
expense to the builder; and so one finds that the “modern” effect is in
reality a by-product of simple economy. Looking carefully at the open
door on the left, one notes the small wooden pegs which lock the
horizontal and vertical frame members together.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 62. INTERIOR OF WAKEFIELD.]



                               CHAPTER V
                               Interiors


    [Illustration: Fireplace]

The interior from Wakefield, just seen (figure 62), represents one idea
about how the walls of a room should be treated. There were other
schemes for the treatment of the main room of a house; some of these are
illustrated in figure 63 and in the following sketches.

In figure 63 parts of the great frame of a wooden house project
unashamedly through the smooth plaster walls and ceiling. Running across
the middle of the ceiling is the large center beam of the house. A
similar member along the outside edge of the ceiling might be expected
to continue all the way around the room as a cornice, but it does not.
At the floor line, however, a base board does continue around the room,
but it is heavier under the window wall. The chair rail (the board or
rail installed about the height of the back of chair, to protect the
plaster from damage) does continue around the room, but at the corner it
develops special bracing not employed where the rail joins the frame of
the door.

Such irregular features suggest a skeleton of the house going beyond the
present room. The builder of this dwelling was unconcerned if one wall
was different from another—perhaps he felt a keen satisfaction in the
wooden structure of his house and was pleased to have this framework
reflected in the interior. This spirit is occasionally seen in the less
important rooms of a colonial house (for example in the Palmer house),
but it is rarely found in the main rooms of extant colonial homes.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 63.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 64.]

Figure 64, also a simple interior, is more expressive of what colonial
builders desired. The cornice, the chair rail, and the base board
continue around corners without any change in character. Thus the room
appears as a box having its own order, independent of irregularities in
the frame of the house. Chair rail and base board are almost always
found, because they were necessary to protect the plaster. The cornice,
although occasionally missing, is usually present—as though the builders
felt it was necessary to mark the upper edge of the cube of the room.
The fireplace is adorned with surrounding panels. A fireplace is
psychologically an important place in the room—it is the source of
warmth and the place where people gather—and, therefore, it is honored
with special decoration.

A more elaborate interior is shown in figure 65. The mantelpiece rises
to the ceiling and has some carved details. A paneled wood wainscot runs
around the lower part of the wall. The inset sketch shows a long plank
sometimes used in the wainscot, and left exposed as a long panel. The
front is glassy smooth, the back is rough hewn and notched to fit snugly
against the upright posts. Such a long panel of wood is not overly
impressive when used today—it is just a sheet of plywood—but in a
colonial house it is something to awe a modern carpenter.

Figure 66 shows an exceptionally elaborate room inspired, perhaps, by
pattern books or memories of England. The mantelpiece is an elaborate
concoction of many units piled one on top of the other—ledges, columns,
a gable pediment—a display of the carver’s skill. The walls are fully
covered by a series of vertical panels above and horizontal panels
below.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 65.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 66.]

Having seen in the above sketches some of the notions which colonial
builders had for finishing the important rooms in a house, we will look
at photographs of two fully paneled rooms, one plain and the other
elaborately carved.

Figure 67 is an interior from the Lane house, Nixonton, shown as an
example of a simple, fully paneled room. This Nixonton house is the
second Lane house to be discussed in this study; the first was
Wakefield, the Joel Lane dwelling in Raleigh. Our photograph shows one
of three rooms from the Nixonton Lane house, as now installed in the
Carolina Room at the University of North Carolina. This is the section
of the University library which contains books, pamphlets, old
photographs and newspapers, all referring to North Carolina. It seems
appropriate that the Lane interiors should be at this center for studies
of North Carolina history and culture. The installation was accomplished
under the direction of Thomas Waterman, student and author of works on
North Carolina architecture.

The over-all design of the room shown consists of panels set in a
lattice of vertical and horizontal strips. Window height determines the
three-part division of the wall—tall vertical panels in the middle, and
short horizontal panels above and below. This scheme is repeated in
smaller scale at the mantel. The emotionally important fireplace is
given a few further touches of embellishment—a carved mantel shelf and
pilasters at the edges above. (A _pilaster_ is a rectangular support
treated as a column with a base, shaft, and capital.)

