Snee Farm 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Historic Structures Report 

January 2016 

Prepared by: 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

330 Pfingsten Road 

Northbrook, Illinois 60062 

Prepared for: 

National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

100 Alabama Street SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 
Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science Division 

Southeast Region 

National Park Service 

100 Alabama Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

(404) 507-5787 

About the front cover: The house at Snee Farm, Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site, September 17, 2014. 

This manuscript has been authored by Wiss, Janney, Elstner 

Associates, Inc., under Contract Number P09PC60883 with the 

National Park Service. The United States Government retains 

and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, 

acknowledges that the United States Government retains a 

non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to 

publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or 

allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
SneeFarm 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 

Historic Structures Report 

Approved: 

Superintendent 

Nov rf ~B€((_ ZD I e: 

Date 

Chief, Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Scie 

~ Deputy Regional Dire 

Recommended: 1;-- 

Date 

National Park Service v

Contents

Project Team ............................................................................................................................................................. vii 

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................. viii 

Management Summary 

Historical Data ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Treatment and Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Administrative Data ................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Locational Data ................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Related Studies .................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Cultural Resources Data ...................................................................................................................................... 4 

Project Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4 

Developmental History 

Historical Background ................................................................................................................................................. 9 

Prehistory ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Early Settlement (1670–1754) ........................................................................................................................... 11 

History of Snee Farm (1754–2015) ........................................................................................................................... 14 

Colonel Charles Pinckney Ownership (1754–1782) .......................................................................................... 14 

Charles Pinckney III Ownership (1782–1817) ..................................................................................................... 16 

Francis G. Deliesseline Ownership (1817–1828) ............................................................................................... 20 

William Mathews Ownership (1828–1853) ....................................................................................................... 20 

William McCants and Lockwood Allison McCants Ownership (1853–1900) .................................................... 23 

Thomas J. Hamlin and Osgood Darby Hamlin Ownership (1900–1936) ......................................................... 26 

Thomas Ewing and Thomas Stone Ownership (1936–1968) ............................................................................ 28 

Guilds and Joyce Hollowell Ownership (1968–1986) ....................................................................................... 30 

C and G Investments (1986–1988) ...................................................................................................................... 30 

Friends of Historic Snee Farm (1988–1990) ...................................................................................................... 31 

National Park Service Administration (1990 to present) ................................................................................. 32 

Snee Farm Chronology ............................................................................................................................................. 46 

Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

Site ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49 

House ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52 

Exterior Description ........................................................................................................................................... 52 

Exterior Condition Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 62 

Interior Description ........................................................................................................................................... 67 

Interior Condition Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 85 

Structural System ............................................................................................................................................... 90 

Mechanical Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 92 

Barn ........................................................................................................................................................................... 95 

Exterior Description ........................................................................................................................................... 95 

Exterior Condition Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 101 

Interior Description ......................................................................................................................................... 103 

Interior Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 108 

Structural System ............................................................................................................................................... 110 

Corn Crib ................................................................................................................................................................. 112 

Exterior Description ......................................................................................................................................... 112 

Interior Description ......................................................................................................................................... 116 

Structural System ............................................................................................................................................. 116 

Condition Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 117 
vi Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Significance and Integrity 

Evaluation of Significance ...................................................................................................................................... 121 

Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 121 

National Register Significance Evaluation....................................................................................................... 122 

Period of Significance ...................................................................................................................................... 123 

Character-Defining Features .................................................................................................................................. 124 

Summary Table of Features ............................................................................................................................. 125 

Assessment of Integrity .......................................................................................................................................... 127 

Comparative Photography ..................................................................................................................................... 129 

Treatment and Use 

Requirements for Treatment and Use ................................................................................................................... 153 

Laws, Regulations, and Functional Requirements ......................................................................................... 153 

Alternatives for Treatment and Use ...................................................................................................................... 154 

Ultimate Treatment and Use .................................................................................................................................. 155 

Guidelines for Treatment ................................................................................................................................ 155 

Recommendations – House ............................................................................................................................. 157 

Recommendations – Barn ................................................................................................................................ 160 

Recommendations – Corn Crib ........................................................................................................................ 161 

Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................................................................ 162 

Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................... 162 

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................ 165 

Appendices 

Appendix A: HABS drawings for house, 1990 

Appendix B: Sketch drawings for barn and corn crib 

Appendix C: Condition drawings 
National Park Service vii

Project Team 

National Park Service – Southeast Regional Office

Laurie Chestnut, Contracting Officer 

Ali Miri, Historical Architect and Contracting Officer’s Representative 

National Park Service – Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Tim Stone, Superintendent 

Scott Mapes, Chief of Facilities 

Michelle Haas, Supervisory Park Ranger 

Michael Allen, Community Partnership Specialist 

Sandy Pusey, Administrative Officer 

Dawn Davis, Chief of Education and Interpretation 

Kate Everitt, Curator 

John Wood, Recreation Fee Program Manager, NPS Southeast Regional Office 

(formerly NPS Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Exhibit Specialist) 

Megan Valentine, Superintendent’s Secretary 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

Deborah Slaton, Project Manager/Senior Historian 

Kenneth Itle, Historical Architect 

Mike Ford, Historical Architect 

Tim Crowe, Structural Engineer 

Tim Penich, Historical Architect/Historian 

Liz Sargent, Historical Landscape Architect/Historian 
viii Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Foreword 

I am pleased to make available this historic structure report for Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

(NHS), one of over 400 units of the National Park System that help to tell the important stories and 

protect our nation’s most important historical and natural areas. This report provides comprehensive 

documentation of the plantation structures that were owned by one of the framers and a signatory of 

the Constitution, where the story of the early development of the country can be told, and where today 

one can find a reflective landscape that helps preserve the last undeveloped area of the original Snee 

Farm. 

Many individuals and institutions contributed to the successful completion of this work. The staff of 

Charles Pinckney NHS and Fort Sumter National Monument contributed significant information 

regarding the historic structures of Charles Pinckney NHS, but especially significant contributions were 

made by Michelle Haas, Richard Dorrance, and John Wood, former employee at Charles Pinckney NHS 

and now located at the Southeast Regional Office. I want to acknowledge the project leadership of Ali 

Miri from the Southeast Regional Cultural Resource, Partnership and Science Division and to the 

dedicated work of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., especially the principal coordinator, 

Ms. Deborah Slaton. Her dedication, perseverance, and subject expertise are embedded in this complete 

and thorough historic structure report. 

Tim Stone, Superintendent 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 

November 2015 
National Park Service 1

Management Summary 

At the request of the National Park Service (NPS), 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) has 

developed this Historic Structures Report (HSR) 

for the main house, barn, corn crib, and 

caretaker’s cottage at Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site at Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. 

Figure 1 is a map of South Carolina showing the 

location of the Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site. Figure 2 is a map of the national historic site. 

Figure 3 is an aerial image showing the location of 

the house, barn, corn crib, and caretaker’s cottage 

within the national historic site. 

On September 8, 1988, Congress enacted Public 

Law 100-421, authorizing the establishment of 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, which 

commemorates the life and contributions of 

Charles Pinckney III (1757–1824) to American 

politics, law, and government. The legislation 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to: 

1) provide the interpretation of the life of 

Charles Pinckney; 2) preserve and interpret 

Snee Farm, home of Charles Pinckney; and 3) 

present the history of the United States as a 

young Nation.1

The House of Representatives Report 100-698 

elaborated on the new park unit’s purpose by 

calling for the interpretation of the history of all 

the site’s inhabitants, slave as well as free.2

 

1. Public Law 100-421, September 8, 1988, 

102 Stat. 1581‒1582. 

2. National Park Service, “Statement for 

Management, Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site” (1990), 5‒6. 

3. Wright Caughman, Historic Preservation 

Assistant, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History, National Register of 

Historic Places nomination for Snee Farm, 

Snee Farm was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places and designated a National Historic 

Landmark in 1973.3 The nomination 

documentation focuses on the main house and 

does not mention the barn or other structures, and 

only briefly mentions the plantation setting. 

Although the date of the house was not accurately 

known at the time the National Register 

nomination was prepared, the findings of this 

study indicate that the main house at Snee Farm is 

significant under National Register Criterion C, as 

an example of a local vernacular house type dating 

to circa 1830, and retains sufficient integrity to 

convey its historic significance. The corn crib and 

barn, although not associated with the original 

construction of the house, also convey the historic 

agricultural use of the property. As noted above, 

the park’s enabling legislation directs the National 

Park Service to interpret the life of Charles 

Pinckney as well as to preserve and interpret Snee 

Farm. Therefore, treatment and use of the main 

house, barn, and corn crib should be considered 

within the context of the legal mandates and policy 

directives established by National Park Service 

Cultural Resources Management Guideline 

(Director’s Order 28) for the protection of cultural 

resources. 

July 21, 1972; entered into the National 

Register of Historic Places, April 13, 1973. See 

also Charles W. Snell, Survey Historian, Historic 

Sites Survey, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, National Park Service, National 

Historic Landmark nomination for Snee Farm 

(Charles Pinckney Farm), January 15, 1973; 

Snee Farm was designated a National Historic 

Landmark, November 7, 1973. 
Management Summary 

2 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Historical Data 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site protects 

the 28-acre core of Pinckney’s 715-acre plantation 

known as Snee Farm. The working plantation also 

served as a country retreat for Pinckney and his 

family, who otherwise lived in the city of 

Charleston. Snee Farm was purchased by Col. 

Charles Pinckney II in 1754. During British 

occupation of Charleston between 1780 and 1782, 

the farm was appropriated as an internment camp 

for American officers captured in the course of the 

Revolutionary War. Gen. William Moultrie of the 

2nd South Carolina Regiment and Col. Charles 

Cotesworth Pinckney (Col. Charles Pinckney II’s 

cousin) were paroled at Snee Farm during this 

period. 

Charles Pinckney III inherited the plantation upon 

his father’s death in 1782. At the age of twentynine, Pinckney was appointed one of the South 

Carolina delegates to the Confederation Congress 

in Philadelphia in 1784. He was also a delegate to 

the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 

1787. Pinckney later served as a United States 

Senator and Representative, served four terms as 

Governor of South Carolina, and was appointed 

Minister to Spain (1801–1805) by Thomas 

Jefferson. In 1791, during his second term as 

Governor, Pinckney invited President George 

Washington to visit Snee Farm while touring the 

Charleston area. 

By the 1790s, the demands of Charles Pinckney’s 

political career began to interfere with the 

management of his extensive land holdings. In 

1795, he is known to have leased the Snee Farm 

property to Samuel Cripps for one year. By the 

time he returned from his appointment as minister 

to Spain in January 1806, Pinckney was 

experiencing major financial difficulties. He 

ultimately placed Snee Farm in trust in 1816, and 

in 1817, his trustees sold the farm to help settle 

Pinckney’s debts. Pinckney retired from public life 

in 1821 and died in 1824 at his house on Meeting 

Street in Charleston. 

In 1817, Snee Farm was sold to Francis G. 

Deliesseline for $4,380. By the time of the sale, 

Deliesseline had been working for Pinckney as the 

overseer of the plantation for seven years. In 1828, 

the property was sold to William Mathews, a 

wealthy Charleston merchant, for $3,150. Given 

the decrease in the property’s value during 

Deliesseline’s ownership, it is assumed that little 

new construction occurred, that the farm had been 

allowed to decline, and that the Pinckney-era 

buildings were likely in poor condition. Circa 

1830, soon after acquiring Snee Farm, Mathews 

appears to have constructed a new home on the 

property, on top of the foundation of the earlier 

dwelling. Mathews died in 1848, leaving Snee 

Farm to his daughter Susan and her husband 

Benjamin Hunt. 

Snee Farm remained an active plantation until the 

Civil War. Emancipation of the slave work force, 

postbellum declines in rice production, and other 

disruptions in the economy resulting from the 

Civil War led local farmers to transition to other 

agricultural pursuits such as truck farming, 

livestock raising, and cotton cultivation. 

In 1900, Thomas J. Hamlin purchased Snee Farm. 

The existing corn crib on the property was built 

circa 1910 by Hamlin. A major hurricane struck 

the area in late August 1911. Following the storm, 

the wood shingle roof of the house was covered 

with galvanized sheet metal, as was the roof of the 

corn crib. Based on the available historic 

photographs, other changes implemented by 

Hamlin likely included screening-in the south 

porch and reconfiguring the north porch of the 

main house to include an enclosed lean-to room at 

the northwest corner. 

Thomas Ewing bought Snee Farm in 1936, three 

years after his daughter, Alexandra Ewing Stone, 

and son-in-law, Thomas Stone, bought Boone 

Hall, on the north side of Long Point Road. In 

1936, the Ewings enlarged the Snee Farm house, 

adding identical flanking wings at the northeast 

and northwest corners and a porch between, while 

also making a series of interior changes. The 

Ewings engaged architects William Harmon Beers, 

FAIA, and Frank Cheney Farley of New York to 

design the addition. 
Management Summary 

National Park Service 3

As part of the work, a new cement asbestos shingle 

roof was installed on the original house and wings. 

Inside, a china cabinet was installed in the 

northwest room that blocked the west side 

passage, and the east side passage was similarly 

closed up and divided into two closets. On the 

second floor, the northwest room was subdivided 

into two new bathrooms. 

Architects Beers and Farley also designed a small 

caretaker’s cottage that was built circa 1936 near 

the Long Point Road entrance. In 1943, the Stones 

inherited Snee Farm from the Ewings, and 

subsequently moved to the property. At around 

this time, a new barn, also designed by architects 

Beers and Farley, was built on the property. 

In 1968, the Stones sold 687 acres of the Snee Farm 

property to developers. They sold the remaining 

28 acres, including the house and outbuildings, to 

Guilds and Joyce Hollowell. The Hollowells made 

several changes to the property over their 

eighteen-year tenure, including upgrades to the 

electrical and plumbing systems and installation of 

a swimming pool. The caretaker’s cottage was 

adapted for use as a pool house and guesthouse. 

The Hollowells also removed the overseer’s house 

and related agricultural structures, and built a 

basketball court east of the residence. 

In 1986, the Hollowells sold the property to 

Charles P. and Gordon Darby, developers in 

business under the name C and G Investments. 

The Darbys intended to develop the property as 

forty residential lots. The project was quickly 

halted after local residents organized a non-profit 

group, the Friends of Historic Snee Farm, to 

protect the remaining portion of Charles 

Pinckney’s Snee Farm. Following a successful 

fundraising campaign, the Friends of Historic Snee 

Farm acquired the property in July 1988. Title to 

the 28.45 acre site was transferred to the United 

States on May 11, 1990. 

