History Podcasts

Edgecombe APA-164 - History

Edgecombe APA-164 - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Edgecombe II

(APA-164: dp. 6,720; 1. 466'; b. 62'; dr. 24'; s. 18 k.;
cpl. 692; a. 1 6"; cl. Haskell)

The second Edgecombe (APA 164) was launched 24 September 1944 by Oregon Shipbuilding Corp., Portland, Oreg, under a Maritime Commission contract; sponsored by Mrs. Esther S. Wilson, and commissioned 30 October 1944, Commander F. W. Wauchope, USNR, in command.

Edgecombe began transport duty along with her shakedown when she carried the 68th CB's from Seattle to San Francisco in November 1944. After training at San Pedro she sailed the last day of 1944 from San Francisco with cargo for Finschhafen. She joined a convoy at Hollandia and arrived at Leyte 6 February 1945 to land reinforcements.

After intensive training with the 6th Amphibious Force, Edgecombe sailed 27 March 1946 for Okinawa. She landed her troops in the initial assault 1 April and remained off the beach 6 feverish days unloading cargo and embarking casualties for evacuation to Saipan. She sailed on to Pearl Harbor and reached Han Francisco in May.

Assigned to carry troops from the west coast to the Philippines, Edgecombe was on the second such voyage when the war ended. In September she transported occupation troops from Leyte to Aomori, Honshu. Returning to the west coast, Edgecombe was assigned "Magic Carpet" duty, and twice went to the western Pacific to bring home servicemen eligible for discharge. On 11 February 1946 she got underway from Portland Oreg., for Norfolk which she reached 16 March. There she was placed out of commission in reserve 31 January

1947. Edgecombe was returned to the Maritime Commission 1 October 1968.

Edgecombe received one battle star for World War II service.

Edgecombe APA-164 - History


Unionpedia is a concept map or semantic network organized like an encyclopedia – dictionary. It gives a brief definition of each concept and its relationships.

This is a giant online mental map that serves as a basis for concept diagrams. It's free to use and each article or document can be downloaded. It's a tool, resource or reference for study, research, education, learning or teaching, that can be used by teachers, educators, pupils or students for the academic world: for school, primary, secondary, high school, middle, technical degree, college, university, undergraduate, master's or doctoral degrees for papers, reports, projects, ideas, documentation, surveys, summaries, or thesis. Here is the definition, explanation, description, or the meaning of each significant on which you need information, and a list of their associated concepts as a glossary. Available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, Swedish, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Catalan, Czech, Hebrew, Danish, Finnish, Indonesian, Norwegian, Romanian, Turkish, Vietnamese, Korean, Thai, Greek, Bulgarian, Croatian, Slovak, Lithuanian, Filipino, Latvian, Estonian and Slovenian. More languages soon.

All the information was extracted from Wikipedia, and it's available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Google Play, Android and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Springfield Race Riot, 1908

In mid-August 1908, the white population of Springfield, Illinois hastily reacted to reports that a white woman has been assaulted in her home by a black man. Soon afterwards another instance of an assault by a black man on a white woman was reported. These incidents, coming within hours of each other, inflamed a gathering mob.

Springfield Police took into custody an African American vagrant, Joe James, for one of the assaults. Another man, George Richardson, a local factory worker was arrested for the second assault. A mob which had been forming since the news of the assaults was first announced now quickly assembled at the Sangamon County Courthouse to lynch the two men in custody.

Unable to get the accused men whom the Sheriff announced had been moved to an undisclosed location, the mob turned its wrath of two other black men, Scott Burton and William Donegan, who were in the area. They were quickly lynched.

The mob then vented its fury on the homes of black families in Springfield. After rampaging through the city they extended their violence into small communities outside the city limits. The mob targeted stores which had guns and ammunition. Mob leaders carefully directed the participants to destroy only homes and businesses either owned by blacks or which served black patrons, thus leaving nearby white homes and businesses untouched.

Some Springfield blacks fought back in self-defense. They shot back when fired upon, and the first victim of the lynch mob, Scott Burton, used his shotgun in an attempt to save his life and home. The second victim lynched was an 84-year-old cobbler named William Donegan, whose reputation had been tainted in the eyes of the mob by the fact that he had been married to a white woman for over 30 years. When the carnage finally ended six black people were shot and killed, two were lynched and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property destroyed. About two thousand black people were driven out of the city of Springfield as a result of the riot.

About 150 suspected mob participants were arrested. Threats from other mob participants restrained people from testifying against those suspected of the violence. Later it was revealed that George Richardson, who was initially charged with assault, had been wrongly identified and the indictment was dismissed.

Some local history

515 Edgecombe Avenue (“combe” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word mean­ing “hill”) is locat­ed in a neigh­bor­hood bathed in history.

Morris-Jumel Mansion

Just 2 blocks north of our build­ing is the his­toric Morris-Jumel Mansion. General Washington used Morris-Jumel Mansion ( MJM ) as his head­quar­ters dur­ing the fall of 1776. It was dur­ing this peri­od that the General’s troops forced a British retreat at the Revolutionary War Battle of Harlem Heights

The house was built eleven years before the rev­o­lu­tion, in 1765, by British Colonel Roger Morris and his American wife, Mary Philipse. The breezy hill­top loca­tion proved an ide­al loca­tion for the family’s sum­mer home. Known as Mount Morris, this north­ern Manhattan estate stretched from the Harlem to the Hudson Rivers and cov­ered more than 130 acres. Because they were loy­al to the crown, the Morrises were even­tu­al­ly forced to return to England.

