DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia, South Carolina: an Historical Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia, South Carolina: an Historical Overview City... wide Architectural Survey & · Historic Preservation Plan Columbia, SouthCarolina John M. Bryan& Associates PatriciaRojas and DanielBilderback, SurveyCoordinators, RecannaissanceIntensive and S uroeys, PhasesI andII StephenSkelton, RecannaissanceIntensive and Surveys, Phase I Jenny Dilworth, JenniferVaughan, Michael Fenton, IntensiveS urveys, PhaseII Thomas Downey,Research Inventory and KatherineRichardson, HeritagePreservation As.5ociates, HistoricalOverview and Neighborhood Histories •••• Funded bytrie State Historic PreservationOffice SouthCarotina Department of Arch� and HistDfyand the Oty 1993of Cok.Imbta, The�11w1 is the ll.ti;,ai:-i rJta�I'm &wv:ied in l)l!rt with f".eds8IIlle._,... furafrom Park SeMa,. � 11the ir.u. Indlll(ffilMl&ed bylhe SolihDl!pnnent Qwalirwi Hiloy. rJ�111d �- theainmre Ind opnoraoot do _,.,, raleO lhe..,... or policiesIlle rJ rJ � lhelnllnlr. rcr dolll 'hs ITl!!l1lion rJ nderwn111 or IJll"mll:l't:il produ:1a alllliUll obe,e, a or A1Xffl111111 idalioi• 11)' lhe � rJlhll .-..mr. Dedicatedto KirkmanFinlay whosevision as a memberof City C-ouncil, 1974-1978 andMayor of the City ofColumbia, 1978- 1986 hasdone much to shapethe cityscape •••• City-wide Architectural Survey & HistoricPreservation Plan Columbia, SouthCarolina SurveyArea: 423 scµae miles bounded by the cityJackson) limits(exducmgE.Im.wod�GranbyendFort Recoonais:sanceSuvey- c. 33.000 strucn.res lntMsilleSurvey- C. 3,000 structures PatriciaRojas and Daniel Bilderback, Suroey Coordinators, Reconnaissanceand lntensitie S urveys, Phases I andII StephenSkelton, Reconnaissanceand Imen.swe S unieys, PhaseI JennyDilworth, Jennifer Vaughan, Michael Fenton, IntensiveS uroeys, Phase11 ThomasDo wney, ResearchInventory and KatherineRichard.son, Heritage Preservation Associates, Historical0tm,;euJ and Neighborhood Hiscaries JohnM. Bryan,Project Drre.ctor September25, 1991 , March15, 1993 CJTYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER PREF ACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INfRODUCTION 2 1. NAME 5 2. SURVEYBOUNDARIES 5 3. NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SURVEYED 5 4. SQUARE MILES SURVEYED 5 5. SURVEYORS 5 6. DATES OF SURVEY 5 7. SURVEY OBJECTIVES 6 8. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 6 9. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 26 10. FOOTNOTES & BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 11. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY LISTED fN THE 10 & NATIONAL REGISTER APPENDIX B 12. NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATIONS 11 & APPENDIX A 13. DATA GAPS 12 14. COMPILED INVENTORY LISTS 10 & APPENDIX C 15. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 APPENDICES A. NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATIONS: LIST AND MAP B. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER C. COMPILED INVENTORY LIST OF INTENSIVE SURVEYED PROPERTIES D. LARGE MAPS 1. BOUNDARIES OF SURVEY AREAS 2. EXISTING NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS 3. EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS E. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIONAL REGISTER AND LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION F. CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION MAPS KELSEY GUILD MAP (1905) PAGE 3 RECONNAISANCE MAP EXAMPLE PAGE 8 EXAMPLE OF -.:OLOR CODED RECONNAISANCE MAP PAGE 9 PROPOSED NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS PAGE 11 RECOMMENDED LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS PAGE 17 EXISTING NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS APPENDIX D EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPENDIX D BOUNDARIES OF SUR VEY AREAS APPENDIX D Note \J the Reader This final version of the report incorporates changes made by the City of Columbia and SCDAH. It is based on the May 1993 report submitted by Dr. John Bryan. The final report will be on file at the City Planning Offices. SCDAH, and major public libraries in Richland County. Large maps, appendices, slides, and survey cards will be on file at City & SCDAH offices. 