Before the property was opened to the public in 

1995, the National Park Service undertook several 

projects to address condition and integrity issues 

associated with the house, and adapt the barn and 

corn crib to new uses. In addition, the 1968 

swimming pool south of the caretaker’s house was 

removed and backfilled in 1991. Ongoing 

maintenance and repair of the structures under 

National Park Service stewardship has continued 

to the present. 

Treatment and Use 

The main house at Snee Farm is an example of a 

local vernacular house, with construction dating to 

circa 1830. It is currently used as a visitor contact 

station and museum to interpret colonial and early 

American life and the life of Charles Pinckney III 

for visitors to the park, and as park offices. The 

barn and corn crib are used for park maintenance 

and storage. It is anticipated that these uses will 

continue. The recommended overarching 

treatment for the buildings is therefore 

Rehabilitation to support ongoing use of the house, 

barn, and corn crib as part of the park’s 

interpretive program, while retaining and 

protecting historic character-defining features. 

The exterior of the main house is generally in fair 

condition, with repairs required to address 

weathering-related deterioration. Specific repair 

needs are related to localized deterioration of 

exterior wood paint coatings, wall cladding, 

exterior doors, and the roof drainage system. 

These distress conditions can be addressed with 

localized repainting and repair and by improved 

drainage. The interior of the house is in good 

condition; repairs are needed to address minor 

localized distress and to maintain high-quality 

interpretive spaces. 

The barn and corn crib are in somewhat more 

deteriorated condition than the main house and 

require more substantial repair. Both structures 

require entirely new sheet metal roof systems, as 

well as selective replacement of deteriorated 

exterior wood components, in addition to 

localized repainting. The barn also has 

condensation-related distress from a climate 

control system that serves only a portion of the 

interior, while the remainder of the interior is 

unconditioned and passively ventilated. 

The caretaker’s cottage is in very poor condition 

and has partially collapsed. Removal of the cottage 
Management Summary 

4 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

has been proposed by the National Park Service; 

therefore, treatment recommendations for this 

structure were not included in the scope of this 

study. 

Administrative Data 

Locational Data 

Building Name: House, barn, corn crib, and 

caretaker’s cottage 

Location: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 

UTM Coordinates: Zone: 17S, Northing: 3634890, 

Easting: 609980 

Latitude/Longitude Coordinates: 32.8466 degrees 

north, 79.8246 degrees west 

LCS Number: House at Snee Farm, 090151; Snee 

Farm Caretaker’s Cottage, 090152; Snee Farm 

Barn, 090153; Snee Farm Corn Crib, 090154 

NPS Asset Numbers: House at Snee Farm, 46027; 

Snee Farm Caretaker’s Cottage, 46033; Snee Farm 

Barn, 46031; Snee Farm Corn Crib, 46032 

Related Studies 

Robert W. Blythe, Emily Kleine, and Steven H. 

Moffson. Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site: Historic Resource Study. Atlanta, Georgia: 

National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, August 2000. 

Wright Caughman, Historic Preservation 

Assistant, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History. National Register of 

Historic Places nomination for Snee Farm, 

July 21, 1971. 

Charles Snell, Historian, National Park Service. 

National Historic Landmark nomination for 

Snee Farm, January 15, 1973. 

Ali A. Miri, PhD. Historic Structure Assessment 

Report: Snee Farm (Main House). Atlanta, 

Georgia: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 1997. 

Bennie C. Keel and Amy C. Koval. The Archeology 

of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm: A Summary of 

Fieldwork 1987–1999. SEAC Accession No. 

943. Tallahassee, Florida: National Park 

Service Southeast Archeological Center, 2014. 

Susan Hart Vincent. Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site: Cultural Landscape Report. 

Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service 

Southeast Region and Charlotte, North 

Carolina: Historic Land Design, 1998. 

Cultural Resources Data 

Snee Farm was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places on April 13, 1973, and designated a 

National Historic Landmark, on November 7, 

1973. 

Period of Significance: circa 1830–1945 

Proposed Treatment: Rehabilitation 

Project Scope and 

Methodology 

The goal of the HSR is to develop planning 

information for use in the repair, maintenance, 

and preservation of these historically significant 

buildings. First developed by the National Park 

Service in the 1930s, HSRs are documents 

prepared for a building, structure, or group of 

buildings and structures of recognized significance 

to record and analyze the property's initial 

construction and subsequent alterations through 

historical, physical, and pictorial evidence; 

document the performance and condition of the 

structure’s materials and overall physical stability; 

identify an appropriate course of treatment; and, 

following implementation of the recommended 

work, document alterations made through that 

treatment. 

The HSR addresses key issues specific to the 

house, barn, and corn crib at Snee Farm, including 

the history and construction chronology of the 

buildings (as possible based on available archival 

documentation), the existing physical condition of 

exterior and interior materials, and the historic 

significance and integrity of the structures, and 

also provides treatment recommendations. The 

caretaker’s cottage is addressed in terms of history, 

condition, and significance; however, per the 
Management Summary 

National Park Service 5

scope of work, treatment recommendations are 

not provided for this building. 

The following project methodology was used for 

this study. 

Research and Document Review. Archival 

research was performed to gather information 

about the original construction and past 

modifications and repairs for use in assessing 

existing conditions and developing treatment 

recommendations for the building. Documents 

reviewed included maps, historic photographs, 

and other written and illustrative documentation 

about the history, construction, evolution, and 

repairs to the building. The research for this study 

built upon prior historical and archival research by 

the National Park Service and others, as outlined 

in the bibliography provided with this report. 

Primary reference material for this study was 

obtained from the Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site collections. During the site visit, 

project team members met with Dr. Ali Miri, 

Historical Architect and Contracting Officer’s 

Technical Representative, National Park Service 

(NPS) Southeast Regional Office (SERO); 

Superintendent Tim Stone, Fort Sumter National 

Monument and Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site (FOSU/CHPI); and Scott Mapes, 

Chief of Facilities; to discuss the history of the site, 

previous and anticipated repair projects, and 

future planning efforts. Project team members also 

worked with other park personnel including 

Michael Allen, Community Partnership Specialist; 

Sandy Pusey, Administrative Officer; Dawn Davis, 

Chief of Education and Interpretation; Kate 

Everitt, Curator, who provided access to 

documents held at the park and assisted with 

obtaining scanned copies of documents from local 

archives; and Megan Valentine, Superintendent’s 

Secretary, who assisted with scanning of additional 

reference materials held at the park following the 

 

4. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation

(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 

National Register of Historic Places, 1997). 

5. Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

site visit. Additional research material was also 

obtained from the National Park Service Technical 

Information Center (e-TIC) in Denver. 

Condition Assessment and Documentation.

Concurrent with the historical research, a 

condition survey of the building was performed 

and observations were documented with digital 

photographs, field notes, and annotations on 

sketch drawings prepared by the project team 

while on site. The condition assessment addressed 

the exterior and primary interior spaces and 

features of the buildings, as well as visible primary 

portions of the building structural systems. 

Development of History, Chronology of 

Construction, and Evaluation of 

Significance. Based on historical documentation 

and physical evidence gathered during the study, a 

context history and a chronology of design and 

construction were developed. An evaluation of the 

significance was also prepared, taking into 

consideration guidelines provided by National 

Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation.

4 This evaluation of history 

and significance provided the basis for the 

development of recommended treatment 

alternatives. 

Treatment Recommendations. The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties guided the development of 

treatment recommendations for the significant 

exterior and interior features of the buildings. 

Following the overall treatment approach of 

rehabilitation, which ensures preservation of 

character-defining features while allowing new 

and continued use of the building, specific 

recommendations were developed to address 

observed existing distress conditions as well as 

long-term preservation objectives.5 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings 

(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 

Historic Preservation Services, 1995). 
Management Summary 

6 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Preparation of Historic Structure Report.

Following completion of research, site work, and 

analysis, a narrative report was prepared 

summarizing the results of the research and 

inspection and presenting recommendations for 

treatment. The HSR was compiled following the 

organizational guidelines of National Park Service 

Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of 

Historic Structure Reports, with modifications to 

organizational structure for purposes of this 

project.6

FIGURE 1. A map of South Carolina showing the location of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Source: By 

the authors. 

 

6. Deborah Slaton, Preservation Brief 43: The 

Preparation and Use of Historic Structure 

Reports (Washington, D.C.: National Park 

Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2005). 
Management Summary 

National Park Service 7

FIGURE 2. A map of the Charleston region showing the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Source: National 

Park Service. 
Management Summary 

8 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 3. An aerial view of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, indicating the locations of the house, barn, corn 

crib, and caretaker’s cottage. Source: By the authors. 

MAIN HOUSE 

BARN 

CORN CRIB 

CARETAKER’S COTTAGE 
National Park Service 9

Developmental History 

Historical Background 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

commemorates the life and contributions of 

Charles Pinckney III (1757–1824) to American 

politics, law, and government. Notable as a patriot 

who contributed to the drafting of the United 

States Constitution, and four-time governor of 

South Carolina, Pinckney was also a prominent 

attorney and statesman. Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site protects the 28-acre core of 

Pinckney’s late eighteenth and early nineteenth 

century planation known as Snee Farm. The 

working plantation also served as a country retreat 

for Pinckney and his family, who otherwise lived 

within the city of Charleston like many 

Lowcountry gentry. From Charleston, Snee Farm 

was easily reached by boat. Pinckney managed the 

plantation after inheriting it from his father, Col. 

Charles Pinckney, in 1782. Although Pinckney 

owned several plantations in the Charleston, 

South Carolina, area, he considered Snee Farm to 

be his principal farm. 

The 715-acre Snee Farm was one of several large 

plantations located within Christ Church Parish 

east of the Charleston during the late eighteenth 

and early nineteenth centuries. Others included 

Long Point, Bermuda, Egypt, Palmetto Grove, and 

Boone Hall. After circa 1719, most focused on rice 

cultivation. Rice became South Carolina’s most 

important staple crop prior to the invention of the 

cotton gin in 1794. Area plantations relied on slave 

labor to cultivate rice on a large scale. South 

Carolina’s coastal plantations typically featured a 

dwelling precinct composed of a main house, 

gardens, outbuildings, and slave quarters 

surrounded by agricultural land and forest. Most 

plantations within the area included river frontage 

and used boats to travel to and from Charleston 

and to transport goods.

Although Snee Farm was sold out of the Pinckney 

family in 1817, it remained an active plantation 

until the Civil War. Subsequent owners replaced 

the mid-eighteenth century dwelling used by the 

Pinckney family with a new house in the same 

location circa 1830. Emancipation of the slave 

work force, postbellum declines in rice 

production, and other disruptions in the economy 

resulting from the Civil War led to the subdivision 

of many larger properties beginning in 1870. Local 

farmers transitioned to other agricultural pursuits 

such as truck farming, livestock raising, and cotton 

cultivation. Snee Farm remained intact as an 

agricultural property until 1968, although by the 

1930s, it had become more of a country retreat 

than a working farm. 

Snee Farm is located on the Wando Neck, a 

peninsula of land formed by the Wando River to 

the northwest, the Cooper River estuary to the 

southwest, and Atlantic Ocean tidal marshes to the 

southeast. The region is characteristic of the 

Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Coastal Plain—flat 

terrain edged by fresh and salt water marshes. The 

property falls within the corporate limits of the 

city of Mount Pleasant, approximately 10 miles 

east of the city of Charleston. 

Visitors arrive at the park from Long Point Road, 

approximately one-half mile northwest of its 

intersection with U.S. Highway 17. Both of these 

routes were present during the eighteenth century. 

Residential subdivisions now surround the site on 

the west, south, and east. To the north, on the far 

side of Long Point Road, is Boone Hall Plantation, 

a privately owned historic property 738 acres in 
Developmental History 

10 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

size, with a reconstructed main house, original 

outbuildings, and extensive grounds.7 

The park forms an irregularly shaped, roughly 

rectangular parcel located approximately 15 feet 

above mean sea level. A 3-acre forested wetland 

occupies the western portion of the park. A 

drainage ditch forms the property boundary along 

this edge. Site features include a dwelling house, 

barn, corn crib, caretaker’s cottage, shade trees, 

ornamental plantings, and stone cenotaph 

honoring Col. Charles Pinckney, Charles Pinckney 

III’s father. As noted, the extant dwelling was built 

circa 1830, while the outbuildings were 

constructed during the early to mid-twentieth 

century. Although the buildings present on the 

property today postdate Pinckney ownership, the 

property contains important archeological 

resources that enhance the understanding of 

notable American Charles Pinckney III and daily 

life on South Carolina coastal plantations.8

Prehistory 

Prior to European settlement, the Coastal Zone of 

South Carolina was characterized by open grassy 

plains interrupted by pine, oak, and mixed 

hardwood forests. Both natural and anthropogenic 

fire helped to maintain portions of the landscape 

in open grass cover or savannah-like conditions 

composed of loblolly pine and wiregrass. The 

open grasslands were attractive to wildlife, which 

were hunted by cultural groups for food. 

The earliest cultural groups to occupy this area 

likely arrived circa 10,000 BCE as glaciation caused 

sea levels to lower, exposing a land bridge between 

Asia and North America. During the Paleo-Indian 

period (10,000 BCE to 8,500 BCE), nomadic 

hunters traversed the eastern United States, often 

following the migration of now extinct megafauna 

that were present during the period. Archeologists 

believe that Paleo-Indian groups regularly traveled 

between the South Carolina coast and inland areas 

 

7. Robert W. Blythe, Emily Kleine, and Steven H. 

Moffson, Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site Historic Resource Study (Atlanta, Georgia: 

National Park Service, August 2000), 1–2. 

8. Blythe et al., 1–3. 

in search of food and tool-making material. The 

climate during this period was much cooler and 

characterized by boreal forest conditions. 

During the Archaic period (8,500 BCE to 2,000 

BCE), global temperatures warmed, glacial ice 

sheets melted, and sea levels rose. The changing 

climate affected rainfall patterns and contributed 

to warmer and wetter weather and a transition to 

the eastern deciduous forest cover known today. 

Wildlife populations also transitioned from 

megafauna to smaller mammals, such as whitetailed deer. Although cultural groups remained 

generally nomadic in their practices, populations 

increased, the technology of their tools advanced, 

and groups began to focus their lifeways around 

riverine and coastal environments. 

The Woodland period (2,000 BCE to 1,000 CE) is 

characterized by an increasing dependence on 

wild plant foods, seasonal movement rather than 

an entirely nomadic existence, the use of pottery, 

and the establishment of villages. 