During the war, the hill­top loca­tion of the Mansion was val­ued for more than its cool sum­mer breezes. With views of the Harlem River, the Bronx, and Long Island Sound to the east, New York City and the har­bor to the south, and the Hudson River and Jersey Palisades to the west, Mount Morris proved to be a strate­gic mil­i­tary head­quar­ters. Shortly after the Battle of Harlem Heights, Washington and his troops left the Mansion and, for a time, it was occu­pied by British and Hessian forces.

President Washington returned to the Mansion on July 10, 1790, and dined with mem­bers of his cab­i­net. Guests at the table includ­ed two future Presidents of the United States: Vice President John Adams and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of War Henry Knox also attended.

The Mansion is built in the Palladian style, with a sec­ond sto­ry bal­cony and a two-sto­ry front por­ti­co sup­port­ed by clas­si­cal columns. The two-sto­ry octa­gon at the rear of the house is believed to be the first of its kind any­where in the colonies. The first floor of the 8,500 square foot house fea­tures rooms for fam­i­ly and social gath­er­ings, and includes the par­lor in which Madame Eliza Jumel mar­ried Aaron Burr in 1833. Across the hall stands the din­ing room where Washington like­ly enter­tained his guests in 1790. At the far end of the hall, the octag­o­nal draw­ing room, or with­draw­ing room as it is prop­er­ly known, pro­vid­ed a grand set­ting for social gath­er­ings. Bedrooms on the sec­ond floor include those of George Washington, Eliza Jumel, and Aaron Burr. The base­ment hous­es the colo­nial-era kitchen and tells the sto­ry of domes­tic servi­tude at the Mansion. The room fea­tures the orig­i­nal hearth and a bee-hive oven as well as a col­lec­tion of ear­ly American cook­ing uten­sils. Through archi­tec­ture and a diverse col­lec­tion of dec­o­ra­tive arts objects, each room of the Morris-Jumel Mansion reveals a spe­cif­ic aspect of its col­or­ful his­to­ry from the 18th through the 19th centuries.

[This text is tak­en from the Morris-Jumel Mansion website.]

Coogan’s Bluff

Coogan’s Bluff, a large cliff extend­ing north­ward from 155th Street in Manhattan, once was the site of the fabled Polo Grounds, the home of the New York Giants (base­ball) for over 5 decades, and the first home of the New York Mets.

To the north of Highbridge park is a wood­ed area with­in which lies a land­mark schist rock that pokes through the dirt called Coogan’s Bluff. It is named after James Coogan, Manhattan Borough President, who sold the land to New York Giants own­er John T. Brush, who moved the Giants to the sec­ond Polo Grounds in 1891.

The Giants orig­i­nal­ly played in a polo field on 111th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. Brush kept the name, Polo Grounds, when he moved the team to Coogan’s Bluff in 1891. In April 1911, the Polo Grounds, an elab­o­rate wood­en struc­ture, burned to the ground. By October, the Giants were host­ing the Philadelphia Athletics for the 1911 World Series in a rebuilt sta­di­um of con­crete and steel. The new Polo Grounds boast­ed box seats of Italian mar­ble, orna­men­tal American eagles on the balustrade, and blue and gold ban­ners, 30 feet apart, fly­ing from a can­tilever roof. At the time, it was the pre­mier Major League Baseball stadium.

Baseball soon estab­lished itself as the quin­tes­sen­tial American game, and the New York Giants made sig­nif­i­cant con­tri­bu­tions to 20th cen­tu­ry base­ball lore. Mel Ott (1909–1958) and Willie Mays (b.1931) are thought to be among the finest play­ers of all time and the names of Christy Mathewson (1878–1925) and Carl Hubbell (1903–1988) are still men­tioned when­ev­er great pitch­ers are dis­cussed. The Giants also pro­vid­ed base­ball with one of its most dra­mat­ic moments: “the shot heard round the world.” In 1951, the Giants and their arch-rivals the Brooklyn Dodgers were in the ninth inning of the decid­ing game in a play-off to deter­mine the National League pen­nant win­ner. With two outs left in the game, the Dodgers were ahead 4–2 when Bobby Thomson came to bat for the Giants and hit a 3‑run home run win­ning the game for the Giants, and mak­ing base­ball history.

In 1957, the own­er of the Giants, Horace Stoneham (1903–1990) broke many New York hearts when he announced that he was mov­ing the Giants to San Francisco. The Polo Grounds remained for sev­en more years, serv­ing as home to the New York Mets for the 1962 and 1963 sea­sons. In 1964 the sta­di­um was demol­ished and now the Polo Grounds Towers, a hous­ing project, occu­pies the site. All that is left of the orig­i­nal Polo Grounds is an old stair­case on the side of the cliff that once led to the tick­et booth.

Today, Coogan’s Bluff is part of Highbridge Park, which was assem­bled piece­meal between 1867 and the 1960s, with the bulk being acquired through con­dem­na­tion from 1895 to 1901. The cliff­side area from West 181st Street to Dyckman Street was acquired in 1902, and the par­cel includ­ing Fort George Hill was acquired in 1928. The park extends from 155th Street in North Harlem to Dyckman Street in Washington Heights/Inwood. The Friends of Highbridge Park are involved in pre­serv­ing the park’s his­to­ry and the New York Restoration Project has cleaned the park and restored its trails.

[This text is part of Parks’ Historical Signs Project and can be found post­ed with­in the park.]

Paul Robeson Residence

The Paul Robeson Residence, a National Historic Landmark, is locat­ed at 555 Edgecombe Avenue in New York City.