1 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In September, 1991, the City of Columbia initiated a two year project to extend the benefits of architectural conservation to eligible buildings and neighborhoods throughout the City. Administered by the Columbia Planning Department, this city-wide historic preservation plan is funded in part by a grant from the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) and consists of three parts: (1) a survey and inventory of historic properties throughout the City, (2) new historical research focused primarily upon areas identified by the survey as having potential for conservation, and (3) an analysis of Landmark Commission activities in Columbia and elsewhere as a basis for specific recommendations. The Columbia city-wide preservation plan has been a large and collaborative undertaking. The northern half of the City was surveyed 1991-1992; the area South of Taylor Street was surveyed 1992-1993. During the first year the reconnaissance and intensive surveys, including mapping and photography, were done by Stephen Skelton and Patricia Rojas; they were assisted by Dan Bilderback, who surveyed, mapped and photographed the Columbia College and Colonial Drive neighborhoods. Mr. Skelton joined the staffof the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1992, and Mr. Bilderback and Mrs. Rojas managed the survey during the second year; they were assisted by Jenny Dilworth, Jennifer Vaughan and Michael Fenton. Research and writing for the historical overview of the City and the essays concerning the individual neighborhoods were done by Katherine Richardson of Heritage Preservation Associates. Lee Miller prepared the maps. John M. Bryan, Professor, U.S.C., as a consultant to the City, directed and is responsible for the work and for recommendations contained in the action plan. The city-wide architectural survey and preservation plan have been refined and molded by discussions with people who have participated in preservation since mid-century, and those who may hear echoes of our conversations in the text include Constance Beaumont, Chief Council, National Trust for Historic Preservation, James Brennan, Chainnan, Landmarks Commission, Phelps Bultman and William Fulmer, Architects, John Graham, Architect, General Services Administration, Nathaniel Griffin, Director of Planning, City of Columbia, John Charles Herin, who has restored seven houses, Nathaniel Land, Planning Department, William T. Marsh, fonner Urban Rehabilitation officer, City of Columbia, Robert McCJarn, Director, Columbia Development Corporation, Jeanne Patterson, Zoning Department, City of Columbia, Mabel Payne, fonner Code Enforcement, City of Columbia, Raymond Sigmon, Director, Historic Columbia Foundation, and members of the Columbia Landmarks Commission and Columbia City Council. In assembling and presenting the survey data we have benefited from consultations with the SHPO staffincluding Mary Parramore, Nancy Meriwether, Thomas Shaw, Stephen Skelton, Andrew Chandler and Thomas Sims. 2 Introduction Engraved on the facade of the National Archives is the motto: "The Past is Prologue - Study the Past". Records in the Archives help each generation re-define history from its unique perspective - an ever­ changing vantage point in time - and as each generation looks back upon a different past, it faces its future with a different prologue or perspective. We know our own perspective affects what we see and Wlderstand. Put another way, our view of history influences our vision of the future. Although we know that the past plays a formative influence in our lives, we rarely examine the past for guidance. Instead, at the nation.al, communal and personal level we usually allow our futures to bumble on-stage, more or Jess disheveled and pushed along by happenstance and assumption. Despite this habitual disregard forthe potential lessons of the past, it is clear that many of the things around us that we admire most resulted from historically conscious and careful planning. The legislators who stipulated (1786) that Colwnbia would have wide tree-lined streets and an orderly grid pattern in its historic core referred to Roman city planning. Four years later, George Washington and the Commissioners planning the new District of Columbia turnedto L'Enfant, a Frenchman schooled in European 17th and 18th century traditions of urban planning. Both capitals have been well served by their planned cityscapes, but in both cases growth and change beyond anything envisioned by their founders has required renewed planning from time to time. For a century Columbia's historic core accommodated all significant growth. Not witil the 1890s did an increasing population, cheap land, trolley cars and then automobiles combine to promote suburban developments. At the tum of the century new neighborhoods began to spring up in a concentrated burst like mushrooms after a summer rain: Elmwood (c. 1891), Eau Claire (c. 1908), Earlewood (c. 1910) and North Marion Street {which should be called Bellevue, c. 1902) - all northof the historic core, taking advantage of the extension of trolley service ( 1895) on Elmwood Avenue and out North Main Street; to the south and eastappeared Waverly (c. 1890), Read Street (1891), Hollywood (c. 1924), Rose Hill (c. 1919), Wales Garden (c. 1914) and Old Shandon (c. 1890). Each older neighborhood has its own history, but they share the fact that each was planned. Unlike the historic core, the new subdivisions were laid out by private companies and individuals. The things which detennine the character of these neighborhoods - the street patterns, the shape and price of the lots, the placement of the houses - these were all consciously planned, but because these areas were privately developed, their outer margins were (and are) irregular, following historic boundaries of preexisting parcels of land. Columbia's early asymmetrical subdivisionssplayed out around the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unali'yi Lodge