The Woodland period was followed by the 

Mississippian period (1,000 to 1,500 CE), the preContact era in which the cultivation of plants, 

particularly maize or corn, was introduced. The 

adoption of agriculture led to increasingly 

sedentary lifeways, a greater dependence on 

villages, the development of social and political 

systems, and religious and burial practices.9 The 

cultural groups within the Coastal Plain of South 

Carolina were mound builders. Mounds were 

burial sites as well as the focus of religious and 

ceremonial activities. 

By the time Europeans began to explore the region 

at Contact (circa 1,500 CE), Native Americans had 

settled throughout the region, developing a 

diversified culture of agriculture and semisedentary village life. Local groups developed two 

distinct settlement types within the Charleston 

area: the large, communal round house; and 

9. Bennie C. Keel and Amy C. Koval, The 

Archeology of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm: A 

Summary of Fieldwork 1987–1999 

(Tallahassee, Florida: National Park Service, 

2014), 4. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 11

clustered small round cabins. Dwellings were 

typically constructed of wattle and daub with roofs 

of thatched palmetto leaves.10 Local groups appear 

to have used fire as a tool to clear new areas for 

fields, to rejuvenate old plots, and to trap deer.11 A 

series of small cultural groups, including the 

Sewees, Kiawahs, and Yamassees, occupied the 

South Carolina Lowcountry between the Santee 

and Savannah rivers. They were collectively 

known as the Cusabos, and spoke Muskhogean.12 

The Spanish and French were the first Europeans 

to explore the region, arriving in the sixteenth 

century. The earliest efforts to colonize the region 

included French establishment of a settlement on 

Paris Island in 1562, which they abandoned the 

following year, and Spanish establishment of Saint 

Elena, also on Paris Island, in 1566. Saint Elena 

was occupied until 1587.13 

Early Settlement (1670–1754) 

In 1663, King Charles II of England granted a 

proprietorship to a group of men to establish a 

settlement within the area presently known as 

Charleston. By 1670, the group had established the 

colony of Charles Towne along a natural harbor 

on the west bank of the Ashley River.14 By 1680, 

the colony had been relocated to Oyster Point at 

the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper rivers to 

take advantage of better water access. The 

settlement included immigrants from Barbados 

who had been involved in West Indies sugar 

plantations. Land shortages, epidemics, fires, and 

hurricanes led many Barbados planters to look 

elsewhere for land. These residents brought their 

knowledge and experience of agricultural 

plantations, slave labor, and colonial commerce to 

 

10. Staff of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

and Fort Sumter National Monument, 

Historical Overview: The Life of Charles 

Pinckney; Snee Farm—History of a Landscape; 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

(Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service, June 

1994), 15. 

11. Susan Hart Vincent, Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site Cultural Landscape Report 

(Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service, 

1998), 5. 

12. Historical Overview, 15. 

the new settlement. Many took advantage of the 

very generous land grants available through the 

headright system, and brought slaves with them to 

work the large tracts.15

Once the English established their settlement, 

local cultural groups began to suffer the effects of 

introduced disease, displacement, and 

enslavement. The 1715 Yamassee War was a 

response to land encroachment by the English 

settlers, as well as the enslavement of native 

peoples by the colonists. Within fifty years, few 

Native Americans were left on the South Carolina 

coast; the small enclaves that survived were known 

as “settlement Indians,” or groups that adopted 

European ways and avoided interfering with 

European settlement. Inland, several larger 

groups, such as Catawba and Cherokee, persisted 

for a longer period before they were relocated by 

the federal government. 

The colonists quickly adapted to the area’s 

extensive river and marsh system, utilizing creeks 

and other waterways for travel and transportation 

of goods. By the time the colony relocated to the 

peninsula, plantation settlement had already 

expanded inland along the Ashley, Cooper, and 

Wando rivers and their major tributaries.16

Plantation owners cleared the land of woodlands 

in order to cultivate crops such as corn and 

tobacco and to raise livestock such as cattle and 

hogs. They used the wood from the felled trees to 

build dwellings, barns, and quarters for the 

workers, who included slaves, indentured 

servants, and hired hands. Residents also traded 

deer hides, which they could sell in England, with 

goods such as glass beads, tools, knives, and guns 

13. Keel and Koval, 5. 

14. The city was known as “Charles Towne” while 

controlled by the Lord Proprietors (1670-

1720). Under the royal government and 

during the American Revolution, it was known 

as “Charlestown,” until incorporated in 1783, 

when it became “Charleston.” Robert N. 

Rosen, A Short History of Charleston

(Charleston, South Carolina: Peninsula Press, 

1992). 

15. Historical Overview, 16. 

16. Vincent, 5. 
Developmental History 

12 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

to Native Americans.17 Timber also became a 

saleable commodity, needed by new residents as 

well as those living in Barbados, where the sugar 

plantations had left the island devoid of wood 

products. The region would also become a 

supplier of naval stores, such as tar and pitch, to 

fulfill English military needs. It was during the late 

seventeenth century that new varieties of rice were 

introduced to the region. Rice slowly emerged as a 

dominant staple commodity, which could be 

exported to England, other colonies, and the West 

Indies. By 1715, 8,000 barrels of rice were being 

shipped from Charles Towne.18 By 1719, the year 

South Carolina became a royal colony, rice was the 

dominant crop of the region.19 Indigo, grown to 

produce dye, was introduced by Elizah Lukas, who 

married chief justice Charles Pinckney circa 1741. 

It later became the second most cultivated cash 

crop.20

In 1706, the South Carolina Commons House of 

Assembly passed the Church Act, which 

established ten administrative parishes within 

Colonial Carolina. Christ Church Parish was one 

of those established; it encompassed land north of 

the Charles Towne settlement.21 The parish was 

defined to the west and south by the Wando and 

Cooper rivers, to the north by Awendaw Creek, 

and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. By 1721, 

there were 107 families living in the parish, 

including 400 whites and 637 slaves.22 Many of the 

parishioners were not large plantation owners but 

small farmers and mechanics.23 They grazed cattle, 

hunted to supplement their diet, and produced 

turpentine, rosin, tar, and lumber for the 

 

17. Historical Overview, 17. 

18. Historical Overview, 19. 

19. Keel and Koval, 5. 

20. Keel and Koval, 5. 

21. Edward G. Lilly, ed., Historic Churches of 

Charleston (Charleston, South Carolina: 

Legerton and Co., 1966), 82–83. 

22. Anne King Gregorie, Christ Church, 1706-1959: 

A Plantation Parish of the South Carolina 

Establishment (Charleston, South Carolina: 

The Dalcho Historical Society, 1961), 25–26. 

23. Individuals highly skilled in eighteenthcentury technology were known as 

“mechanics.” Mechanics included craftsmen, 

such as blacksmiths, sawyers, wheelwrights, 

Charleston market.24 The larger landowners who 

were part of the plantation system that formed the 

region’s major economic and social force were the 

predominant slave owners.25 Charleston was an 

important trade center and busy port; nearly all 

goods and people traveling into and out of the 

colony passed through the city. 

The reliance on slave labor became even more 

pronounced during the 1750s when many farmers 

switched from inland swamp rice cultivation to 

tidal rice cultivation. Slaves were involved in the 

digging of ditches and the building of dikes and 

canals to divert tidal waters from rivers and 

streams into the rice fields. The plantation owners 

also relied on the skills and knowledge of slaves 

brought from Africa’s “Rice Coast”—present day 

Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Gambia—where rice 

had been cultivated for centuries.26 Slaves from 

West Africa were in great demand with plantation 

owners in South Carolina, Georgia, and northern 

Florida.27 Between the 1760s and 1776, the South 

Carolina slave population doubled from 52,000 to 

100,000 individuals. Slaves were also used in 

indigo production, which occurred on the higher 

lands behind the rice fields. In South Carolina, 

thousands of acres of indigo were planted along 

the coast and in the backcountry.28 The crop was 

popular from the early through mid-eighteenth 

century, with production peaking in the mid-1770s 

at an export level exceeding one million pounds.29 

and coopers, as well as producers of 

turpentine, lumber, and brickworks. 

24. Gregorie, 20. 

25. Vincent, 5. 

26. Joseph A. Opala, The Gullah: Rice, Slavery, and 

the Sierra Leone-American Connection

(Freetown, Sierra Leone: United States 

Information Service, 1993), 1–2. 

27. Opala, 1–2. 

28. Vincent, 6. 

29. Charles F. Kovacik and John J. Winberry, South 

Carolina, the Making of a Landscape.

(Columbia, South Carolina: University of South 

Carolina Press, 1989), 73–74.
Developmental History 

National Park Service 13

Charleston’s Lowcountry Plantations. The 

planter culture of South Carolina differed from 

that of Virginia and Maryland in that they often 

did not live on their plantations. Rather, they 

established a smaller version of London in 

Charleston and paid regular visits to the overseers 

of their plantations. Although the Charleston 

colonial gentry became quite wealthy, they 

generally did not build large country houses; the 

homes of Henry Middleton at Middleton Place 

(circa 1750) and John Drayton at Drayton Hall 

(circa 1740) were anomalies.30 Instead, they built 

relatively modest but comfortable houses for their 

visits. 

The plantations were not only used to cultivate 

market crops, but also produced food and other 

products needed by the family in their Charleston 

residences. Excess produce was often sold in the 

city market.31 The Christ Church Parish 

plantations were linked to the region’s towns and 

markets by waterways. Over time, a network of 

rough roads was also established. Within Christ 

Church Parish, Long Point Road was one of the 

roads present by the early eighteenth century. It is 

referred to in 1707 as the “Seawee [sic] Broad 

Path,” and connected Governor Sir Nathaniel 

Johnson’s lands on the Sewee Bay to Bermuda 

Town.32 The road connected Belvue-Bermuda 

Plantation, west of Boone Hall, with Christ 

Church, where it met the Church or Public Road. 

The establishment of Long Point Plantation (circa 

1719), which was situated north of Bermuda 

Plantation, likely resulted in the renaming of the 

road. The Public Road led from Charleston to 

Georgetown, located approximately 60 miles to 

the north.33

Snee Farm (1696–1754). The property that is 

now associated with Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site was part of a 500-acre land grant 

 

30. Roger G. Kennedy, Architecture, Men, Women 

and Money in America 1600–1860 (New York, 

New York: Random House, 1985), 45–46, 55. 

31. Vincent, 6. 

32. Gregorie, 19. 

33. Vincent, 6. 

34. Julia King, Archaeological Investigations at 

Charles Pinckney Snee Farm, Mt. Pleasant, 

received in the late seventeenth century by 

Richard Butler.34 Little is known about Butler’s use 

of the property, although the “Butler’s Causeway” 

circulation route shown on several eighteenthand nineteenth-century plats may have been built 

by Butler when Long Point Road was established 

along the northern boundary of his land (circa 

1707) in order to link his property to a public 

thoroughfare. Butler willed the property to his son 

Benjamin Butler in 1730.35 At the time, the 

property was described as “situate in Berkeley 

County butting and bounding on land of Thomas 

Boone to the Northeast and upon the land of Mary 

and Sarah Sims to the Southwest.”36 Butler sold the 

property to John Allen in 1738 (Figure 4). At the 

same time, Allen also purchased another 115 acres 

nearby. In 1744, Allen increased his holdings by 

purchasing 100 acres to the southwest from James 

and Sarah White, nee Sims, forming a 715-acre 

contiguous parcel.37 John Allen died in 1748. In 

1749, his widow, Anne Scott Allen, married John 

Savage. The Savages sold the farm in 1754. 

FIGURE 4. An 1861 copy of a 1738 plat of Snee Farm, 

prepared when John Allen purchased the land. 

Source: Register Mesne Conveyance Office, 

Charleston, South Carolina. 

South Carolina (Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina: 

published by the author, 1992), 5. 

35. King, 5. 

36. Vincent, 7; as quoted in King, 7. Berkeley 

County’s boundary was moved circa 1895. 

Snee Farm became part of Charleston County 

at that time. 

37. Vincent, 7. 
Developmental History 

14 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

History of Snee Farm 

(1754–2015) 

Colonel Charles Pinckney 

Ownership (1754–1782) 

The purchaser of the Snee Farm property was 

Charles Pinckney II, a member of the Lowcountry 

gentry. At the time of the sale, the property was 

referred to as Snee Farm; the reasoning behind the 

name is not recorded. The Oxford English 

Dictionary defines the word “snee” as meaning 

bountiful or plenteous.”38 

Col. Charles Pinckney (1732–1782) was a wealthy 

Charleston attorney, public servant, and planter. 

He was born in Charleston and educated in 

England, and kept close economic and social ties 

with Britain. He acquired Snee Farm shortly after 

his 1753 marriage to Frances Brewton. The farm 

was one of three plantations Pinckney owned 

outside of Charleston.39 A plat map prepared in 

1754 does not record a house on the property at 

the time. Archeological evidence suggests that the 

structure used by the Pinckneys between their 

purchase of the land in 1754 and when it was sold 

out of the family was built either just before or 

during Colonel Pinckney’s acquisition of the 

property.40 

Snee Farm was closer to Charleston than any other 

Pinckney property; as such, it may have been the 

most favorable to visit. A nineteenth-century 

property dispute involving Snee Farm also hints at 

the family’s strong connection to the farm. Court 

records describe a “handsome garden and 

 

38. Vincent, 7. 

39. Vincent, 7. 

40. Paul E. Brockington, Jr., A Cultural Resource 

Survey at Snee Farm, Charleston County, 

South Carolina (Atlanta, Georgia: Brockington 

and Associates 1987), ii. 

41. Blythe et al., 21, from William Matthews vs. 

Henry Horlbeck et al. 7 April 1844. Charleston 

Court of Appeals, 1844-1845: 197–200. 

42. Walter B. Edgar, Historic Snee Farm: A 

Documentary Record (Columbia, South 

Carolina: University of South Carolina 

Department of History, 1991), 5. 

adjoining pleasure grounds” that were “carefully 

tended and embellished by (Col.) Charles 

Pinckney, Governor (Charles) Pinckney and the 

plaintiff.”41 An inventory of the estate prepared in 

1787 suggests that one of the forty slaves living on 

the property was detailed as a gardener.42 Given 

the descriptions of the gardens in the court 

records and the presence of a gardener, it is likely 

that the family was relatively invested in the 

property and visited it often. Archeological 

investigations further support this theory and have 

exposed a number of trenches believed to be 

associated with the gardens surrounding the 

plantation house.43 Because his family visited the 

property frequently, Charles Pinckney III, born in 

1757, is thought to have spent a good amount of 

time at Snee Farm during his youth. 