Paul Robeson (1898–1976) — actor, singer, civ­il rights advo­cate — lived in an apart­ment in this 13 sto­ry apart­ment build­ing from 1939–1941, upon his return from liv­ing and per­form­ing in Europe.

Paul Robeson was a gift­ed stu­dent and ath­lete while attend­ing Rutgers University in New Jersey. He was a bril­liant Phi Beta Kappa stu­dent, two time All American foot­ball play­er (1917–1918), and won hon­ors in debat­ing and ora­to­ry. He grad­u­at­ed from Columbia Law School but gave up law to pur­sue a career in singing and act­ing. Robeson per­formed on Broadway, and is not­ed for his lead­ing roles in Othello and Eugene O’Neill’s play, Emperor Jones, and his stun­ning ren­di­tion of the song “Ole Man River” in the musi­cal Showboat. In 1934, he vis­it­ed the Soviet Union, where he felt ful­ly accept­ed as a black artist. During World War II , he enter­tained troops at the front and sang bat­tle songs on the radio.

In 1937, Robeson wrote, “the artist must elect to fight for free­dom or for slav­ery. I have made my choice. I have no alter­na­tive.” He con­tin­ued this fight for free­dom, both polit­i­cal and artis­tic, until his death in 1976.

Despite his war efforts, he was labeled “sub­ver­sive” by McCarthyites, who were wary of his ear­li­er trip to the Soviet Union, his sup­port of the 1947 St. Louis pick­et­ing against seg­re­ga­tion of black actors and a Panama effort to orga­nize the most­ly-black Panamanian work­ers. Robeson began receiv­ing death threats from the Ku Klux Klan while cam­paign­ing for the Progressive Party can­di­date in the 1948 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. When he pub­licly opposed the Cold War, even the nation­al sec­re­tary of the NAACP ques­tioned his loy­al­ty as an American. Connecticut state offi­cials also went to court to pre­vent him from vis­it­ing his fam­i­ly home in Enfield. Undaunted, Robeson for­mal­ly denounced the action and on August 27, 1949, trav­eled to Peekskill, New York, to sing before a group of African American and Jewish trade union­ists. A KKK-led riot can­celed the con­cert but Robeson returned the fol­low­ing week with 25,000 sup­port­ers. A “human wall” pro­tect­ed Robeson while he sang, though after­wards many of the con­cert goers were ambushed and beat­en while local police and state troop­ers stood by.

In March 1950, NBC barred Robeson from appear­ing on a tele­vi­sion show with Eleanor Roosevelt. Concert halls closed their doors to him, and his records began to dis­ap­pear from stores. After eight years, an inter­na­tion­al out­cry, and the Supreme Court’s rever­sal of the same sit­u­a­tion for the artist Rockwell Kent in 1958, Robeson won.

The High Bridge

The High Bridge was built in the mid-19th cen­tu­ry as part of the Croton Aqueduct sys­tem, which car­ried water from the Croton River in Westchester down to Manhattan. When you cross the bridge, you will be walk­ing above the aqueduct’s orig­i­nal pipes, which still lie beneath the walk­way of the bridge.

When the bridge first opened in 1848, 35 years before the Brooklyn Bridge, it was hailed as a mar­vel of civ­il engi­neer­ing. Designed by engi­neer John B. Jervis, who worked on the Erie Canal, the bridge ris­es 138-feet tall and stretch­es 1,450-feet long, mak­ing it the longest bridge in the United States when it was completed.

Modeled after a Roman aque­duct, the bridge cost $950,000 to build, and it was part of the Old Croton Aqueduct System, built to pro­vide the grow­ing metrop­o­lis with a vital sup­ply of fresh water from Westchester’s Croton River. Concern about the spread of dis­ease, notably the repeat­ed cholera epi­demics, and mem­o­ries of the Great Fire of 1835, which ruined most of low­er Manhattan, also served as moti­vat­ing fac­tors for its construction.

The bridge opened to car­ry the aque­duct across the Harlem River in 1848, and its walk­way was com­plet­ed in 1864, mak­ing it a pop­u­lar spot to prom­e­nade on a nice day. The bridge achieved fame as an attrac­tion for New Yorkers and tourists and a favorite sub­ject for artists and pho­tog­ra­phers, a sort of 19 th cen­tu­ry High Line. The walkway’s pop­u­lar­i­ty led to the build­ing of hotels, restau­rants and amuse­ment parks in the vicinity.

Equally pop­u­lar were boat cruis­es up and down the riv­er, and rac­ing com­pe­ti­tions for crew boats. Later, once the Harlem River Speedway was opened in 1898, sight­seers strolled along the new water­front esplanade in the cool breezes and watched hors­es and bug­gies fly by.

After con­struc­tion of the Major Deegan Expressway in 1956 and the Harlem River Drive in 1964, pub­lic use of the water­front fad­ed. The riv­er became pol­lut­ed, paths were blocked, and the pull of the parks on the water’s edge van­ished. In the 1970s, pub­lic access to the bridge was discontinued.

Local pres­sure to reopen the bridge began soon after, and even­tu­al­ly, groups such as The High Bridge Coalition were able to coa­lesce that sup­port into a cit­i­zen-led cam­paign to restore the High Bridge and its neigh­bor­ing parks. In 2012, we began reha­bil­i­tat­ing the bridge, and it was reopened in June 2015.

Our Newsletter

Product Description

USS Edgecombe APA 164

"Personalized" Canvas Ship Print

(Not just a photo or poster but a work of art!)