    Unali’Yi Lodge 236 Table of Contents Letter for Our Lodge Chief ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Letter from the Editor ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Local Parks and Camping ...................................................................................................................................... 9 James Island County Park ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Palmetto Island County Park ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Wannamaker County Park ............................................................................................................................................. 13 South Carolina State Parks ................................................................................................................................. 14 Aiken State Park ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Andrew Jackson State Park ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monck's Corner, Berkeley County, South Carolina
    Monck's Corner, Berkeley County, South Carolina by Maxwell Clayton Orvin, 1951 In Memoriam John Wesley Orvin, first Mayor of Moncks Corner, S.C., b. March 13, 1854, d. December 17, 1916.He was the son of John Riley Orvin, a Confederate States Soldier in Co. E., Fifth S.C. Cavalry and Salena Louise Huffman, South Carolina. Transcribed by D. Whitesell for South Carolina Genealogy Trails PREFACE The text of this little book is based on matter compiled for a general history of Berkeley County, and is presented in advance of that unfinished undertaking at the request of several persons interested in the early history of the county seat and its predecessor. Recorded in this volume are facts gleaned from newspaper articles, official documents, and hitherto unpublished data vouched for by persons of undoubted veracity. Newspapers might well be termed the backbone of history, but unfortunately few issues of newspapers published in Berkeley County between 1882 and 1936 can now be found, and there was a dearth of persons interested in ''sending pieces" to the daily papers outside the county. Thus much valuable information about the county at large and the county seat has been lost. A complete file of The Berkeley Democrat since 1936 has been preserved by Editor Herbert Hucks, for which he will undoubtedly receive the blessings of the historically minded. Pursuing the self-imposed task of compiling material for a history of the county, and for this volume, I contacted many people, both by letter and in person, and I sincerely appreciate the encouragement and help given me by practically every one consulted.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Historical Magazine, 1961, Volume 56, Issue No. 2
    MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE VOL. 56, No. 2 JUNE, 1961 CONTENTS PAGE Sir Edmund Plowden's Advice to Cecilius Calvert Edited by Edward C. Carter, II 117 The James J. Archer Letters. Part I Edited by C. ^. Porter Hopkins 125 A British Officers' Revolutionary War Journal, 1776-1778 Edited by S. Sydney Bradford 150 Religious Influences on the Manumission of Slaves Kenneth L. Carroll 176 Sidelights 198 A Virginian and His Baltimore Diary: Part IV Edited by Douglas H. Gordon Reviews of Recent Books 204 Walsh, Charleston's Sons of Liberty: A Study of the Artisans, 1763- 1789, by Richard B. Morris Manakee, Maryland in the Civil War, by Theodore M. Whitfield Hawkins, Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University, 1874- 1889, by George H. Callcott Tonkin, My Partner, the River: The White Pine Story on the Susquehanna, by Dorothy M. Brown Hale, Pelts and Palisades: The Story of Fur and the Rivalry for Pelts in Early America, by R. V. Truitt Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County, Maryland, by Rev. Thomas A. Whelan Rightmyer, Parishes of the Diocese of Maryland, by George B. Scriven Altick, The Scholar Adventurers, by Ellen Hart Smith Levin, The Szolds of Lombard Street: A Baltimore Family, 1859- 1909, by Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. Hall, Edward Randolph and the American Colonies, 1676-1703, by Verne E. Chatelain Gipson, The British Isles and the American Colonies: The Southern Plantations, 1748-1754, by Paul R. Locher Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society, by S. Sydney Bradford Doane, Searching for Your Ancestors: The How and Why of Genealogy, by Gust Skordas Notes and Queries 224 Contributors 228 Annual Subscription to the Magazine, $4.00.