During the Revolutionary War, Colonel Pinckney 

served as the commanding officer of the First 

Battalion of the Charles Towne Militia. After 

Charleston was captured by the British in 1780, 

Pinckney swore loyalty to Britain. By so doing, he 

avoided the destruction of his property. During 

British occupation of Charleston, the farm was 

appropriated for use as an internment camp for 

American officers. Gen. William Moultrie of the 

2nd South Carolina Regiment, and Col. Charles 

Cotesworth Pinckney of the Continental Army, 

Col. Charles Pinckney’s cousin, were paroled at 

Snee Farm during this period, as noted by General 

Moultrie in his journals: “Col. [Charles 

Cotesworth] Pinckney and I were in excellent 

quarters at Mr. Pinckney’s place called Snee 

Farm.”44 

43. Blythe et al., 21. 

44. Vincent, 7, from William Moultrie, Memoirs of 

the American Revolution So Far As It Is 

Related to the States of North and South 

Carolina, and Georgia Vol. 2 (New York, New 

York: D. Longworth, 1802), 116; National Park 

Service, Historic American Buildings Survey 

(HABS), Snee Farm (1991), 9. Also in Walter B. 

Edgar, “Historic Snee Farm: A Documentary 

Record” (Prepared for the Board of Directors 

of the Friends of Historic Snee Farm, 1991), 7. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 15

The family dwelling was likely a modest, 

comfortable structure that stood on the same 

location as the present-day dwelling. 

Archeological evidence suggests that a separate 

kitchen was located approximately 25 feet from 

the house, and a brick-lined well stood 64 feet 

away. The brick-lined well appears to have been 

built circa 1730.45 These buildings formed a 

dwelling precinct that also included a surrounding 

yard, ornamental and kitchen gardens, and 

woodlands east of the house. Evidence of an 

overseer’s house or slave dwelling, and two slave 

dwellings, approximately 170 yards southwest of 

the house, has also been uncovered.46 All of the 

buildings were similarly oriented west toward the 

plantation road.47 A plat dated 1783 also illustrates 

another house to the south, near the “Public Road 

to the Church,” which may have been the 

homestead of the White/Sims family.48

Archeological investigations indicate that the 

farm’s main house was a small brick building, 

approximately 15 by 23 feet in plan. The building 

appears to have had plastered interior walls and a 

painted white exterior. Limited information 

regarding the character of the Pinckney House has 

been determined through review of archeological 

fragments. Lime plaster samples were recovered; 

some of these samples had impressions from being 

applied to wood lath, while other samples appear 

to have been applied directly to brick masonry. 

The plaster contained large quantities of seashells, 

possibly a component of the aggregate or lime 

binder. Some of the plaster samples had been 

coated with whitewash, and two samples were 

 

45. Vincent, 14, from Meyer. 

46. Blythe et al., 22‒23, from Michael J. Meyer, 

“Intrasite Spatial Patterning on a Colonial Site 

in the South Carolina Low Country: The 

Archeology of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm” 

(Master’s Thesis, Florida State University, 

1998), 9. 

47. Vincent, 14, from Dr. Bennie C. Keel, 

telephone conversation, January 12, 1998. 

48. This refers to Christ Church located at the 

intersection of Long Point Road and the Public 

Road (present day U.S. Highway 17.) 

whitewashed and embellished with a blackpainted 1/2-inch-wide line. Other samples were 

whitewashed and finished with water-soluble 

distemper paints, in colors including light gray, 

yellow, yellow-beige, pink, and red, sometimes 

with multiple layers. Also, two lime mortar 

fragments, similarly containing seashells, were also 

discovered. Hand-wrought nails, shards of glass, 

and shutter-type hardware were also discovered in 

the construction debris.49 The investigations have 

provided a good understanding of how the house 

was made and what materials the Pinckneys used 

in building the dwelling.50 

The plantation kitchen, located east of the farm 

house, measured 13 by 30 feet in plan and was 

probably built about the same time as the house.51

Three nearby structures, measuring approximately 

15 by 23 feet and 11 by 15 feet in plan, may have 

been additional slave quarters. 

Under Pinckney’s management, Snee Farm is 

thought to have been a productive and relatively 

prosperous plantation.52 Through the second half 

of the eighteenth century, the farm likely 

produced cash crops that included rice and indigo, 

as well as lumber and wood byproducts like 

turpentine, pitch, and other naval stores, and 

cattle.53 Upland dry rice crops may have also been 

grown on the farm. West African slaves 

knowledgeable in rice cultivation were an essential 

component of the local rice economy. In Africa, 

new strains of rice and cultivation methods were 

developed independent of the rice varieties and 

growing methods employed in Asia.54 Slaves built 

49. Barbara A. Yocum, Architectural Conservator, 

“Trip Report & Materials Analysis: Charles 

Pinckney House, Plaster & Mortar Samples” 

(Lowell, Massachusetts: National Park Service, 

Northeast Cultural Resources Center, 

November 17, 1999). 

50 . Keel and Koval 281. 

51. Vincent, 12, from Meyer. 

52. Vincent, 9. 

53. Blythe et al., 29. 

54. Ibid., 27. Blythe notes that long before the 

French and Portuguese ships introduced Asian 

varieties of rice to some areas of Africa, 

Africans were developing their own 

cultivation methods. It is these methods that 
Developmental History 

16 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

the dikes and levees needed to create rice fields, 

and directed proper cultivation of the rice. The 

economy was based on the importation of slaves 

from Africa and the exportation of rice to Europe 

and the West Indies.55 Colonel Pinckney’s 1787 

probate inventory lists a driver, a sawyer, a 

wheelwright, a cooper, a gardener, an oarsman, 

three carpenters, and five field hands among his 

forty slaves at Snee Farm.56 Indigo was well suited 

to upland areas of regional plantations. Like rice, 

indigo was a labor-intensive crop, not while in the 

ground, but in the processing. Cattle were likely 

raised through free-range foraging in woodland 

areas. 

Snee Farm likely operated on the task system 

whereby slaves were given a set task to complete in 

a day. Once they had completed the task, they 

were free for the remainder of the day to address 

their own needs. In many cases, slaves were able to 

cultivate personal gardens and raise their own 

livestock, or to hunt and fish.57 The relative 

autonomy of local slave life, coupled with a regular 

influx of slaves from West Africa to help with rice 

cultivation, contributed to the retention of many 

African cultural traditions within the region. These 

traditions have been passed down through 

generations and are present today within the 

Gullah/Geechee community of the Lowcountry of 

South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida. 

Colonel Pinckney died in St. Andrew’s Parish in 

1782, and was buried at St. Philip's Church in 

 

dominated early South Carolina agriculture. It 

is also possible that the African Oryza 

glaberrima variety of rice was the first to be 

planted in South Carolina. It was later 

replaced with the higher yielding, whiter 

Oryza sativa from Asia. The introduction of 

Asian grain, however, did nothing to change 

African cultivation methods. From Peter H. 

Wood, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial 

South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono 

Rebellion (New York: Norton & Company, 

1974), 59-60; and Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and 

Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in 

Charleston.58 His son, Charles Pinckney III, 

inherited Snee Farm at that time. Shortly after 

Colonel Pinckney’s death, a marble marker to his 

memory was placed at Snee Farm in a wooded area 

or grove of trees east of the house.59 In 1892, 

Christ Church granted Thomas Pinckney 

permission to move the marker from Snee Farm to 

the parish churchyard.60 No reason was given for 

this decision; today the stone remains in the 

churchyard at the intersection of Long Point Road 

and the Public or Church Road. A replica of the 

cenotaph, placed on site circa 1945, is present at 

the national historic site today. 

Charles Pinckney III Ownership 

(1782–1817) 

Charles Pinckney III (1757–1824) inherited Snee 

Farm upon his father’s death in 1782; in 1783, a 

plat was made of the property (Figure 5). Pinckney 

was highly educated and groomed to study law in 

England. However, because of the growing unrest 

in the colonies at the time he reached school age, 

he studied law at his father’s office in Charleston 

instead. In 1778, Pinckney was elected to the 

South Carolina General Assembly from Christ 

Church Parish, suggesting that Snee Farm may 

have served as a vehicle for his political 

ambitions.61

Colonial South Carolina (Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, 1981), 84–96. 

55. Blythe et al., 26. 

56. Vincent, 16, from King, 21. 

57. Blythe et al., 31. 

58. Francis Williams, A Founding Family: The 

Pinckneys of South Carolina (New York, New 

York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978), 188. 

59. Vincent, 16, from King, 21. 

60. Vincent, 16, from King, 21. Colonel Pinckney is 

buried at St. Philip’s Church in Charleston. 

61. Blythe et al., 21, From Williams, 123. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 17

FIGURE 5. The 1783 plat of Snee Farm. Source: Register Mesne Conveyance Office, Charleston, South Carolina. 

In 1784, at the age of 29, Pinckney was appointed 

one of the South Carolina delegates to the 

Confederation Congress in Philadelphia. In 1786, 

Pinckney, dissatisfied with the Articles of 

Confederation, led a congressional effort to 

strengthen the national government. Pinckney 

attended the Constitutional Convention, held in 

Philadelphia in 1787. At odds with others involved 

in framing the Constitution, James Madison in 

particular, Pinckney put forth suggestions for 

amendments intended to protect state’s interests 

related to commerce and the issue of slavery and 

 

62. Blythe, Kleine, and Moffson, 5–7; HABS, 1. 

to promote a strong central government. His 

“Pinckney draft” has never been located, although 

in 1818 Pinckney reconstructed it from memory at 

the request of John Quincy Adams. Based on this 

account, it appears that several of Pinckney’s ideas 

involving the structure of government were 

adopted and became provisions within the final 

U.S. Constitution.62 

Pinckney later served as a United States Senator 

and Representative, served four terms as Governor 

of South Carolina, and was appointed Minister to 
Developmental History 

18 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Spain (1801–1805) by Thomas Jefferson.63 He is 

considered to be among the most influential and 

successful politicians in the history of the state of 

South Carolina.64 His career included the 

following political appointments and 

achievements: 

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1779–1780, 1784 

 Member, Articles of Confederation Congress: 

1784–1787 

 Delegate, U.S. Constitutional Convention: 

1787 

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1787–1788 

 Member, Privy Council of South Carolina: 

1788–1789, 1789–1790 

 Governor of South Carolina, January 26, 

1789–December 5, 1792, as a Federalist 

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1792–1794, 1796 

 Governor of South Carolina: December 8, 

1796–December 18, 1798, as a DemocraticRepublican 

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1798 

 United States Senator: December 6, 1798–

June 6, 1801; resigned to become Minister to 

Spain 

 Minister to Spain: 1801–1805 

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1806 

 Governor of South Carolina: December 9, 

1806–December 10, 1808 as a DemocraticRepublican 

 

63. Vincent, 9; see also Blythe, Kleine, and 

Moffson, and Historical Overview, for a more 

detailed account of Charles Pinckney’s political 

career. 

64. HABS, 7. 

65. Vincent, 9; from N. Louise Bailey and Elizabeth 

Ivey Cooper, Biographical Directory of the 

South Carolina House of Representatives

 Member, General Assembly of South Carolina: 

1810–1812, 1812–1813 

 United States House of Representatives: 

March 4, 1819–March 4, 1821, as a 

Democratic-Republican 

After his marriage to Eleanor Laurens in 1788, 

Charles Pinckney III established his primary 

residence in a three-story brick home at 16 

Meeting Street in Charleston.65 In addition to Snee 

Farm, Pinckney also owned several other 

plantations in the Lowcountry—Frankville and 

Hopton to either side of the Congaree River 5 

miles from Columbia; a Georgetown plantation 

consisting of 560 acres of tidal swamp and 600 

acres of high land; a tract of 1,200 acres referred to 

as Lynches Creek; Fee Farm on the Ashepoo 

River; a Haddrell’s Point house called Shell Hall, 

with four acres of land; Wright’s Savannah on the 

Carolina side of the Savannah River; and a tract of 

land called Mount Tacitus on the Santee River 

above the canal, which included a ferry.66 

By the 1790s, the demands of Charles Pinckney’s 

political career began to interfere with the 

management of his extensive land holdings.67 He 

may have engaged an overseer to manage the 

forty-two slave laborers and skilled workers at 

Snee Farm during this time. In 1791, during his 

second term as Governor, Pinckney invited 

President George Washington to visit Snee Farm 

while touring the Charleston area. In his letter of 

invitation, Pinckney suggested the president 

“make a stage at a little farm of mine in Christ 

Church . . . I must apologize for asking you to call 

at a place so indifferently furnished and where 

your fare will be entirely that of a farm.”68 In 

addition, he wrote: “It [Snee Farm] is a place I 

seldom go to or perhaps things would be in better 

Volume III 1775-1790 (Columbia, South 

Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 

1981), 555–559. 

66. Charleston County Deeds, Vol. 0-8: pgs. 112-

116, Roll #CH49, South Carolina Department 

of Archives and History. 

67. Vincent, 9. 

68. As quoted in Edgar, 7–8. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 19

order.”69 Nevertheless, Washington took Pinckney 

up on his offer. After his breakfast at Snee Farm on 

May 2, 1791, Washington recorded in his diary, 

“Breakfasted at the Country seat of Governor 

Pinckney about 18 miles from our lodging place 

and then came to the ferry at Haddrell’s Point.”70

In 1795, Pinckney is known to have leased the 

property to Samuel Cripps for one year.71 In the 

1800 Federal census, Pinckney appears on a list of 

slave owners in Christ Church Parish next to that 

of William Dunlap and Francis Deliesseline, which 

suggests that these men were acting as his 

representatives, land agents, or overseers.72

The property appears to have suffered during 

Pinckney’s absence. With little oversight, the farm 

slowly fell into arrears. In one Charleston County 

record, the plantation was described among 

several Pinckney properties as being “wholly 

unproductive” and one of several “in perishing 

condition the houses going to ruin and daily 

diminishing in value.”73 Additionally, by the time 

he returned from his appointment as Minister to 

Spain in January 1806, Pinckney was experiencing 

major financial difficulties. Continuing to struggle 

to meet his financial obligations, he placed the 

farm in trust in 1816. In 1817, his trustees sold the 

farm as well as other unproductive holdings to 

help settle Pinckney’s debts.74 An excerpt from the 

February 21, 1817, sale advertisement in the 

Charleston City Gazette and Daily Advertiser 

describes Snee Farm as “. . . containing about 

800 acres with the necessary buildings well suited 

for supplying the Charleston markets. Also, about 

 

69. Edgar, 9. 

70. Vincent, 11; from Edgar, 9. Edgar notes that 

Washington’s use of the word “seat” in 

describing Snee Farm emphasizes the 

importance of Pinckney’s country estate. 

English country “seats” were considered the 

principal holding of an individual or the home 

base for a large and possibly noncontiguous 

land holding. 

71. South Carolina Department of Archives and 

History. 