    [Illustration: FIGURE 68. INTERIOR OF THE LANE HOUSE, NIXONTON, AS
    INSTALLED IN THE CAROLINA ROOM, IN THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
    NORTH CAROLINA.]

Figure 68 is inserted into our account at this point to aid in
discussion of a special beauty in this room, the expression of a
craftsman-builder. The drawing shows a section of the wall in the
photograph. In his actual construction of the paneling, it appears that
the craftsman followed these steps: _1st_) erected uprights marked 1 and
1, which rise all the way from floor to ceiling, corresponding to the
posts which frame door and window; _2nd_) cut and fit the strips marked
2 and 2, which fit neatly between the uprights; _3rd_) erected the
secondary upright marked 3; _4th_) fitted in the short pieces marked 4,
the location of these strips being determined by the framing of the
window. The above sequence of steps is the natural, rule-of-thumb way to
proceed; the craftsman does not need a blue print—or even a ruler. Thus
the wall expresses the craftsman-builder at work, suggests his simple
procedures and his delight with his material, wood, whose satiny surface
is brought out in the room.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 68.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 69. THE LANE HOUSE, NIXONTON.]

Figure 69 shows a sketch and a plan of the Lane house at Nixonton. It is
a simple one-story building which looks down peacefully on the Little
River. Sometimes it is called the Old Customs House, or the Old River
House. It is dated in the 1740’s, some years before the other Lane
house, Wakefield, in Raleigh.

The plan of the house is a clean-cut example of the three room idea
advocated by William Penn. The big room was seen in our photograph
(figure 67). The two smaller rooms had walls of plaster. Foundations
above ground are of brick; below ground are the stone walls of a low
cellar. It may be remarked that there is no stair to the loft. The loft
window shown in the sketch was “just for looks,” according to old
settlers. Today, however, the loft is reached via an addition to the
house, not shown in the sketch.

Figure 70, an interior from the earlier mentioned Old Brick House, is
shown as an example of an elaborately paneled room. It was put into the
Old Brick House about mid 18th century, at about the time of the simple
Lane interior, just seen above. It is opulent, high-spirited, robust.
Perhaps its swashbuckling grandeur would appeal to a pirate and could,
therefore, be used to support the legend that Blackbeard once lived in
this house. The legend, however, is unfounded; Blackbeard had been dead
for many years before this room was executed, and similar interiors are
found in other North Carolina houses known to have been built by highly
respectable owners.

The Old Brick interior stands in sharp contrast to the chaste Lane
interior. Whereas the Lane interior expresses simple wood structure, as
we have seen, the Old Brick interior suggests stone. The row of
energetic pilasters support a very convincing “stone” architrave above,
and the arches are constructed complete with keystones as found in stone
work.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 70. INTERIOR FOR THE OLD BRICK HOUSE.]

    [Illustration: FIGURE 71. INTERIOR, THE OLD BRICK HOUSE IN ORIGINAL
    SETTING.]

The Old Brick House’s interior has left North Carolina. The photograph
shown portrays the fireplace wall as it is installed in a house in
Delaware, its proportions changed to make it fit a higher room. An older
photograph, figure 71, shows the door along the wall in the original
room. By comparing the before-and-after photographs it can be seen how
blocks were inserted under the pilasters to accommodate them to the
height of the room and providing more head room above the arch. In the
original room the pilasters stood emphatically “on the ground.” The door
proudly “raised itself to its full height,” the keystone of its arch
touching the enframement above. The more the two photographs are
compared, the greater the appreciation one has for the particular nature
of the original room, and the intention of its designer. It had a
dynamic pride, in contrast with a politeness which characterizes the
later room.

The re-installed room has also changed the original arrangement of parts
along the wall—the door, the mantelpiece, and the cabinet. The original
arrangement of these units may be seen by looking carefully at figure
71, and also the plan of the Old Brick House, figure 44.