Every sailor loved his ship. It was his life. Where he had tremendous responsibility and lived with his closest shipmates. As one gets older his appreciation for the ship and the Navy experience gets stronger. A personalized print shows ownership, accomplishment and an emotion that never goes away. It helps to show your pride even if a loved one is no longer with you. Every time you walk by the print you will feel the person or the Navy experience in your heart (guaranteed).

The image is portrayed on the waters of the ocean or bay with a display of her crest if available. The ships name is printed on the bottom of the print. What a great canvas print to commemorate yourself or someone you know who may have served aboard her.

The printed picture is exactly as you see it. The canvas size is 8"x10" ready for framing as it is or you can add an additional matte of your own choosing. If you would like a larger picture size (11"x 14") on a 13" X 19" canvas simply purchase this print then prior to payment purchase additional services located in the store category (Home) to the left of this page. This option is an additional $12.00. The prints are made to order. They look awesome when matted and framed.

We PERSONALIZE the print with "Name, Rank and/or Years Served" or anything else you would like it to state (NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE). It is placed just above the ships photo. After purchasing the print simply email us or indicate in the notes section of your payment what you would like printed on it. Example:

United States Navy Sailor
Proudly Served Sept 1963 - Sept 1967

This would make a nice gift and a great addition to any historic military collection. Would be fantastic for decorating the home or office wall.

The watermark "Great Naval Images" will NOT be on your print.

This photo is printed on Archival-Safe Acid-Free canvas using a high resolution printer and should last many years.

Because of its unique natural woven texture canvas offers a special and distinctive look that can only be captured on canvas. The canvas print does not need glass thereby enhancing the appearance of your print, eliminating glare and reducing your overall cost.

We guarantee you will not be disappointed with this item or your money back. In addition, We will replace the canvas print unconditionally for FREE if you damage your print. You would only be charged a nominal fee plus shipping and handling.

Check our feedback. Customers who have purchased these prints have been very satisfied.

Edgecombe APA-164 - History

Welcome to North Carolina Genealogy Trails!

Our goal is to help you track your ancestors through time by transcribing genealogical and historical data and placing it online for the free use of all researchers

If you have a love for history, a desire to help others, and basic webpage-making skills, consider joining us! Get the details on our Volunteer Page .
[A desire to transcribe data and knowledge of how to make a basic webpage is required.]

If hosting isn't for you, we can use your help in other ways.
More information can be found on the Volunteer Page .

This site is available for adoption!

We regret that we are unable to do personal research for anyone..
All data we come across will be added to this site.
We thank you for visiting and hope you'll come back again to view the updates we make to this site

Happy Trails to you on your quest for your ancestors.

Check your attics!
Dust off your family scrapbooks!
We're looking for DATA for this site.

If you would like to submit data for this site,
please Email Us with your submissions.

Edgecombe APA-164 - History

Ruler's feather headdress (probably of Moctezuma II) 1428-1520 CE

Ruler's feather headdress (probably of Moctezuma II)

Feathers, gold, wood, plant fibers

Materials: Feathers, gold, plant fibers, wood, leather, paper, textiles, and gilded brass

3.8 feet tall, 5.75 feet wide

Feathers mounted on wooden sticks layered in semi-circles with small plates of gold

Originally included a golden bird beak

Each of the 450 feathers is a tail feather from a different bird, specifically quetzals and contigas

Thought to have ceremonial purpose

Was carried on a long stick through town

Performed in as part of a costume

Feathers were a very important part of the Aztec Economy

Art made of feathers were seen as a symbol of wealth and status

Were used to create fans and shields as well as headdresses

Were also a part of a warrior’s clothing

Especially rare feathers were received as payment from cities conquered by the Aztec Empire

Vibrant colors and rare materials indicate importance and status

Took a long time and much dedication to make, as each feather was retrieved from a different bird

Feathers used in this headdress are from birds located in the Yucatan peninsula, meaning that extensive trade was required to acquire these feathers

Quetzal tail feathers from the male birds, each of which carry only two long tail feathers that are used in the headdress

Made by amantecas (feather workers) who were highly skilled artists and lived in a special quarter of the capital

Presumably belonged to Motecuhzoma II, ruler of the Aztec Empire

Capital of the Aztec Empire was Tenochtitlan (present-day Mexico City)

Acquired by Hernán Cortés, a conquistador who led an expedition that led to the fall of the Aztec Empire

Sources vary on whether the headdress was gifted as a diplomatic gesture or taken forcefully

First mentioned in European inventory as a “Moorish hat” in 1596 when it was acquired by Austrian Archduke Ferdinand II von Tyrol

Displayed in ethnology museum in Vienna (now called the Weltmuseum Wien)

Mexico has claimed ownership of the headdress and has been asking for its return since 1991

What is the geography of the area, and how does it shape its art?

introduction of trade with other cultures initiated the use of materials acquired through trade as symbols of status and importance --> materials natural to the empire were seen as less desirable

What is the leadership structure?

Strict social hierarchy designated people as nobles, commoners, serfs, or slaves

Nobles consisted of military leaders, high priests, and lords

What are the social roles, including gender roles?

Women raised young girls and men raised young boys, enforcing very concrete gender roles from childhood

Girls and boys were taught different tasks and had different jobs in Aztec society

Women were often spinners and weavers

What are the religious/spiritual beliefs?

The Aztecs were a polytheistic society and worshipped many different gods and goddesses who were assigned to different aspects of nature and human life

What ceremonies help define the culture?