72. Vincent, 18, from Bureau of the Census, 1800. 

60 head of cattle which may be seen on the 

farm.”75

An 1818 plat of the property produced as part of 

the sale indicates that rice continued to be grown 

during Charles Pinckney III’s ownership of Snee 

Farm (Figure 6).76 The plat labels part of the larger 

tidal creek, which is divided by two or three levees 

as a “Rice Field.” Approximately 200 acres of 

cultivated fields are distinguished by bold hatch 

marks.77

Pinckney retired from public life in 1821 and died 

in 1824 at his house on Meeting Street. He was 

buried at St. Philip’s Church in Charleston.78

FIGURE 6. Plat of Snee Farm prepared for Francis 

Deliesseline on April 18, 1818. Source: Register 

Mesne Conveyance Office, Charleston, South 

Carolina. 

73. Charleston County District Court of Equity 

Report Book, 8: 398–399. April 27, 1808–

March 7, 1818, as found in HABS, 15. 

74. HABS, 9. 

75. Charleston City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 

February 21, 1817. 

76. Vincent, 12, from South Carolina Department 

of Archives and History, Records of the 

Secretary of State, Surveyor General, State 

Plats, Recorded Copies, Charleston Series, Vol. 

39: 78. 

77. Vincent, 16‒18. 

78. Vincent, 11, from Williams, 360. 
Developmental History 

20 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Francis G. Deliesseline Ownership 

(1817–1828) 

In 1817, Snee Farm was sold to Francis G. 

Deliesseline for $4,380.79 By this time, the farm had 

grown from 715 acres to 767-1/2 acres. By the time 

of the sale, Deliesseline had been working for 

Pinckney as the overseer of the plantation for 

seven years.80 Deliesseline was listed as owning 

25 slaves in Christ Church Parish in 1820.81 His 

name appears as a resident of Charleston, 

suggesting that he did not consider Snee Farm his 

primary home. By 1826, Deliesseline himself began 

to suffer financial hardships, and was unable to 

meet the terms of the Snee Farm mortgage. Soon 

thereafter he and his family abandoned their 

holdings to his creditors.82

William Mathews Ownership 

(1828–1853) 

In 1828, the property was sold to William 

Mathews, a wealthy Charleston merchant, for 

$3,150.83 Given the decrease in the property’s 

value during Deliesseline ownership, it is assumed 

that little new construction occurred, that the farm 

had been allowed to decline, and that the 

Pinckney-era buildings were in poor condition.84

Circa 1830, Mathews appears to have constructed 

a new home on the property, on top of the 

foundation of the earlier dwelling, soon after 

acquiring Snee Farm. National Park Service 

archeologists believe that the Pinckney plantation 

house was razed, and the well filled with rubble 

before being closed. The house that Mathews built 

was a wood-frame central hall farmhouse with a 

full-facade porch typical of the local vernacular 

 

79. Vincent, 11, from Charleston County Deed 

Book X-8: 78–81. 

80. Charleston County Deed Book X-8: 78–81. 

81. Bureau of the Census, Schedule of Free 

Inhabitants, 1820, Charleston County. Charles 

Pinckney was listed as a resident of the City of 

Charleston. 

82. Bailey, 181. 

83. Vincent, 20, from Charleston County 

Conveyance Book N-10: 278–280. 

84. Charleston County Deed Book N-10: 278–280. 

85. HABS, 2. 

86. Charleston County Will Book K: 199. 

architecture of the late eighteenth- and early 

nineteenth-century South Carolina Lowcountry.85

William Mathews owned considerable property in 

the area, including five plantations, a ferry on the 

Cooper River, and a house on Charlotte Street.86 

In his last will and testament, Mathews described 

himself as a planter, while identifying certain 

articles of furniture at Snee Farm. The furniture 

references suggest that, although he did not reside 

at the farm, he likely spent time there.87

By 1841, Snee Farm had grown to 915 acres, as 

shown on a plat drawn that year (Figure 7).88

Added to the property were 56 acres west of 

Boone Hall Creek and south of Long Point Road.89

The plat indicates the presence of the plantation 

house and the outkitchen, which may have been 

abandoned by this time, as well as a fenced area 

northeast of the house.90 The plat also shows a row 

of three modest structures southeast of the house 

that were likely slave quarters. The dotted, curving 

line that connects them to the house is likely a 

fence or a path. Sited along it are three smaller 

structures.91 Archeological investigations suggest 

the property also included an overseer’s house, 

storehouse, and smokehouse.92 A well, built to 

replace the earlier Pinckney well, was located west 

of the house.93 Beyond the slave quarters, the 

plantation is shown as divided into various areas of 

land use: woods, cleared high land, provision land, 

swamp, rice land, reclaimed marsh, mixed woods, 

savanna, and marsh. Mathews worked 365 acres of 

field for pasture, and 65 acres of reclaimed 

87. Vincent, 20, from Record of Wills, Charleston 

County, SC, Vol. 44, Book K, 1845-51: 368–372, 

as found in HABS, 10. 

88. McCrady Plat #6151, South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History. 

89. Vincent, 21. 

90. Meyer, 3. 

91. Vincent, 21. Remains of one of these small 

structures was discovered during archeological 

investigations, September 1997. 

92. Brockington, ii; Vincent, 21, from Keel and 

Meyer. 

93. Vincent, 21. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 21

marshland for rice cultivation.94 Woodlands 

totaling 485 acres are shown in generally the same 

area where they appeared during the Pinckney 

tenure, southeast of the Public Road and west and 

south of the agricultural fields. 95 The Mathews 

plat indicates that the Pinckney-era plantation 

road was still in use. This long straight avenue is 

shown leading from the “Public Road” north to a 

large barn or cotton gin. By this time, local 

residents may have begun to use the Public Road 

to convey cotton and other farm products to 

market in Charleston via the Milton Ferry on the 

Cooper River.96 The plat also shows a secondary 

access road that runs south from Long Point Road 

to the plantation house.97 Long Point Road, the 

Public Road, Butler’s Bridge, and Pinckney’s 

Bridge are also depicted on the 1841 plat. A small 

structure, possibly Mathews’s boathouse, is 

located on the larger stream.98

During the early 1840s, William Mathews and his 

neighbor, John Horlbeck, of Boone Hall, went to 

court to determine the boundary between their 

properties along Long Point Road. An 1844 plat, 

possibly prepared in response to the dispute, 

suggests the presence of pleasure grounds on the 

property, labeled “Park and Garden of Mr. 

Mathews (Figure 8).”99 This is the same area that 

was indicated as a garden on the 1818 plat.100 

 

94. McCrady Plat #5564, South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History. 

95. Vincent, 23, McCrady Plat #5564, South 

Carolina Department of Archives and History. 

96. HABS, 10. 

97. Vincent, 23. 

98. McCrady Plat #6049. 

99. McCrady Plat #923, South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History. 

Further description of this feature appears in court 

records relating to the appeal of the case in 1844: 

Upon this tract there has been continuous 

possession since the conveyance to Charles 

Pinckney and perhaps long before, and a 

handsome garden and adjoining pleasure 

grounds besides houses and fields have long 

existed on it and been carefully tended and 

embellished by Charles Pinckney, Governor 

Pinckney and the Plaintiff.101

Mathews died in 1848, leaving Snee Farm to his 

daughter Susan Hunt, who was married to 

Benjamin F. Hunt. The farm appears to have 

declined based on descriptions of the property 

included in equity court proceedings: 

Snee Farm . . . devised to Mrs. Hunt, containing 

about 700 acres of land and settled by a gang of 

about forty-eight negroes, is, as your Orator 

has been informed, an unproductive place: 

That the testator bought it with the intention of 

making corn and hay here for the use of Milton 

Ferry; that over and above the provisions used 

on the place itself, Snee Farm has scarcely done 

more . . . than to furnish bread for the hands at 

the Ferry, with hay for the work-mules and 

horses at [the] livery.102

100. Vincent, 21. 

101. William Mathews vs. Henry Horlbeck et. al., 7 

April 1844. Charleston Court of Appeals. 1844–

1845: 197–200. 

102. Charleston Chancery Records, Bill 59, 6 

December 1848, 7–8 as found in National Park 

Service, HABS, 10. 
Developmental History 

22 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 7. The 1841 plat of Snee Farm. North is to the right. Source: McCrady Plat no. 6151, South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 23

FIGURE 8. The 1844 plat of Snee Farm. Source: Charleston Register Mesne Conveyance Office. 

William McCants and Lockwood 

Allison McCants Ownership 

(1853–1900) 

William McCants, a planter, purchased Snee Farm 

in 1853.103 In addition to Snee Farm, he also 

maintained a house and lot in Mt. Pleasant, 

possibly dividing his time between these two 

properties.104 Little is known about farm 

operations during William McCants’ tenure. 

Probate records document that his son, Lockwood 

Allison (L. A.) McCants, inherited the farm in 

1859. McCants owned Snee Farm until 1900.105

Several records suggest the character and 

configuration of the property during L. A. 

McCants’s tenure. 

The 1860 federal agricultural schedule lists 

McCants as farming 400 acres of improved land 

 

103. HABS, 10. 

104. HABS, 11. 

105. Charleston County Wills, Vol. 48, Book A 

(1856–1858), 378–382. 

106. 1860 Census, Agricultural Schedule. 

out of the 880 acres that were part of the property. 

The schedule indicates that the farm harvested 

1,200 bushels of Indian corn and ginned 58 bales 

of cotton, produced 100 pounds of wool, 100 

bushels of peas and beans, and 1,500 bushels of 

sweet potatoes. No rice was listed, indicating that 

the lower lying areas had been abandoned for this 

purpose, possibly having been converted to 

another use. McCants is listed as owning 5 horses, 

7 mules, 1 milk cow, 3 working oxen, 60 cattle, 20 

sheep, and 60 swine.106 In addition, he is indicated 

as owning 34 female and 36 male slaves. The cash 

value of Snee Farm was listed as $15,000.107

One of the first illustrations of the property is the 

1863 Map of Charleston and Its Defenses, prepared 

by Confederate military engineers to guide 

operations during the Civil War (Figure 9).108 This 

map shows L. A. McCants as Snee Farm’s owner. 

107. Vincent, 25. 

108. Q. A. Gillmore, “Map of the Defenses of 

Charleston City and Harbor,” accompanying 

Gillmore, Engineer and Artillery Operations 

against the Defense of Charleston Harbor in 
Developmental History 

24 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Many of the structures indicated on plats from the 

Mathews period of ownership, including the 

dwelling, are not shown on the map, although the 

dwelling precinct is indicated as wooded. The map 

does show four new structures, possibly slave 

quarters, along Long Point Road. The map shows 

trees lining the plantation road that leads to the 

dwelling precinct. This is described in an 1866 

account of the farm, penned by W. S. Elliot, a 

Pinckney descendent as: “[a]n avenue a mile long 

with a grove of luxuriant oaks that lead the way to 

the rustic residence.”109 Some of these trees are 

thought to survive on the property today. 

FIGURE 9. Excerpt from the 1863 Map of Charleston 

and Its Defenses showing Snee Farm, labeled 

“McCants” (north arrow added). Source: Fort Sumter 

National Monument archives. 

 

1863 (New York, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 

1865). 

109. W. S. Elliot, “Founders of the American UnionCharles Pinckney, of South Carolina,” DeBow's 

Review (April 1866). 

110. Meyer, 3. 

111. Charleston County Deed Book Q-15: 71. 

112. National Park Service archeological research 

uncovered the foundations of a cotton gin in 

1994. Mr. O.D. Hamlin, former resident of 

Snee Farm, recalls the gin was converted to a 

workshop by his father or grandfather in the 

early part of this century. (National Park 

Following the Civil War, archeological 

investigations suggest that another of the 

Pinckney-era buildings was abandoned.110 Given 

the economy in the South following the war, 

McCants may have experienced financial 

difficulties as suggested in his attempt to sell Snee 

Farm to William Jervey. Deed records indicate that 

the land was later returned to McCants, probably 

due to a default on payments.111

The 1870 federal industrial schedule records 

McCants as the owner of a cotton ginning facility 

at Snee Farm.112 Archeological investigations 

suggest that the cotton gin was located north of 

the nineteenth-century dwelling house.113 The 

1870 agricultural schedule indicates that Snee 

Farm yielded 27 bales of cotton, 800 bushels of 

Indian corn, and 100 bushels of peas and beans on 

400 acres of improved land.114 Livestock listed 

includes only a few horses and mules. 

In November 1874, McCants had the land east of 

the Public Road surveyed and subdivided into 

twenty-two properties. The average lot size was 

between 9 and 12 acres. This plan was recorded on 

March 10, 1880, indicating that the land was to be 

sold around that time.115 The sale never transpired. 

The 1880 federal agricultural schedule records 

that McCants farmed 85 acres of cotton, and 

harvested 50 bales. In addition, he planted 30 acres 

of Indian corn, 31 acres of Irish potatoes, and 4 

acres of sweet potatoes. By this time, the land had 

diminished in value to $5,000. In order to work the 

farm, McCants hired laborers for 50 weeks of that 

year, paying out a total of $3,000. The farm was 

listed as containing 900 acres of land classified as 

Service, video of O.D. Hamlin and Dr. Bennie 

C. Keel, 1993, at Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.) 

113. Tina Rust, Bennie C. Keel, and Michael J. 

Meyer. “Archaeology of a Low Country 

Plantation: Current Research at Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site” in Mount 

Pleasant’s Archeological Heritage, ed. Amy 

Thompson McCandless (Mount Pleasant, South 

Carolina: Town of Mount Pleasant, 1996), 59. 

114. 1870 Census, Agricultural Schedule. 

115. “Plan of Part of Snea [sic] Farm.” Plat Book C, 

9, Registry of Mesne Conveyance, Charleston. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 25

permanent meadow or pasture, and 200 acres of 

unimproved woodland.116

L. A. McCants died in 1888, leaving the property 

to his widow, Mary Jane Hamlin McCants. Mary 

Jane McCants continued to manage the property 

until 1900, when it was transferred to Frederick 

Weiters, and from Weiters to Thomas J. Hamlin 

(Figure 10 through Figure 13). 

FIGURE 10. The house at Snee Farm, circa late 

nineteenth century. Note the slatted wood panels 

that close off the crawl space between foundation 

piers, and that no lean-to is present at the northwest 

corner. Source: Friends of Historic Snee Farm and 

Charles Pinckney Historic Site. 

FIGURE 11. The house at Snee Farm, circa late 

nineteenth or early twentieth century. The roof and 

grounds are covered with snow in this wintertime 

view. Source: Friends of Historic Snee Farm and 

Charles Pinckney Historic Site. 