                               CHAPTER VI
                 A Note on Later Colonial Architecture


    [Illustration: Log cabin]

The scope of this booklet does not include architecture of the late
colonial and early republican times, although some of our most
distinguished “colonial” buildings date from those years. The
architectural climate of the late 18th century differed from that found
prior to 1763. First of all, following the end of the French and Indian
War the colonies were more secure. Then, there existed a large body of
earlier architecture which could be seen as accomplished fact. The
building trades were more firmly established, a few professional
architects were beginning to appear, and architectural pattern books and
design books were more available from Europe. Although the earlier
buildings were vigorous in their design, the wealthy person who wished
to build a home in later colonial times often looked on them as quaint
and a little clumsy; he wanted something better and more up-to-date.

An outstanding example of what was up-to-date in North Carolina, is
shown above, an engraving of Tryon Palace, New Bern. This structure was
begun by Governor Tryon in 1767, completed in 1770 and destroyed by fire
shortly after the Revolutionary War. The work of reconstruction, begun
in 1952 is now virtually complete, and the palace is now one of the most
widely known colonial buildings in the United States. It is a good
example for our present purposes because, as a most important and costly
building, it reflects ideas regarded as “modern” in North Carolina at
the close of the pre-revolutionary period. The engraving shown is from
_The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution_, by Benjamin J. Lossing,
1852. Although the palace was in ruins during Lossing’s time, he made
his engraving from drawings left by the building’s architect—the same
drawings used in 1952 for its reconstruction. The palace was designed to
impress the colonial man and woman shown in the illustration in certain
ways, as will be seen presently.

The exterior of the palace exhibits something new in our study: a
three-part layout design, diagrammed in figure 72. Above in the diagram
the three structures are arranged: kitchen—PALACE—stables. Other
outbuildings which, of course, were present are hidden in the first and
main view of the palace. This is quite different from the disposition of
the outbuildings at the Palmer-Marsh house (figure 9), where they are
found informally situated at one side of the house.

At the middle of the diagram depicting the Tryon structure, the long
façade of the palace building is shown broken into three parts:
wing—CENTRAL BLOCK—wing. The central block is crowned with a pediment
and is advanced slightly forward. The Palmer house also has six windows
and a central door, but the builder of this earlier structure did not
have the idea of breaking or articulating a long wall as in the palace.

Below in the diagram, the central block of the palace shows
window—DOOR—window. That door, crowned with pediment, is the ultimate
focal point.

    [Illustration: FIGURE 72.]

As one contemplates this three-part idea for dividing a length of wall,
or for grouping separate structures, the system seems to express an
“intelligence” in the architecture—the door or middle unit being a head
or center of serene intelligence and the symmetrical side units being
arms or body. This design idea was not introduced into the colonies via
the palace; the palace merely demonstrates the idea which became so
attractive to later 18th-century builders.

The two pediments referred to above—a big one above and a small one over
the door below—are not mere gables of the sort seen earlier. Instead,
they are complete, three-sided pediments similar to those found on
classical temples. They are a sign of a rising interest in classical
art, fostered by archaeological studies in the 18th century. Classical
buildings also contained ideas of sober mass and order which impressed
those who lived in the late 18th century.

It should be observed that the cornices of all three buildings continue
uninterruptedly around corners, marking a firm top for the lower part of
the buildings which appear as great boxes. Further, as all the buildings
have hipped roofs which retreat on all sides, the colonial man and woman
in the picture, as they come near a building, do not see a roof at all.
This image is in contrast with the earlier architecture with huge, steep
roofs sitting like massive hats on the buildings, and with gable ends
rising to sharp points in the sky, along with their protruding chimneys.
At the palace, chimneys do not disturb the calm surface of a rectangular
wall, and roofs are hidden as though one is ashamed of them.

The windows of the palace are in absolutely regular horizontal and
vertical rows, as opposed to the casual, hit-or-miss irregularities seen
in some earlier buildings. In preparing his drawings for the façade of
the palace, the architect must have erased and redrawn his windows
before he achieved just the rhythm and balance he wanted. In looking at
his drawing he saw the façade as an entity by itself, exactly as it was
seen by the colonial couple on the walk. They seem to feel the
articulate order of the building, a security and a restrained,
aristocratic elegance.