The Aztecs participated in frequent ritual sacrifice, including sacrifice of both animals and humans. They believed these sacrifices would help to maintain and replenish the power of the gods.

Human sacrifice came in response to the idea that the gods sacrificed their blood and their lives creating the world and everything in it

At the end of every 360 day year there was a period called Nemontemi which lasted 5 days (to balance out the solar calendar) that was associated with bad luck. Everyone would stay in their houses and fast, and no ceremonies or business would be done.

Every 52 years, the two Aztec calendars would align and a ritual would be performed to indicate a new beginning to the cycle. All temple and house flames were doused and then re-lit, new clothes would be bought, and tools and utensils would be replaced.

Many Aztec ceremonies had to do with planting and harvest seasons

Many Aztec ceremonies included one person who would represent and be treated as if they were the god the ceremony was in honor of

Edgecombe APA-164 - History

1742 - November 27, George Downing of Edgecome Co to Thomas Howell of Northampton Co. for value received by me (number of acres not given) a tract of land joining Seizmore, William Braswell and Richard Sumner Wit: James Bryant, Sarah Bryant Reg. Northampton Co. Aug. Ct. 1745 Robert Forster C. Ct. (Northampton Co., NC Pg 202)

1742 - December 20, Thomas Williams of Bertie to William Bryan of Northampton, 200 acres for 20 pounds, adjacent Sandy Run, Norfleet. Witnessed by Green Hill, Davy Stephens. (Northampton Co., NC 1-64)

1743 - February 7, Barnabe Bryant of Northampton to Abraham Bagget of same, 100 acres for 18 pounds, part of a tract granted to Barnaby Bryant 22 Mar 1743, adjacent Bryant 's swamp , Maherin River, Brigers, mouth of Rushing Branch Wit: Nicholas Boon, James Boon Reg. Northampton Co. Feb Ct. 1743 J. Edwards C. Ct. (Northampton Co., NC Pg 111)

1743 - February 21, John Hardy , Gentleman of Edgecombe to Isaac Winston of same, 150 acres for 10 pounds, on Dry Pond , mouth of Ferney Meadow , except all pines growing on land, part of patent to Thomas Bryan 1 Aug 1730, Witnessed by John Mozingo, John Landrien, Ann Mozingo. (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-287)

1743 - February 27, William Bryant and Barnabe Bryant of Northampton to Bartholomew Figures of Surry Co., VA, 170 acres total for 33 pounds, north side of Maherin river, (1) 100 acres joining the river, Abraham Bagget, second branch, part of a patent granted to William Brown for 640 acres 29 Nov 1706. (2) 70 acres, part of patent to Barnebe Bryant for 200 acres granted 22 Mar 1742 adjacent Nicholas Boon , Bryant 's swamp. Wit: James Washington , John Brown, William Vann , James Washington Jr . Reg. Northampton Co. Feb.Ct. 1743 J. Edwards, C. Ct. (Northampton Co., NC Pg 110)

1743 - May 2, James Turner of Virginia to Elisha Williams of Edgecombe 295 acres for 80 pounds, adjacent John Gray, Thomas Turner, the Cypress Swamp , Arthur Bryant . Wit: Thomas Turner. Simon Turner (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-153)

1743 - May 2, John Ryall of Edgecombe to John "Hinniard", 300 acres for 10 pounds, south side of Tarr River, adjacent William Bryan , grant to said Ryall 6 May 1742. Witnessed by Walter McFarlan Jr, Elias Hodges. (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-212)

1743 - August 15, William Bryan , late of Edgecombe, now of "Bartie" Precinct, to James Barnes of Bertie, 315 acres for 25 pounds, south side of Marattock, adjacent John Gray, Cypress Swamp. Witnessed by John Flowers, W. Roads, Thomas Norfleet. (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-169)

1743 - August 22, Thomas Wall of Northampton to William Bryan of same, 150 acres for 15 pounds, part of 340 acres granted Thomas Wall Mar 16 1743, adjacent Thomas Boon , Wild Cat Swamp, now in possession of William Bryan . Witnessed by John Wade, William Carter, Joseph Strickland. (Northampton Co., NC 1-82)

1743 - December 29, Edward Poore of Edgecombe to Joseph Hough of same, 480 acres for 8 pounds, west side of Elk Swamp , between Blue marsh and Little Swamp , plantation Poore purchased from William Weight of Virginia. Wit: John Bryan , Thomas Readney. (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-239)

1744 - May 2, Sarah Lide of Northampton County, widow, to James McManus of same, merchant, 9 slaves, horses, cattle, hogs, household goods, & furniture. Witnessed by Alex. (Alice?) Bryan , Thomas Jones . (Northampton Co., NC 1-157)

1744 - May 15, (?) Christopher Guin Jr merchant of NC to William Bryan of same, 400 acres for 50 pounds, north side of Tar River, part of 200 acres to John Green 20 Jun 1729. Wit: W Rhoads, Drew Smith. (Edgecombe Co., NC 5-262)

1755 - August 27, Arthur Bryant and Elizabeth his wife of Northampton Co., planter to Robert Peele of Northampton Co, carpenter 27 Aug 1755 125 pounds current money of Va. All my plantation whereon I lately lived with all the lands thereunto belonging, with 30 acres the Reverend John Boyd purchased of George Downing , joining other lands of the sd. Bryant and containing in the whole 400 acres which the sd Bryant purchased of his father James Bryant and the sd. James purchased of William Braswell and Mary his wife 20 June 1715 on the south side of Urah swamp Wit: John Duke, William Ruffin, Hance Hofler Reg. Northampton Co Feb. Ct 1756 J. Edwards C. Ct. (Northampton Co., NC Pg 245)