 

116. 1880 Census, Agricultural Schedule. 

FIGURE 12. The house at Snee Farm, circa late 

nineteenth or early twentieth century. Source: 

Historic Structure Assessment Report (1997). 

FIGURE 13. The house at Snee Farm, circa late 

nineteenth or early twentieth century. Source: 

Historic Structure Assessment Report (1997). 
Developmental History 

26 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Thomas J. Hamlin and Osgood 

Darby Hamlin Ownership 

(1900–1936) 

In 1900, Thomas J. Hamlin purchased Snee Farm 

(Figure 14).117 Hamlin grew Sea Island cotton at 

Snee Farm until the 1920s.118 The existing corn 

crib on the property was built circa 1910 by 

Hamlin (Figure 15). In 1911, Hamlin also honored 

the history of the property by carving a wooden 

marker from the so-called Washington oak.119 He 

placed this marker near the former site of the 

marble cenotaph honoring Col. Charles Pinckney, 

which had been moved to the churchyard at Christ 

Church.120 A major hurricane struck the area in 

late August 1911. Following the storm, the wood 

shingle roof of the house was covered by 

galvanized sheet metal, as was the roof of the corn 

crib.121 Based on the available historic 

photographs, other changes implemented by 

Hamlin likely included screening-in the south 

porch and reconfiguring the north porch of the 

main house to include an enclosed lean-to room at 

the northwest corner. 

 

 117. Charleston County Conveyances, Book U-25, 

179. 

 118. National Park Service, video of O. D. Hamlin 

and Dr. Bennie C. Keel, 1993, at Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site, Mt. Pleasant, 

South Carolina. 

119. During his tour of Charleston in 1791, George 

Washington visited Hampton plantation. 

While visiting, the President was asked 

whether a certain oak tree should be cut 

down to create a better view from the 

portico. He replied that he liked the tree, and 

it was saved. It was subsequently known as 

the Washington oak. 

FIGURE 14. The house at Snee Farm, circa 1910s. Note 

the screening at the front porch and the lean-to 

wing at the northwest corner. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 15. The corn crib at Snee Farm, view circa 

1990. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

files. 

120. Vincent, 27, National Park Service, video of 

O. D. Hamlin. 

121. Jon Buono and Tommy Jones, “A Report of 

the Roof of the Main House, Snee Farm, 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site” 

(Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service, 

March 2001). 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 27

In 1931, Osgood Darby Hamlin inherited the farm 

from his father (Figure 16 through Figure 20). He 

continued to manage the property until 1936.122

An interview conducted by National Park Service 

personnel in 1993 with O. D. Hamlin, the son of 

Osgood Hamlin, provided information about the 

character and configuration of the property during 

the early twentieth century.123 Hamlin identified 

several buildings located between the plantation 

house and Long Point Road, including McCants’ 

cotton gin, which was converted by the Hamlins 

into a workshop and storage building, a 

blacksmith shop, a two-car garage, a foreman’s 

house, a commissary, and several tenant houses.124

Julia Welch Hamlin, wife of O. D. Hamlin, 

described a wooded area east of the house as a 

three-acre oak and magnolia grove that was one of 

their favorite places at Snee Farm.125

Another description of the grove is found in a 1933 

article by Petrona McIver in Charleston’s News 

and Courier: 

. . . under the wide branches of live oak and 

magnolia still flourish many interesting shrubs 

which are thought to be of English origin and 

to have been treasured as such by the early 

settlers of this lovely plantation.126

During Hamlin ownership, access to Snee Farm 

continued to include the tree-lined avenue arising 

from U.S. Highway 17 and the entrance at Long 

Point Road. Visitors to the farm sometimes arrived 

by boat at the landing site on Boone Hall Creek.127

 

122. Vincent, 26. 

123. National Park Service, video of O.D. Hamlin. 

124. Archeology revealed the location of the 

cotton gin. 

125. HABS, 19. 

FIGURE 16. The house at Snee Farm, circa 1930s. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 17. The house at Snee Farm, circa 1930s. Note 

the sheet metal roof. Source: Friends of Historic Snee 

Farm and Charles Pinckney Historic Site. 

FIGURE 18. The west side of the house, circa 1930s. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

126. HABS narrative, citing Petrona Royall McIver, 

“Snee Farm, Near Mt. Pleasant, Col. Pinckney’ 

Place,” Charleston News and Courier (April 

1933). 

127. Vincent, 28. 
Developmental History 

28 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 19. The main hall of the house, circa 1930s. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 20. The fireplace in the southeast parlor of 

the house, circa 1930s. Source: Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site files. 

 

128. The wing additions, bam and servants house 

were designed and constructed by Beers and 

Farley (William Harmon Beers, FAIA, and Frank 

Cheney Farley) of New York, circa 1935–1936. 

129. HABS, 6, quoting News and Courier, December 

5, 1936. 

Thomas Ewing and Thomas Stone 

Ownership (1936–1968) 

Thomas Ewing bought Snee Farm in 1936, three 

years after his daughter, Alexandra Ewing Stone, 

and son-in-law, Thomas Stone, purchased Boone 

Hall, on the north side of Long Point Road. In 

1936, the Ewings enlarged the house at Snee Farm, 

adding identical flanking wings at the northeast 

and northwest corners with a porch between 

them, and making a series of interior changes.128

The Ewings engaged architects William Harmon 

Beers, FAIA, and Frank Cheney Farley of New 

York to design the addition. Raymond Weeks and 

the Charleston Construction Company were hired 

to build the addition. Interior decorating was 

directed by Mrs. Lionel K. Legge and Mrs. William 

S. Stevens through Porgy’s Shop, in consultation 

with architect William Beers. Joe Diaguardi was 

the local sub-contractor under the contractor 

Livingston of New York.”129

As part of the work, a new roof was installed on 

the original house and wings. The original spaced 

wood sheathing was removed, and a new 1x8 

tongue-and-groove solid wood deck was nailed to 

the original roof rafters. The roof was covered 

with cement asbestos shingles.130

Inside, several changes were made. On the first 

floor, a china cabinet was installed in the 

northwest room that blocked the west side 

passage, while the wall opening in the southwest 

room was closed up. The east side passage was 

similarly closed up and divided into two closets, 

one each for the southeast and northeast rooms. 

On the second floor, the northwest room was 

subdivided into two new bathrooms. Paint was 

stripped from the cypress paneling in the 

corridors.131 It also appears that some interior 

doors were relocated: upstairs doors were moved 

downstairs, and new doors were installed upstairs. 

Antique hardware was installed in existing doors 

130. Buono and Jones; Memorandum, House at 

Snee Farm, Project: New Cedar Shingle Roof, 

March 6, 2002. 

131. HABS, 7. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 29

to replace missing or broken items.132 The 1936 

renovation included installation of a boiler in the 

basement below the kitchen wing. 

Architects Beers and Farley also designed a small 

cottage for the Ewings that was built circa 1936 to 

replace an earlier Hamlin-era structure located 

near the Long Point Road entrance.133 This 

dwelling was later redesigned as a library, or 

guesthouse, in 1959.134

Several structures were present on the property in 

1941 as evidenced in an aerial photograph. A 

house, perhaps used by a property manager or 

farm overseer, and an associated shed or garage 

were situated near the small tidal creek west of the 

main house.135 A cowshed was also situated north 

of the main house.136 Two smaller structures were 

located near the area of the former slave cabins. 

The corn crib (circa 1910) was also present. 

FIGURE 21. 1941 aerial photograph. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site: Cultural Landscape 

Report, 30. 

The point of land north of Long Point Road, near 

the boat landing, is shown as containing two 

structures, possibly tenant houses, with associated 

 

132. HABS, 7. 

133. Vincent, 29. Beers and Farley also built a barn, 

but this structure later burned. 

134. HABS, 20. 

135. Vincent, 31. Joyce Hollowell and her husband 

removed the overseer house after 1968 when 

they lived at Snee Farm. 

outbuildings. Another small structure stood along 

the causeway to Boone Hall Creek. 

The 1941 aerial photograph also illustrates 

ongoing agricultural use of the property. South of 

the dwelling complex, large agricultural fields are 

indicated and divided by the plantation avenue. 

Otherwise, approximately two-thirds of the site is 

composed of woodlands located to the east, west, 

and south of the cultivated fields. On the northeast 

edge of the fields, trees follow either a ditch or a 

road. Trees also line the southern third of the 

avenue. The tidal marshes and creeks reveal the 

traces of historic ditches and banks. Small 

agricultural fields surround the houses on the 

point of land north of Long Point Road. 

The property entrance drive from Long Point 

Road is visible extending south toward the main 

house, and continuing on toward U.S. Highway 17. 

The archeological remains of the Hamlin 

workshop and storage building, formerly the 

McCants cotton gin, have been discovered in the 

middle of the entrance road, suggesting that the 

alignment of the road has shifted over time.137 The 

photograph also shows a second entrance to the 

property near the smaller tidal creek on Long 

Point Road, near the present-day barn. This road 

travels southward toward the overseer/tenant 

house and may be a remnant of an eighteenthcentury path or road. 

In 1943, the Stones inherited Snee Farm from the 

Ewings, and subsequently moved to the property. 

Around this time, a new barn was built on the 

property. It too was designed by architects Beers 

and Farley.138 The ten-stall barn survives on the 

property today. 

The Stones are also known to have installed the 

present-day replica stone cenotaph honoring Col. 

Charles Pinckney.139 The replica was placed in the 

136. National Park Service, video of O. D. Hamlin. 

137. Vincent, 31, Dr. Bennie C. Keel, telephone 

conversation, October 28, 1997. 

138. HABS, 7. 

139. National Park Service, “Interim Operating 

Plan: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site” 

(January 1991). 
Developmental History 

30 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

vicinity of T. J. Hamlin’s wooden marker southeast 

of the house.140 The wooden marker remained at 

Snee Farm for many years, disappearing just prior 

to National Park Service acquisition of the 

property in 1990. Additionally, Alexandra Stone 

and her daughter, Ellen Stone, planted a camellia 

and azalea garden circa 1945 north of the main 

house. The shrubs were a gift from Queen Julianna 

of Holland, following Thomas Stone’s diplomatic 

service in that country.141 The Stones are also 

credited with planting the cedars that stand along 

the avenue.142

The Stones made a few small changes inside the 

house. Circa 1950s, cypress tongue-and-groove 

paneling was added to the first floor closet in the 

southeast room to create a gun cabinet. In 1959, 

bookshelves were added to the south end of the 

second floor hall, per designs by Albert Simons of 

the Charleston architectural firm Simons, Lapham 

& Mitchel.143

Guilds and Joyce Hollowell 

Ownership (1968–1986) 

In 1968, the Stones sold 687 acres of the Snee Farm 

property, including the majority of the fields, 

wetlands, woodlands, and part of the avenue, to 

developers. They sold the remaining 28 acres, 

which featured the dwelling complex, grove, 

entrance from Long Point Road, barn area, and a 

portion of the agricultural fields and avenue, to 

Guilds and Joyce Hollowell. 

The Hollowells made several changes to the 

property over their eighteen year tenure, including 

upgrades to the electrical and plumbing systems 

 

140. National Park Service, video of O.D. Hamlin. 

141. Mrs. T. Joseph Devine (Ellen Stone) to David 

Moffley, 5 October 1988, Charleston Historical 

Society, Charleston, South Carolina, as found 

in HABS, 20. Apparently, the Stones left 

Holland with the shrubs and brought them to 

Snee Farm. 

142. The cedars are not evident in the 1941 aerial 

photo, but were planted sometime before 

1968. 

143. HABS, 7; National Park Service drawing No. 

xxx-60011, “Proposed Bookshelves at Snee 

Farm,” January 13, 1959. 

and installation of a swimming pool (Figure 22). 

The cottage was adapted for use as a pool house 

and guesthouse. The Hollowells also removed the 

overseer’s house and related structures, and built a 

basketball court east of the residence.144

It was also during the Hollowell period of 

ownership that Snee Farm was listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places, on April 13, 

1973, and designated a National Historic 

Landmark, on November 7, 1973.145

FIGURE 22. The swimming pool built by the 

Hollowells. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site files. 

C and G Investments (1986–1988) 

In 1986, the Hollowells sold the property to 

Charles P. and Gordon Darby, developers in 

business under the name C and G Investments. 

The Darbys intended to develop the property as 

forty residential lots. Although work to grade the 

proposed development road system was initiated, 

144. Vincent, 32. 

145. Wright Caughman, Historic Preservation 

Assistant, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History, National Register of 

Historic Places (National Historic Landmark) 

nomination for Snee Farm, July 21, 1972; 

entered into the National Register of Historic 

Places, April 13, 1973, and designated a 

National Historic Landmark on November 7, 

1973. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 31

the project was quickly halted after local residents 

raised strong objection to the destruction of the 

farm due to its historic associations. 

Friends of Historic Snee Farm 

(1988–1990) 

Shortly after the property was sold in 1986, private 

citizens organized a non-profit group, the Friends 

of Historic Snee Farm, to protect the remaining 

portion of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm. The 

Friends of Historic Snee Farm was created as “an 

alliance of citizens and organizations . . . for the 

purpose of creating the Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site to recognize his achievement as a 

principal drafter of the United States Constitution. 

The goal of the Friends is to purchase Pinckney’s 

home, Snee Farm . . . as an historic resource for 

present and future generations.”146

Following a successful fundraising campaign, the 

Friends of Historic Snee Farm acquired the 

property in July 1988 for $2 million. With $1 

million in hand, the Friends secured a $1.1 million 

bank loan to complete the sale. The Darby 

brothers donated $100,000 back to the Friends 

group after the sale was finalized.147

On September 8, 1988, Congress enacted Public 

Law 100-421, authorizing the establishment of 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. The 

legislation directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

“1) provide the interpretation of the life of Charles 

Pinckney; 2) preserve and interpret Snee Farm, 

home of Charles Pinckney; and 3) present the 

history of the United States as a young Nation.”148

The House of Representatives Report 100-698 

elaborated on the new park unit’s purpose by 

calling for the interpretation of the history of all 

the site’s inhabitants, slave as well as free.149

 

146. Mrs. James B. (Ann) Edwards and Candice 

Solyen, Friends of Historic Snee Farm and 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (2012), 

16‒17. 

147. Arlie Porter, “Preservation Group Wins Battle 

to Save Snee Farm,” Post-Courier, no date 

[July 1988]; “Historic Farmhouse Bought by a 

Group in South Carolina,” The New York 

Times, July 26, 1988. 