    [Show full text]
  • TURN LEFT at HEYWARD STREET- Proceed East and Southeast on Heyward Street Five Blocks to King Street
    A GUIDE TO COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA'S CAPITAL CITY By JANE KEALHOFER SIMONS Revised and Edited By THE AUTHOR and MARGARET BABCOCK MERIWETHER Published by COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE as a continuation of The Historical Marker-Guide Book Program of THE COLUMBIA SESQUICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF 1936 THE R. L. BRYAN COMPANY, PRINTERS COLUMBIA, S. C. 1945 Copyrighted I 939 by The Columbia Sesquicentennial Commission Copyrighted 1943, 1945 by Columbia Chamber of Commerce Third Edition CAROLINA ENGRAVING COMPANY, ENGRAVERS COLUMBIA, S. C. Table of Contents PAGE Illustrations and Maps .................................._ . 6 Foreword . 7 Acknowledgment . 8 The Story of Columbia . 11 The State House and Grounds . 15 .t\. Wal king Tour . 2 3 Fifteen Miles of Columbia in an Hoar-A Scenic and Historic Route 3 0 Scenic Route-Extra Loop No. 1 . .. 64 Scenic Route-Extra Loop No. 2 . ~ . 68 Scenic Route-Extra Loop No. 3 . 71 Scenic Route-Extra Loop No. 4 . 7 4 Lake Murray Loop •. 7 7 Across the Congaree . 82 Historical Markers in Lower Richland County ................ 85 Numerical Index to Historical Markers . 88 Alphabetical Index to Historical Markers . 89 Index to Other Inscriptions Quoted . 90 Illustrations and Maps PAGE The City Flag of Columbia 9 The State House Dome ......................•...•.......... 10 Palmetto Monument ...................................... 19 Town Theatre .......................................... 23 Map of University of South Carolina Campus ................. 24 Old Faculty Residence, University of South Carolina ........... 27 Trinity Episcopal Church ................................ 31 World War Memorial ............· ........................ 32 The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina . 33 Central Building of Former Columbia Theological Seminary ...... 45 Mills Building, South Carolina State Hospital ......... ·........ 48 Governor's Mansion .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Assistance Panel
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL CO L UMB ia CO nnecti V it Y : Lin K in G Main ST R eet an D the Vista CO L UMB ia , SC 09.26.11 - 09.27.11 Columbia Connectivity ULI – THE URBAN LAND INS titut E The Urban Land Institute (ULI) was established in 1936 and has over 30,000 members from more than 95 countries. It is one of America’s most respected sources of information and knowledge on urban planning, growth and development. ULI is a nonprofit research and education organization. Its mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. To encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences, ULI membership represents the entire spectrum of land use and real estate development disciplines, working in private enterprise and public service. Among its members there are developers, builders, property owners, investors, architects, planners, public officials, brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics, students and librarians. ULI SO ut H CARO li NA In local communities, ULI District Councils bring together a variety of stakeholders to find solutions and build consensus around land use and development challenges. The ULI South Carolina District Council was formed in 2005 to encourage dialogue on land use and planning throughout this state and with each of the three main regions (Upstate, Midlands, Coastal), and to provide tools and resources, leadership development, and a forum through which the state can become better connected. The District Council is led by an Executive Committee with statewide and regional representation, as well as steering committees within each region that focus on the development of membership, sponsorship, programs and Young Leader initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Broad River Development from Henderson Island to Hampton Island
    History of the Broad River Development From Henderson Island to Hampton Island Prepared For: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 220 Operation Way Cayce, South Carolina 29033-3701 Prepared By: 521 Clemson Road Columbia, South Carolina 29229 December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY 3 Early Settlement 3 The Revolutionary War 4 Civil War 5 Reconstruction – 20th Century 7 HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT 9 HISTORIC SITES 14 Parr Shoals 14 Fairfield Pumped Storage 19 Lyles Ford 22 REFERENCES 23 INTRODUCTION The existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1894) expires on June 30, 2020. As a result, cultural resources investigations were conducted to assist the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) in complying with the FERC relicensing process for the Parr Hydroelectric Project. The Parr Hydroelectric Project is located in central South Carolina along the Broad River in eastern Newberry County and western Fairfield County. The project includes both the Parr Shoals Development and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Development. The total project area encompasses 4,400 acres on the Broad River and its tributaries between Henderson Island to the north and Hampton Island to the south, and Monticello Reservoir. As part of the FERC relicensing process, a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Parr Hydroelectric Project was completed in 2013 and 2014. Additional Phase II archaeological investigations were conducted in 2016 at two archaeological sites, 38NE8 and 38NE10. As a result of these investigations, four resources were identified as being eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): the Parr Shoals Development, the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility, Lyles Ford; and archaeological site 38NE8.