1755 - November 17, William Bryan of Edgecombe to Robert Wright of same, 321 acres for 30 pounds, south side of Town Creek. Witnessed by Solomon Nittle, John Dunn. (Edgecombe Co., NC 2-357)

1756 - February 15, William Bryant of Edgecombe to Thomas Henry of same, 210 acres for 30 pounds, south side of Tar River, bounded by terms in Joseph Lane's grant, and sold by said Lane to said Bryant 25 Mar 1749. Witnessed by Henry Wiatt, William Lane. (Edgecombe Co., NC 2-72)

1756 - April 4, Benjamin Bass of Northampton to Charles Bryant of same, 50 acres for 4 pounds, between Lewis Anderson and Elijah Bass . Witnessed by Benjamin Bryant , John Edwards Jr. (Northampton Co., NC 2-461)

1756 - April 19, John Perritt of Edgecombe to son Nicholas Perrit of same, 370 acre gift to son, north side of Tar River, upper side of Fishing Creek , adjacent McDaniel , and land previously owned by Bryant , patent to said Perritt 20 Nov 1739. Witnessed by John Horn, William Bryant , Ignatius Winsett . (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-17)

1756 - May 13, William Bryan of Edgecombe to Lewis Williams of same, 150 acres for 20 pounds, north side of Tar River, north side of Fishing Creek, part of patent to John Magee 6 May 1742. Witnessed by Samuel Ruffin, John Drew Jr, Joseph Stevenson. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-8)

1756 - October 12, Ignatius Winsett of Edgecombe to Thomas Barrow, Robert Killebrew, Moses Fitzpatrick, Joseph Stevenson, John Alsobrook, William Hobbie, William Bryant , John Wall, John Packer, Thomas Alsobrook, William ONails, John Norwood, Joseph Cotton Jr, Solemon Tharp, Daniel M____, Richard Hendrick, John Perritt Sr, John Hargrove, Henry Horn & Richard Sessums , 1 acre, west side of Fishing Creek, adjacent land said Winsett lives on, to erect a house of Worship, part of land said Winsett bought from Thomas Price, part of 609 acre patent to said Price 1 May 1752. Witnessed by Athur Croker, Sim Horn, Joseph Horn. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-109)

1757 - March 25, Capt Benjamin Lane and William Lane of Edgecombe to William Bryant of same, 100 acres for 125 pounds, north side of Tar River, adjacent John Grantham, land said Benjamin and William purchased of Robert Hardy factor for Hartley and Nicholson 23 Oct 1754. Witnessed by Joseph Lane Jr, Matthew Rushing. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-197)

1757 - April 28, William Lassiter of Edgecombe to James Lawrence , 160 acres for 5 pounds proc money, south side of Tar River , adjacent William Bryant , Rocky Branch. Wit: William Lane, Henry Wyatt. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-170)

1757 - May 14, William Belcher of Amelia Co., VA to Robert Belcher of Edgecombe, 400 acres for love he bears to his nephew & 20 shillings, north side of Tar River, land George Belcher bought from William Bryant , part of patent to John Green. Witnessed by William Irby, Edward Belcher. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-159)

1757 - May 18, Robert Belcher of Edgecombe to Joseph Montfort of same, 400 acres for 50 pounds, north side of Tar River, part of 2000 acre patent to John Green , then sold to William Bryant , then from Bryant to George Belcher, then to Robert Belcher through primogeniture. Witnessed by J Griffin. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-155)

1757 - August 25, John Massey of Greensville Co., VA, planter, to William Bryant of Brunswick Co., VA, 100 acres for 3 pounds 4 shillings 6 pence, adjacent Gilbert Weaver, Jeremiah Smith, John Williams, Robert Jones, and said Massey, Hezekiah Massey willed to son Wm Massey 15 Apr 1727, said Wm departed this life & said land went to said John as eldest son of said Hezekiah. Witnessed by Benjamin Ivie, George Pace, Christopher "Clerk". (Northampton Co., NC 2-403)

1757 - November 23, William Bryan of Edgecombe to John Drew of same, 320 acres for 25 pounds, south side of Fishing Creek, Witnessed by Samuel Ruffin, Thomas Wills, Mary Wills. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-319)

1757 - November 24, William Bryant and Elisabeth Bryant of Brunswick Co., VA to John Amis of Northampton, 100 acres for 61 pounds, adjacent Gilbert Weaver, John Massie, Robert Jones, John Williams, Edward Griffin. Witnessed by Thomas Amis, Thomas Dilliard, John Paul.(Northampton Co., NC 2-408)

1758 - January 17, Robert Webb and Elizabeth my wife of Edgecombe to James Moore, clerk, of same, 150 acres for 30 pounds, south side of Tar River , part of patent to Capt Thomas B r yant 28 Feb 1726. Witnessed by George Brown, Phillip Pettypool, William Haywood. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-249)

1758 - January 17, Robert Webb and Elizabeth my wife of Edgecombe to James Moore of same, 400 acres for 100 pounds proc money, south side of Tar River, adjacent Thomas Bryant and Francis Grice. Witnessed by George Brown, Philip Pettypool, William Haywood. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-251)

1758 - March 16, William Bryan and Arthur Bryan both of Edgecombe to James Smith of same, 190 acres for 20 pounds, on Cypress Swamp, land John Bryant bequeathed to his 2 sons. Witnessed by Drew Smith, John Young, Joshua Williams. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-309)