On September 21–22, 1989, before the property 

was transferred to the federal government, 

Hurricane Hugo came ashore in Charleston, 

wreaking havoc within the city. At Snee Farm, the 

house survived in relatively good condition, losing 

only a few shingles from the roof. The trees on the 

property did not fare as well, however, with 

40 percent lost. Several archeological sites were 

damaged by uprooted trees.150

FIGURE 23. The Snee Farm house, circa 1980s. Source: 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 24. The caretaker’s cottage. Source: HABS 

photography by Jack E. Boucher, 1991. 

HABS No. SC-87-A-2. 

148. Public Law 100-421, September 8, 1988, 102 

Stat. 1581‒1582. 

149. National Park Service, “Statement for 

Management, Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site” (1990), 5‒6. 

150. Hurricane Hugo Damage to Fort Sumter 

National Monument and Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site in September 1989. 

National Park Service, September 1990. 
Developmental History 

32 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

National Park Service 

Administration (1990 to present) 

Title to the 28.45 acre site was transferred to the 

United States on May 11, 1990. The federal 

government paid the Friends of Historic Snee 

Farm $705,000 to retire the loan for the property. 

One of the government’s first priorities after 

taking title was to clean up the site and remove the 

trees damaged or killed by Hurricane Hugo. 

Throughout the twentieth century, it was widely, 

but mistakenly, believed that the house had been 

constructed circa 1754 and thus had a direct 

personal connection to Charles Pinckney. This 

date was cited in the 1973 National Register 

nomination and National Historic Landmark 

listing. However, initial investigations conducted 

by National Park Service architects in October 

1989 and X-ray analysis of nails in July 1990 

suggested a later construction date. Follow-up 

investigations were commissioned in March 1991 

by the Friends of Historic Snee Farm. The 

investigations, conducted on April 18–20, 1991, 

concluded that the building dated to circa 1830 

based on the types of nails present in the roof 

framing and gable wall construction, which were 

predominantly used after 1815. Additional 

evidence included wall studs and wood board 

cladding on the second floor secured with 

machine-headed cut nails typical of the nineteenth 

century, and no evidence of earlier partitions or 

framing. Similarly, at the first floor, the interior 

wall framing was attached with nineteenth century 

machine-headed cut nails, and there was no trace 

of any earlier framing or partition locations. 

Finally, the configuration of the framing, with 

joists that ran over the top of sills, and the finished 

planed surfaces of the lumber were also typical of 

 

151. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991). 

152. Julia A. King, “Archaeological Investigations 

at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm, Mt. Pleasant, 

South Carolina” (Prepared for the Friends of 

Historic Snee Farm, Inc., 1991). 

nineteenth century construction practices.151

Archeological evidence also suggested the remains 

of the Pinckney House below the existing house.152

Based on these investigations and the history of 

real estate transactions for the property, it was 

determined that the house was not built until circa 

1830, following Charles Pinckney III’s sale of the 

property in 1817.153

Before the property was opened to the public in 

1995, the National Park Service undertook several 

projects to address condition and integrity issues 

associated with the house, and adapt the barn and 

corn crib to new uses. In addition, the 1968 

swimming pool south of the caretaker’s cottage 

was removed and backfilled in 1991.154 Archival 

research and archeological investigations were 

conducted to support the work. 

Prior to National Park Service acquisition of the 

property, the caretaker’s cottage was occupied. At 

the time of acquisition, the house was in fair to 

poor condition. A structural inspection conducted 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the main 

house, barn, corn crib, and caretaker’s cottage at 

the request of the park in July 1992 noted 

significant deterioration of the caretaker’s cottage. 

Conditions observed included deterioration of the 

shingle roofing, significant termite damage to the 

first floor framing, and major structural repairs 

required to the floor and wall framing. The report 

indicated that based on existing conditions, it 

would be more cost-effective to demolish and 

153. Jerry L. Rogers, Associated Director, Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, to Honorable 

Bruce F. Vento, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

National Parks and Public Lands, U.S. House of 

Representatives, December 5, 1991; Vento to 

James M. Ridenour, Director, National Park 

Service, January 17, 1992; and reply from 

Ridenour to Vento, February 19, 1992. 

154. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

June 19, 1991. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 33

replace the cottage than to repair it.155 The 

National Park Service then provided 

documentation to the South Carolina Department 

of Archives and History proposing demolition of 

the caretaker’s cottage and indicating a 

determination of No Effect as a result of the 

proposed demolition.156 The State Historic 

Preservation Office responded that it did not 

concur with the determination of No Effect, 

noting that demolition of a contributing building 

within a National Register-listed property was 

considered an adverse effect.157 Based on the 

period of significance as understood at the time, 

the park chose not to maintain the caretaker’s 

cottage, and the building continued to fall into 

disrepair.158 

 

155. Letter from Lincoln C. Blake, P.E., Programs 

Manager, Support for Others, Programs and 

Project Management Division, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Charleston District, to John 

Tucker, Superintendent, Fort Sumter National 

Monument, August 7, 1992. 

156. Letter from Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate 

Regional Director, Cultural Resources, 

National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, to George L. Vogt, Director, 

Department of Archives and History, 

Columbia, South Carolina, August 25, 1994; 

see also Michael Allen, Assessment of Actions 

Having an Effect on Cultural Resources, 

Charles Pinckney NHS, Removal of Caretaker’s 

House, July 7, 1994. 

157. Letter from Mary Watson Edmonds, Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer, South 

Carolina Department of Archives and History, 

to Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate Regional 

Director, Cultural Resources, National Park 

Service Southeast Regional Office, 

September 8, 1994. This letter references prior 

correspondence on the same issue from 

November 20, 1992, and January 26, 1993, 

including commentary on the August 1992 

structural assessment. The letter of 

September 8, 1994, indicated that further 

documentation of structural deterioration as 

affecting integrity had been requested by the 

South Carolina Department of Archives and 

History but not received, and concluded that 

Rehabilitation of the Main House (1990–

1995). Over a five year period, the main house 

was rehabilitated to support interpretation of the 

life of Charles Pinckney and to allow for visitor 

access. 

In 1991, the 1936 boiler and heating pipe 

insulation were removed to mitigate asbestos 

insulation, including excavation of 4 inches of soil 

from the floor below the boiler, to remove any 

potential contamination. The pipe runs affected 

were in the kitchen wing, in the crawl space below 

the north porch, below the master bedroom wing, 

and extending south under the northwest room of 

the main house.159

The plumbing system dated primarily to the 1936 

renovation, but also included some 1960s 

additions and replacements. Piping was a mixture 

of galvanized iron and copper. As part of the work, 

the next step would be to provide an 

opportunity for the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation to comment on the 

proposed demolition. Information available 

from the park archives reviewed for this 

project did not contain additional 

documentation related to further review. 

158. The National Register and National Historic 

Landmark nomination (prepared 1972 and 

1973) for Snee Farm addresses the main house 

and does not discuss the potential significance 

of the caretaker’s cottage. Both the National 

Register and National Historic Landmark 

nominations cite the eighteenth century as 

the period of significance, noting specific 

dates of 1754 and 1754–1824 respectively. 

These dates are based on the 

misunderstanding at the time the nomination 

were prepared that the main house was 

constructed in 1754. This misunderstanding 

was not corrected until the early 1990s, when 

a nail analysis study conducted on the main 

house by the National Park Service indicated a 

likely construction date of circa 1830, and the 

National Register period of significance for 

the property was not updated at that time. 

(Refer to the chapter on Significance and 

Integrity for further discussion of the period 

of significance.) 

159. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991. 
Developmental History 

34 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

the second floor bathrooms were disconnected 

and drained, and the sinks in the kitchen, laundry, 

and butler’s pantry were removed. New polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) plastic piping was installed to serve 

the two accessible public restrooms created in the 

former master bedroom wing as well as for the 

existing half bath in the kitchen wing. (Two 

accessible restrooms were completed; sometime 

after 1996, one restroom was closed to the public 

and used for storage.) Also, an electric water 

heater was installed in the basement.160

The existing electrical wiring also dated primarily 

to 1936, with additions from the 1960s and 1970s. 

As part of a system upgrade, selected circuits were 

replaced with new conduit and wiring in the same 

locations, with existing wiring abandoned in 

place.161

Since the existing heating and air conditioning was 

no longer operable, the existing air handlers and 

condensers were entirely removed and a new 

system was installed, including related electrical 

work. The new system was configured as four, 

split-system heat pumps, with blower coil units, 

electric heat, and outdoor heat pump units. One 

unit was to be 5 tons cooling capacity, while the 

other three were to be 3 tons capacity. Where 

feasible, existing attic ductwork and grilles were 

retained and reused. As part of the work, R-38 

fiberglass insulation was added to the ceilings from 

the attic, and R-19 fiberglass insulation was added 

to the underside of the first floor at the crawl 

space.162 As designed, air handler one was located 

in the crawlspace below the central hall of the 

 

160. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 7, 1991. 

161. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991. 

162. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

July 17, 1991, and specifications Section 15010, 

Mechanical Work, and Section 16010, 

Electrical Work, no date. 

163. National Park Service Drawing No. 345-25001, 

April 1991. 

164. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991. The document, prepared on 

March 25, 1991, indicates that there had been 

a recent break-in, with the southeast room 

fireplace mantel the target of the thieves. 

main house to serve the first floor of the main 

house. Existing grilles in the floor were retained 

for supply and return air, except for one existing 

floor grille at the north end of the hall that was 

abandoned in place. The heat pump for this air 

handler was located in the crawlspace below the 

southwest room. Air handler two was located in 

the basement and served the former kitchen wing; 

the heat pump for this unit was located below the 

northwest room of the main house. Air handler 

three was located in the crawlspace below the 

connecting link and served the former master 

bedroom wing; the heat pump for this unit was 

located below the northeast room of the main 

house. Finally, air handler four was located in the 

attic to serve the second floor of the house, with a 

heat pump for this unit in the crawlspace below 

the southeast room. The air handlers were to be 

suspended from the wood floor construction, 

while the heat pumps were to be placed on new 

concrete slabs.163 

Also installed in 1991 was an electronic security 

system, with intrusion and fire sensors added to 

the ceilings of rooms and corridors. Wiring for the 

system was concealed in the attic or crawlspace.164

A new telephone system was also installed, with 

the main panel located in the basement and the 

telephone company service entry on the west side 

of the main house, near the kitchen wing.165

Scraping, sanding, priming, and painting of the 

exterior wood cladding was performed on the 

house in 1991–1992.166 Prior to stripping the 

existing paint build-up, samples were taken to 

165. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991. 

166. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991, and specification Section 09901, 

Painting and Other Finishing, no date; 

Ferguson Fulghum, Inc., Painting Contractors, 

to Don Gronwaldt, Fort Sumter National 

Monument, January 21, 1992. Although the 

Section 106 documentation indicates that 

preparation and painting were also 

performed on the barn and corn crib, only the 

house was painted as part of this project. 

Correspondence with John Wood, National 

Park Service Southeast Regional Office 

(formerly with Charles Pinckney National 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 35

determine the historic color of the house for 

repainting. Exterior siding and trim scraped to 

bare wood was primed with linseed oil, followed 

by an oil-based primer and two coats of white 

paint (Figure 25 and Figure 26).167 Porch floors 

and exterior shutters were treated similarly, with 

the finish coats in “Charleston Green,” a very dark, 

almost black color. Masonry and metal were also 

painted.168

In spring 1993, the existing cement asbestos 

shingle roof of the house was replaced with new 

gray-colored mineral fiber shingle roofing, by the 

Supradur Manufacturing Co. New gutters and 

downspouts were also installed. The work cost 

approximately $50,000. Since bids had come in 

over the available budget, most of the existing 

1930s-era copper flashings were retained and 

reused.169 

FIGURE 25. The house with all previous exterior paint 

layers removed and ready for repainting, 1992. Also 

note the localized removal of siding boards for 

replacement at the northeast wing. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

 

Historic Site), July 2015. 

167. The painting contractor expressed concern 

that the linseed oil primer would promote 

mildew growth on the wood. 

168. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

May 6, 1991, and specification Section 09901, 

Painting and Other Finishing, no date; 

Ferguson Fulghum, Inc., Painting Contractors, 

to Don Gronwaldt, Fort Sumter National 

Monument, January 21, 1992. 

169. Specification, “Replace Roof System, Charles 

Pinckney House, Snee Farm National Historic 

Site, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina” (Atlanta, 

FIGURE 26. The house with previous paint layers 

removed from all exterior wood elements, 1992. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

Another project implemented in the early 1990s 

involved the installation of a new wood sill plate 

around the perimeter of the northwest wing, 

where the wood-framed structure rests atop the 

masonry foundation (Figure 27 through 

Figure 31). The pine framing of the northwest 

wing had been severely damaged by termite 

infestation. As part of this repair project the entire 

house was tented, treated for termites, a new sill 

plate installed, framing repair ore placed, and the 

lower portions of the wood siding replaced.170

Georgia: National Park Service, April 21, 1992); 

Jon Buono and Tommy Jones, “A Report of 

the Roof of the Main House, Snee Farm, 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site” 

(Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service, 

March 2001). 

170. As determined through work conducted by 

the park for exterior wall repairs in 2013, the 

wood framing on the main house was cypress, 

while that of the northeast and northwest 

wings was pine and more vulnerable to 

deterioration. Correspondence with John 

Wood, National Park Service Southeast 
Developmental History 

36 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 27. South wall of the northwest wing, with 

the sill plate removed. Source: Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 28. South wall of the northwest wing, with 

the new sill plate and metal ties installed. Source: 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 29. South wall of the northwest wing, work 

in progress. Source: Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site files. 

 

Regional Office (formerly with Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site), July 2015. 

FIGURE 30. West wall of the northwest wing, work in 

progress. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site files. 

FIGURE 31. East and north walls of the northwest 

wing, work in progress. Source: Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site files. 

 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 37

In 1994–1995, a lift was installed adjacent to the 

north porch to provide for universal access, 

including the addition of a raised platform on the 

north porch itself (Figure 32).171 Although Section 

106 compliance documentation indicates that the 

doors from the exterior north porch to the pantry, 

and from the pantry to the northwest room, were 

to be slightly widened as part of work related to 

installation of the lift, the doors were not altered 

with the exception of minor modifications to the 

trim to provide clearance. An original swinging 

door leading from the northwest wing (former 

butler’s pantry) to the northwest room (former 

dining room) was removed at this time. 