    [Show full text]
  • General AP Hill at Gettysburg
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Park Seminar General A.P. Hill at Gettysburg: A Study of Character and Command Matt Atkinson If not A. P. Hill, then who? May 2, 1863, Orange Plank Road, Chancellorsville, Virginia – In the darkness of the Wilderness, victory or defeat hung in the balance. The redoubtable man himself, Stonewall Jackson, had ridden out in front of his most advanced infantry line to reconnoiter the Federal position and was now returning with his staff. Nervous North Carolinians started to fire at the noises of the approaching horses. Voices cry out from the darkness, “Cease firing, you are firing into your own men!” “Who gave that order?” a muffled voice in the distance is heard to say. “It’s a lie! Pour it into them, boys!” Like chain lightning, a sudden volley of musketry flashes through the woods and the aftermath reveals Jackson struck by three bullets.1 Caught in the tempest also is one of Jackson’s division commanders, A. P. Hill. The two men had feuded for months but all that was forgotten as Hill rode to see about his commander’s welfare. “I have been trying to make the men cease firing,” said Hill as he dismounted. “Is the wound painful?” “Very painful, my arm is broken,” replied Jackson. Hill delicately removed Jackson’s gauntlets and then unhooked his sabre and sword belt. Hill then sat down on the ground and cradled Jackson’s head in his lap as he and an aide cut through the commander’s clothing to examine the wounds.
    [Show full text]
  • University of South Carolina
    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2017 NEW ISSUE RATING: Moody’s: “Aa3” BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY (See “Rating” herein) In the opinion of McNair Law Firm, P.A., Bond Counsel, assuming continuing compliance by the University with certain covenants, interest on the Series 2017A Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing statutes, regulations and judicial decisions. Interest on the Series 2017A Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals or corporations. However, interest on the Series 2017A Bonds is included in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax for corporations. See “FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION AND OTHER TAX MATTERS” for a brief description of certain other federal income tax consequences to certain recipients of interest on the Series 2017A Bonds. The Series 2017A Bonds and the interest thereon will also be exempt from all State, county, municipal and school district and other taxes or assessments imposed within the State of South Carolina, except estate, transfer and certain franchise taxes. See “FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION AND OTHER TAX MATTERS.” $40,000,000* UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA ATHLETIC FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2017A Dated: March 1, 2017 Due: May 1, As Shown On Inside Cover The $40,000,000* Athletic Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (the “Series 2017A Bonds”), of the University of South Carolina (the “University”) are being issued (i) to acquire, construct and equip the Football Operations Facility (as defined herein), and (ii) to pay the costs of issuance of the Series 2017A Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL REGISTER of HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM Lit
    H Form No. 10-300 REV. (9/77) 7. America at worM>ni/i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM lit SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS | NAME HISTORIC New Brookland Historic District AND/OR COMMON Old West Columbia LOCATION STREET & NUMBER _NOTFOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT West Columbia __ VICINITY OF # 2 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE South Carolina 045 Lexinaton 063 " CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE ^.DISTRICT —PUBLIC —KoCCUPIED _AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) A_PR|VATE —UNOCCUPIED —X.COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL •^-PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Multiple ownership STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF (LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEos.ETc. Register of Mesne Conveyance Office STREET & NUMBER Lexington County Administration Building CITY, TOWN STATE Lexington South Carolina I REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Inventory of Historic Places in South Carolina DATE 1973 (update) —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS South Carolina Department of Archivas^and History__________ CITY, TOWN STATE Columbia South Carolina DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED _UNALTERED X.ORIGINAL SITE _X_GOOD _RUINS X-ALTERED _MOVED DATE. _X_FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The