Such ideas afford one a glimpse into the proud, ambitious,
“enlightened,” later 18th century. After this glimpse we return to the
diverse buildings of the earlier 18th century, with fuller appreciation
of their robustness and good-natured vitality, each building seeming
something of heroic accomplishment, a feat of colonial man, which,
indeed, it was.



                              CHAPTER VII
                     The Study of Old Architecture


Aside from pleasure to be derived from it, the study of old buildings
can be of great value to future students of North Carolina architecture.
An important old building in one’s town today may be a filling station
tomorrow. Every day such buildings vanish through fire or demolition and
often there are no adequate records of them. Such records can only be
made by people on the spot who appreciate their importance.

Steps that can be taken by the student include: making a study of an old
building in the vicinity; taking photographs of various exterior views
and interior details; making plan drawings with measurements; making
simple sketches and diagrams of construction details which cannot be
photographed well; and making a plot plan or map of the property,
showing the location of former sheds and other structures. In addition,
efforts should be made to collect information from old inhabitants and
from present users of the building. Deeds, old letters, or other
documents should be consulted for information regarding the structure’s
origins. A map of the old part of your town—_à la Sauthier_—might be a
useful contribution to supplement information on the founding of the
town and on changes as they have occurred.

Such studies would be valuable additions to a collection of documents,
photographs, maps, etc., housed in the local library. Work with
teachers, librarians, and members of the local historical society to
build a collection of books and material on local and regional
architecture.

There are several State institutions in Raleigh which may provide
assistance with projects of this kind. The Department of Archives and
History, houses a vast collection of documents and letters, and
publishes the _North Carolina_ _Historical Review_. Within this
department the Hall of History sponsors the _Junior Historians_, who
make models of buildings and engage in other architectural projects; and
the Historic Sites Division is concerned with the preservation of
important sites and buildings. The Department of Conservation and
Development has a photograph collection of old buildings in North
Carolina. The School of Design at State College has a growing collection
of measured drawings of important old buildings; this project is called
Historic Buildings Research (see figure 61).

In Chapel Hill, at the University of North Carolina there are two
sections of the library to be noted: the Carolina Room, which houses
extensive collections of historical materials (see page 88); and the
Southern Historical Collection, which contains letters and documents.
Duke University has large collections of documentary material; and other
college and city libraries have North Carolina collections.


                         A NOTE ON BIBLIOGRAPHY

A most useful book is _The North Carolina Guide_, edited by Blackwell P.
Robinson, published by the University of North Carolina Press, 1955.
Professor Louise Hall, Duke University, wrote the excellent
architectural section of this book.

Two attractive and important books are illustrated with photographs by a
woman master photographer to accompany texts prepared by a man:—_Old
Homes and Gardens of North Carolina_, photographs by Bayard Wootten,
historical text by Archibald Henderson, published under the auspices of
The Garden Club of North Carolina by the University of North Carolina
Press, 1939; and _The Early Architecture of North Carolina, a Pictorial
Survey_, by Frances Benjamin Johnston, with _An Architectural History_,
by Thomas Waterman, University of North Carolina Press, 1941. _The
State_ is a magazine published in Raleigh; it has special issues devoted
to towns and regions of North Carolina, containing much standard and new
information.

Three general reference books should be noted: _The Dwellings of
Colonial America_, by Thomas Waterman, University of North Carolina
Press, 1950. _The Architecture of the Old South_, by Henry Chandlee
Forman, Harvard University Press, 1948. _Early American Architecture_,
by Hugh Morrison, Oxford University Press, 1952.


                   For a list of publications of the
                    Division of Archives and History
                               write to:
                    Historical Publications Section
                    Division of Archives and History
                         109 East Jones Street
                     Raleigh, North Carolina 27611



                          Transcriber’s Notes


—This e-text, published without copyright notice, is public domain in
  the country of publication.

—Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and
  dialect unchanged.

—In the text versions, delimited italicized text (or non-italicized text
  in photo captions) by _underscores_.





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Colonial Homes in North Carolina" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home