1758 - April 22, William Lane of Edgecombe to Thomas Fox Hall of same, 139 acres for 20 pounds, south side of Fishing Creek , adjacent Thomas Bryan, William Bryan , mouth of Bryant's Cove , Witnessed by James Speir, Benjamin Hart. (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-324)

1758 - May 7, John Edwards Jr of Northampton to Charles Bryant of same, 50 acres for 8 pounds, between land of John Bass and Edward Bass . Witnessed by Benjamin Bryant , Sarah Duffill. (Northampton Co., NC 2-462)

1758 - September 2, Joseph Bass of Granville to Charles Bryant of Northampton, 50 acres for 3 pounds, between Reuben Bass and James Bass, holding the young orchard where John Bass Jr, son of Edward Bass, did formerly live. (Northampton Co., NC 2-489)

1759 - February 19, Joshua Hendrick of Edgecombe to Ritiana my beloved daughter, all my lands and tenements cattle, hogs, etc. proviso my wife Ann shall have her maintenance out of the said estate. Wit: William Bryant, Drucilla Bryant , William Lane, George Baldwin . (Edgecombe Co., NC 6-362)

1760 - March 21, Richard (R) Bracewell, Senr . to Sampson Bracewell , for L50 lawful money of Great Britain a 119 acre plantation, more or less, on the south bank of Tar River adjoining James Braswell and said Richard Braswell . Of the above mentioned lands, 39 acres was part of a tract granted to Capt. Thomas Bryant on Feb 28, 1726 , and the other 87 acres was part of a tract granted to Francis Griss bearing date June 8, 1739. Wit: Benja. Hart , Mary Bracewell. (DB 00-101)

1760 - November 1, Simon West & Anne his wife of Northampton to Nathaniel Howell of same, 100 acres for 20 pounds, between Catawasky Swamp & Uraha Swamp, part of land from George Downing to Thomas Hollowell, adjacent John Screws, Israel Campbell. Witnessed by Bryan Daughtry, Arthur Bryant , Abm Baggott. (Northampton Co., NC 3-121(75)

1761 - February 28, James Lawrence of Edgecombe to William Ruffin of same, 160 acres for 17 pounds, south side of Tar River , adjacent William Bryant's corner, north to the Rocky Branch, Witnessed by Matt McKennie, John Lawrence , proved by oath of Samuel Bryant . Reg Mar 1761 (Edgecombe Co., NC 00-216 CTC)

Zoning for Row Houses

Until recently, row house construction was concentrated in a few large cities. Most zoning ordinances do not specifically provide for row house development. Customarily they contain a few vague references to "attached" dwelling units. However, examples of zoning provisions allowing true row houses may be found in the ordinances of several large cities. It is useful to examine these provisions since they are presumably based on long experience, and deal with the key elements of land use control: density, minimum lot area, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, minimum front and rear yards, varying yard requirements for end units abutting other structures or streets, setbacks, maximum number of units in a row, etc.

Ordinance Provisions

The following examples are extracted from the Baltimore (City and County), Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia zoning ordinances.

Baltimore County. The Baltimore County zoning ordinance (1955) defines a group house dwelling as:

A building that has not less than three nor more than six one-family housekeeping units erected in a row as a single building, on adjoining lots, each being separated from the adjoining unit or units by an approved masonry party wall or walls extending from the basement or cellar floor to the roof along the dividing lot line, and each such building being separated from any other building by space on all sides.

There is only one row house zone. It permits a density of about 20 units per net acre. The lot and yard requirements are summarized in Table 1. An additional provision requires that front and side (corner) building lines be a minimum of 55 feet from the center line of an abutting street.

Lot and Yard Requirements Relating to Group (Row) House Zone, Baltimore County (1955)

Lot Type
Interior Interior End Street Corner
Lot Area in Square Feet 2,070 3,795 4,945
Lot Width at Front Building Line in Feet 18 33 43
Lot Depth in Feet 115 115 115
Front Yard Depth in Feet 25 25 25
Side Yard Width in Feet 15 25
Rear Yard Depth in Feet 50 50 50
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units in Any Group Building 6 6 6

Source: Baltimore County Zoning Ordinance, 1955, p. 22.

Baltimore City. The proposed new zoning ordinance of the City of Baltimore (1962) has three zoning districts that provide for row housing. The provisions are summarized in Table 2. Differences in minimum lot areas for one, two and three dwelling units, as shown, are designed to accommodate permitted uses in more restricted residence districts — particularly semi-attached or duplex units. In the R-7 district, for example, the minimum row house (3 to 12 units) lot area is 5,500 square feet for three units, and 2,200 square feet for each additional unit. The proposed ordinance states that ". . .no residential use shall be established on a lot, other than a lot of record on the effective date of this Comprehensive Ordinance, which is less than 1,800 square feet in area." In effect, then, the minimum lot area for a row house in a newly platted area will be 1,800 square feet — and not the lesser areas shown for the R-8 and R-9 districts. It should also be noted that the proposed ordinance does not utilize minimum lot width requirements to control residential densities.