New Brookland Historic District is the historical nucleus of the City of West Columbia. It emerged in 1894 as a planned residential community for operatives of the Columbia Duck Mill, one of the first hydroelectrically powered textile mills in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    3. Existing Conditions and WaterEnvironmental Quality Consequences 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 CHANGES TO THIS CHAPTER SINCE THE DEIS Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the acreage of water resources in the project area have been updated to reflect the design changes resulting in the Refined Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA); impacts resulting from the Refined RPA; and reflect the impacts to impervious and pervious surface areas of the Refined RPA. 3.6.2 HOW IS WATER QUALITY ASSESSED? The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires that each state set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. These standards are typically based on criteria recommended by the US Environmental In South Carolina, the SCDHEC Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA also regulates the discharge of is responsible for monitoring pollutants into our state’s waters. In South Carolina, the USEPA has and regulating water quality delegated the responsibility of monitoring and regulating water quality for the USEPA. to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Many factors can affect water quality, including pesticides, heavy metals, livestock waste, litter, oils and grease, and other chemicals. Water from rain and runoff collect these pollutants and carry them into creeks and rivers. Natural resources and processes can also affect water quality. The amount of tree cover over streams and rivers can affect the temperature of the water, thereby affecting the habitat for other plants, fish, and insects. Additionally, sediment from erosion can wash downstream and impact the depth and important substrate within the stream. Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Water Quality FEIS May 2019 Page 3-237 3.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Have I Seen Such a Charge”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Have I Seen Such a Charge” Pender’s Light Division at Gettysburg, July 1 D. Scott Hartwig It was July 1 at Gettysburg and the battle west of town had been raging furiously since 1:30 p.m. By dint of only the hardest fighting troops of Major General Henry Heth’s and Major General Robert E. Rodes’s divisions had driven elements of the Union 1st Corps from their positions along McPherson’s Ridge, back to Seminary Ridge. Here, the bloodied Union regiments and batteries hastily organized a defense to meet the storm they all knew would soon break upon them. This was the last possible line of defense beyond the town and the high ground south of it. It had to be held as long as possible. To break this last line of Union resistance, Confederate Third Corps commander, Lieutenant General Ambrose P. Hill, committed his last reserve, the division of Major General Dorsey Pender. They were the famed Light Division of the Army of Northern Virginia, boasting a battle record from the Seven Days battles to Chancellorsville unsurpassed by any other division in the army. Arguably, it may have been the best division in Lee’s army. Certainly no organization of the army could claim more combat experience. Now, Hill would call upon his old division once more to make a desperate assault to secure victory. In many ways their charge upon Seminary Ridge would be symbolic of why the Army of Northern Virginia had enjoyed an unbroken string of victories through 1862 and 1863, and why they would meet defeat at Gettysburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 8-1972 Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Ryan, Thomas M., "Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina" (1972). Research Manuscript Series. 33. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Keywords Indians of North America, Richland County, Lexington County, Columbia Zoological Park, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE COLUMBIA ZOOLOGICAL PARK, RICHLAND AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA by Thomas M. Ryan Research Manuscript Series, No. 37 Prepared by the INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROP0LOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AUGUST 1972 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. •..••• 1 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION • 3 NATURAL SETTING • 6 HISTORIC SITES. .. ... ..... 14 SALUDA CANAL (38RD59) •• ........ 14 History of the Saluda Canal • 14 Excavations •••••• 18 SALUDA RIVER BRIDGE (38RD58) .. 25 SALUDA FACTORY • 28 PREHISTORIC SITES •• 32 SABLE SITE (38RD60) •• 34 Sable Site Ceramics • 37 Chronological Position.
    [Show full text]