Summary of Row House District Provisions Proposed Zoning Ordinance, City of Baltimore (1962)

R-7 R-8 R-9
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units in Any One Row 6 9 12
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Per Acre 20 30 40
Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet Per Dwelling Unit —
For 1 Dwelling Unit 2,200 1,450 1,100
For 2 Dwelling Units 3,300 2,200 1,650
For 3 Dwelling Units 5,500 3,650 2,750
For Each Additional Dwelling Unit 2,200 1,450 1,100
Permitted Lot Coverage of Principal Building, Per Cent 40 40 50
Minimum Depth of Front Yard in Feet 25 25 25
Minimum Depth of Rear Yard in Feet 26 26 24
Minimum Depth of Side Yards in Feet (End Units Only) —
When Abutting Street 15 15 10
When Not Abutting Street 15 10 7

Source: City of Baltimore Proposed Zoning Ordinance, 1962.

Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh zoning ordinance (1958) contains an interesting proviso that the row dwelling unit itself must meet certain minimum standards in order to be included as a permitted use. The pertinent section reads as follows:

Dwelling, Row: A multiple-family dwelling divided by party walls or partition walls into a row of three or more distinct and non-communicating parts.

Row Dwelling, Class "A": Row dwelling containing not more than six dwelling units, not exceeding two rooms in depth with no two dwelling units served by the same stairway or by the same exterior door of the dwelling.

Row Dwelling, Class "B": Row dwelling other than Class "A."

The Class "A" row dwelling is permitted in the R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts. The Class "B" row dwelling is not a permitted use in any district at the present time. As shown in Table 3, minimum lot area and front and rear yard requirements for Class "A" row houses in the R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts are identical. Only side yard requirements vary.

Summary of Row House District Provisions, City of Pittsburgh Zoning Ordinance (1958)

R-3 R-4 R-5
Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet per Dwelling Unit 2,500 2,500 2,500
Minimum Depth of Front Yard in Feet 25 25 25
Minimum Depth of Rear Yard in Feet —
Abutting Street 25 25 25
Not Abutting Street 30 30 30
Minimum Depth of Side Yard in Feet —
Interior Lots —
Abutting Street 25 25 25
Not Abutting Street 10 10 15
Exterior Lots —
Abutting Street 25 25 25
Not Abutting Street 30 30 30

Source: Pittsburgh Zoning Ordinance, 1958.

Philadelphia. Philadelphia is a city with extensive row house development. In its recently adopted zoning ordinance (1962), a wide row house zone was included to accommodate row houses of 24-foot width. The text of the Philadelphia provisions follows (Figure 1 illustrates how the yard requirements are applied):

Sec. 14-207 "R-6" Residential District

(1) Use Regulations. The specific uses permitted in this district shall be the erection, construction, alteration, or use of buildings and/or land for:

(a) Attached single-family dwellings in groups of not more than ten provided, that each dwelling be not less than 24 feet in width, and, provided further, that end dwellings of each group may contain two families

(b) Private dwelling garage as an accessory use

(c) Accessory uses as defined

(d) Signs, to the extent permitted in "R-2" Residential Districts.

(a) Lot Width and Area. The minimum lot width shall be 24 feet, and the minimum lot area shall be 1,920 square feet provided, that the minimum lot width of the end dwelling of a group shall be 35 feet, and the minimum lot area of the end dwelling shall be 2,880 square feet.

(b) Occupied Area. Not more than 50 per cent of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings.

(c) Open Area. The open area shall be not less than 50 per cent of the lot area and shall consist of at least the minimum front and rear yards or open courts as shall be required to equal an area not less than the total open area required.

(d) Building Set-back Line. The building set-back line shall be 15 feet from all street lines.

(e) Front Yards. The minimum depth of a front yard shall be the depth required between the street line and the building set-back line, as herein specified.

(f) Side Yards.

(.1) Every dwelling which is the end unit of a permissible group shall have a side yard with a minimum average width of 12 feet provided, however, that no portion of said yard shall be less than eight feet in width.

(.1) The minimum depth of a rear yard shall be 20 feet.

(a) The maximum height of a building shall be 35 feet above the average ground level at the base of the building, but in no case over three stories.

Planned Unit Development and the Row House

The likelihood of monotony is far greater in row house construction than with any other type of residential land use. Consequently, flexibility is essential if good developmental practices are to be fostered. Flexibility can be achieved by use of planned unit development provisions in the zoning ordinance. Special planned unit text provisions provide a method of varying requirements pertaining to yards, lot sizes and arrangements, spatial relationships of structures, variety in dwelling types, and mixture of land uses — provided they are part of an overall plan. The ordinance usually requires that the gross density of the proposed development shall not exceed that permitted by the provisions of the district in which the project will be located. In some zoning ordinances the developer may be given a bonus in the form of a small increase in permitted density, if he provides additional community facilities, such as open space, within the project boundaries.

The concepts and principles of planned development provisions in the zoning ordinance have been ably treated in Density Zoning: Organic Zoning for Planned Residential Development, published by the Urban Land Institute as Technical Bulletin Number 42 in July, 1961.

Planned development provisions are usually applied to selected residential (as well as commercial and industrial) districts. The proposed City of Baltimore ordinance gives an example of this practice, wherein planned development provisions may be applied to those residential districts in which row housing is permitted. The planned unit section contains language of a general nature and does not spell out specific standards for a planned row house development, as such. Each site plan must be reviewed and considered on its own merits by the planning commission.

The new Philadelphia zoning ordinance takes another approach to the problem. It does not contain a planned unit provision, as such, but instead includes a number of districts in which group housing (row houses) may be combined with tall apartment buildings. The R-11, R-12, and R-13 district provisions, for example, allow many different building-site arrangements. Extensive use is made of floor-area ratios, varied spacing patterns, and light obstruction scales. These complex requirements call for close study of the ordinance text and accompanying descriptive figures and illustrations.