FIGURE 32. The north porch, circa 1993–1994, with 

the balustrade removed for repair. The accessibility 

lift was installed at this location. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

In late 1993, the gun cabinet built of tongue-andgroove cypress panels in the southeast room was 

removed to inspect the underlying finishes of the 

closet.172 After inspection of the closets, the closet 

divider wall was determined to be non-original 

and was also removed to allow the original passage 

from the northeast to the southeast room to be 

reopened (Figure 33 and Figure 34).173 Similarly, in 

1995, the china cabinet in the northwest room 

(dining room) was removed to allow the passage 

from the northwest to the southwest room to be 

reopened (Figure 35). The china cabinet was 

 

171. Section 106 compliance documentation, April 

20, 1995; Handicapped Access for the House at 

Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site; correspondence with John Wood, 

National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office (formerly with Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site), July 2015. 

salvaged as a free-standing piece of furniture and 

relocated to the master bedroom wing.174

FIGURE 33. Gun cabinet in the southeast room, 1993. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 34. Closet in the northeast room, 1993. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

172. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

October 1993. 

173. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

February 2, 1994. 

174. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

March 27, 1995. 
Developmental History 

38 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 35. China cabinet in the northwest room, 

1993. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

files. 

In 1995, appliances and some base cabinets were 

removed from the kitchen wing to allow this space 

to be used for administrative offices. As part of the 

same work, partition walls that defined closets in 

the master bedroom wing were removed, creating 

a larger presentation room from the former master 

bedroom.175

FIGURE 36. Remodeling in the northeast wing, April 

1995. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

files. 

 

175. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

April 17, 1995. 

176. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

March 30, 1992. 

FIGURE 37. Remodeling in the northeast wing, April 

1995. Note the patched areas of flooring at lower 

left where partition walls were removed. Source: 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

Rehabilitation of the Barn (1990–1993). In 

1992, the electrical service to the barn was buried. 

Formerly, the service entered the building 

overhead from a pole to the west. The new 

underground service followed the same path and 

entered the west side of the building.176

By 1992, the sheet metal roof of the main barn had 

severely deteriorated, resulting in water leakage 

and damage to the wood sheathing.177 The 

condition of the barn at that time was described as 

follows: 

The barn is a two story wood framed building 

with metal roof that was constructed in the 

early 1940s. The building is rapidly 

deteriorating. The foundation has shifted 

because vegetation growth and erosion causing 

some walls to become unstable. The north, east 

and west exterior walls have been damaged 

termite. The exterior paint is peeling exposing 

bare pine wood to adverse weather conditions. 

Much of the siding has deteriorated beyond 

use. The metal roofing and flashing is rusted 

causing numerous interior leaks which has 

damaged sheathing boards and rafters. The 

existing electrical panel is rated to 50 amps and 

does not meet the National Electrical Code.178

177. Lincoln C. Blake, Charleston District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Memorandum, Structural 

Inspection, Snee Farm, August 7, 1992. 

178. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

July 17, 1992. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 39

FIGURE 38. The exterior of the barn, circa 1992. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 39. The exterior of the barn, circa 1992. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 40. The exterior of the barn, circa 1992. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

 

179. Ibid. 

FIGURE 41. The exterior of the barn, circa 1992. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

The National Park Service made plans to 

adaptively reuse the barn as a maintenance and 

storage facility, and to address roof repair needs as 

part of the project. The work was proposed to 

include the following: 

Remove vegetation from foundation and repair 

damage so that the foundation will properly 

support the building. Eight stalls have dirt 

floors that will be treated for termites followed 

by four inch gravel base and four inch concrete 

slab so the rooms can be utilized for storage. 

The deteriorated galvanized metal roofing and 

flashing will be replaced in kind. A galvanized 

metal drip edge will be installed on the east and 

west gable to prevent any further deterioration 

of sheathing boards. Siding will be removed in 

the termite damaged areas to repair wall 

framing with treated lumber. Reinstall salvage 

siding or replace in kind. Repair or replace in 

kind exterior doors and window so the 

building can be secured from public access. 

Repair exterior of building to match existing 

and protect remaining historic fabric.179

Initiated in 1993, the project included the 

proposed work described above. Specifically, 

siding on the barn was replaced up to the level of 

the tops of the doors on the rear of the structure, 

and at other locations where it had deteriorated. 

The stall walls and doors along the north side of 

the building were removed, and the door openings 

converted to windows. 
Developmental History 

40 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 42. Installation of a new roof on the barn, 

1993. Note that the cupola was entirely removed for 

repair and reconstruction as part of this project. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

Prior to the renovation, the main hallway, the 

conference room, and a storage room at the 

northwest corner of the building had concrete 

floors, while the rest of the building had dirt 

floors. The soil was removed, the building treated 

for termites, and a concrete slab installed. (The 

original concrete floors were left in place and the 

new slab installed over them.) The roof was 

replaced as noted above. 

Also as part of this project, a new electrical system, 

a new security system, a new plumbing system, and 

a new HVAC system were to be installed. All 

exterior walls and attic areas were to be insulated. 

Fire-rated gypsum board, 5/8 inch thick, was to be 

installed at portions of the interior. New interior 

doors and trim were provided where needed, and 

selected interior walls, ceilings, and trim were 

painted. New floor finishes were also installed in 

portions of the house.180 The Navy SeaBees 

assisted with the roof and cupola work on the 

barn, as well as the second section of the sewer 

line, which led from the barn to the main house. 

(The Seabees also worked with the park to 

construct the visitor contact station.)181

As part of the renovation of the barn, the decision 

was made not to condition the central hallway of 

the first floor in order to allow the existing 

 

180. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

January 7, 1993. 

181. Superintendent’s Annual Report, FY 1993. 

182. Memorandum, “Site inspection Charles 

Pinckney Barn, Historical Architect, to Chief, 

exposed structure above to remain visible, rather 

than being concealed by new ceiling finishes and 

insulation as at the remainder of the first floor.182

During the project, all windows were retained in 

place. New exterior doors were fabricated to 

match existing historic doors at the front section 

of the barn. Three doors in the central corridor 

were altered to provide universally accessible 

clearances, but the remaining original doors were 

retained. The ceiling in the central hall was not 

lowered but left exposed.183

FIGURE 43. The interior of the barn at the first floor, 

circa 1992. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site files. 

FIGURE 44. The interior of the barn at the first floor, 

circa 1992. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site files. 

Historic Architecture Division, Southeast 

Region, October 1992. 

183. Memorandum from John Tucker, 

Superintendent, to Mike Capps, 106 

Compliance Officer, March 23, 1993. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 41

FIGURE 45. The interior of the barn at the hayloft, 

circa 1992. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site files. 

Rehabilitation of the Corn Crib, 1993. The 

corn crib had suffered severe termite damage to its 

floor structure, which had partially collapsed by 

1992.184 Located in a relatively low-lying and wet 

area, the original wood foundation was rotted, 

deteriorated, and had been affected by termites. 

Deterioration of the wood foundation had caused 

the building to shift forward. 

In 1993, the corn crib was lifted using jacks, a new 

concrete slab constructed, and the structure 

lowered into place (Figure 46). During the work, 

the walls were detached from the original wood 

foundation, which was removed. The walls were 

shifted upward, a new concrete slab was poured, 

and the corn crib was reinstalled on the new 

foundation. As part of this project, localized 

repairs were also performed to the siding on the 

front and rear elevations. Although Section 106 

compliance documentation indicates that the 

existing metal roofing was to be replaced with new 

metal roofing in the same style, this work was not 

completed as part of the project. The repaired 

building was adaptively reused for flammable and 

hazardous material storage.185

 

184. Lincoln C. Blake, Charleston District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Memorandum, Structural 

Inspection, Snee Farm, August 7, 1992. 

185. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

February 25, 1993; correspondence with John 

Wood, NPS Southeast Regional Office 

(formerly with Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site), July 2015. It was originally 

FIGURE 46. The corn crib on its new foundation, circa 

1993. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

files. 

Additional Efforts (1995 to present). The 

park officially opened to the public on May 5, 

1995. The park was administered as part of Fort 

Sumter National Monument; four staff were 

assigned full time to the park site. Work continued 

after this time to address ongoing condition issues 

and to improve site accessibility. 

By September 1995, plans for a new curatorial 

building were complete, and the contract was 

awarded to Harbortowne Construction of Mount 

Pleasant. The building was completed in 1996. 

Also in 1996, a comfort station was constructed 

northeast of the house, and the visitor parking area 

and utility corridor were also completed. 

In 1996, several additional projects were 

completed that included installation of water lines 

from main supply to the curatorial building; 

fabrication and installation of historically accurate 

lattice around the crawl space of the house; 

fabrication and installation of doors in the ranger 

office area; and completion of the curatorial 

facility. Planning for installation of a sprinkler 

system in the house began. Archeological 

investigations suggested the presence of an earlier 

proposed to relocate the structure 200 yards 

to the east; however, as implemented the corn 

crib was instead retained at its original site. 

Mr. Wood also noted that by 1991, the 

exterior of the corn crib had been painted 

with white latex paint, although some of the 

older timbers may have retained whitewash 

applied in earlier coating campaigns. 
Developmental History 

42 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

foundation directly south of the existing main 

house that was considered to be the Pinckney-era 

dwelling. 

After the painting of the house was completed in 

1992, mildew growth on the newly applied paint 

remained of concern in the 1990s.186

In 1997, a dry pipe sprinkler system was installed 

in the house.187 

In 1998, archeological investigations indicated the 

presence of an earlier structure below the house. 

The investigations continued in 1999, and later 

confirmed the previous presence of a structure 

consisting of at least four rooms with a cellar at the 

same site. 

Also during 1999, AmeriCorps labor assisted park 

staff in repainting the house, repairing the wood 

trim, and removing vegetation from around the 

building foundation. Hurricane Floyd caused 

some damage to park vegetation, and left piles of 

debris requiring clean up. 

In 2000, an 800-foot long 8-foot wide pathway was 

built to allow visitors to follow the historic 

entrance road. An additional 400 feet of 5-foot 

wide walking paths were also completed around 

the house. Small non-native plantings around the 

foundation of the house were removed. 

The non-asbestos fiber-cement shingle roof 

installed in 1993 generally performed well, but 

intermittent leakage around the dormers was 

observed throughout the 1990s. This leakage most 

likely predated the 1993 roof replacement, but was 

not resolved by the 1993 work. Also, the 1993 

cement shingles were relatively brittle and cracked 

easily when the roof was accessed for painting of 

 

186. Superintendent’s Annual Report, FY 1997. 

187. Section 106 compliance documentation, 

February 27, 1997; NPS Drawing No. 345-

60007, “Fire Protection Sprinkler System, 

House at Snee Farm,” February 1997. 

188. Jon Buono and Tommy Jones, A Report of the 

Roof of the Main House, Snee Farm, Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site (Atlanta, 

Georgia: National Park Service, Building 

Conservation Research Program, March 2001). 

adjacent wood elements and other maintenance 

and inspection.188 In 2001, the decision was made 

to replace the roof. Since no source of durable 

asbestos-free cement shingles could be identified 

to match the 1930s roof material, it was decided to 

replace the roof with pressure-treated Western red 

cedar (Thuja plicata) shingles to better 

approximate the character of the original roof. As 

part of the installation of the new roof in 2001–

2002, a 5/16-inch-thick aluminum foil radiant 

barrier was placed over the 1930s wood deck, 

covered by furring strips, and new spaced wood 

sheathing. A new perimeter drip edge detail was 

installed to conceal the added thickness. New 

lead-coated copper flashings were also installed 

throughout the roof (Figure 47 through Figure 50). 

The new roof cost approximately $55,000.189 

FIGURE 47. The fiber cement shingle roof and 

associated copper flashings, east dormer of the south 

side, 1997. Note the temporary sheet metal patching 

of the roof at left. Source: Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site files. 

189. Memorandum, House at Snee Farm, Project: 

New Cedar Shingle Roof, March 6, 2002; 

Notice of Award, Kimberly Washington, 

National Park Service, to Holman 

Construction, Fort Valley, Georgia, 

September 28, 2001; Contract specifications, 

“Replace Roof for House at Snee Farm,” July 

2001. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 43

FIGURE 48. View of the house from the south, 1997. 

Note the temporary sheet metal patching of the roof 

to the left of the southeast dormer. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 49. The fiber cement shingle roof, prior to its 

replacement, November 2, 2001. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 50. The new cedar shingle roof during 

installation, February 12, 2002. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

 

190. Correspondence with John Wood, NPS 

Southeast Regional Office (formerly with 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site), July 

2015. 

In 2003–2004, the house was again repainted, and 

water damaged plaster at the ceiling inside was 

repaired. 

By 2011, the house exterior was again in poor 

condition, with peeling paint and rotted wood 

(Figure 51 through Figure 55). In 2012–2013, the 

house was repainted. Deteriorated wood siding 

and other wood elements were repaired or 

replaced as part of this project. The wood siding 

types were confirmed at this time as cypress on the 

original portion of the house, and pine on the 

northeast and northwest wings. As part of this 

project, vegetation was also removed from around 

the house.190

FIGURE 51. Deterioration of the paint on the wood 

siding of the house, April 2012. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 
Developmental History 

44 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 52. Loss of paint and wood decay, April 2012. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 53. Cracked and peeling paint, April 2012. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 54. Chalking paint, April 2012. Source: Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

FIGURE 55. Organic growth on paint, April 2012. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site files. 

The mechanical units serving the house (the air 

handlers and perhaps the heat pumps) were 

replaced in 2013–2014. 

In September 2014, an area of plaster 

approximately 4 feet square fell from the sloped 

ceiling to the west of the dormer in the southeast 

second floor bedroom. The fallen plaster exposed 

the riven wood lath and wood framing, and was 

noted to be a two-coat system keyed to the lath 

behind. Based on visual examination of the plaster 

at this location, it appears to likely date to, or after, 

the 1930s renovation of the house. This area was 

repaired by the park in 2015. 

In 2015, the park also completed work at the barn 

and corn crib. For the barn, lead-containing 

exterior paint was abated and the wood cleaned to 

remove dirt, mildew, chalk, and paint. 

Deteriorated wood cladding and trim components 

on the exterior walls, soffits and fascia, and cupola 

were repaired where possible and replaced in-kind 

where severely deteriorated. The exterior wood 

was primed and painted colors similar to the 

existing (Figure 56 and Figure 57). The metal 

roofing was replaced with Galvalume finish metal 

panels with a new moisture barrier installed 

beneath. (Work on the cupola will be completed in 

early 2016.) 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 45

FIGURE 56. The barn following repairs in 2015. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

FIGURE 57. The barn following repairs in 2015. 

(Repairs to the cupola will be completed in early 

2016.) Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

For the corn crib, exterior lead-containing paint 

was abated and the wood cleaned to remove dirt, 

mildew, chalk, and paint. Deteriorated wood 

cladding and trim components were repaired 

where possible and replaced in-kind where 

severely deteriorated or missing (Figure 58). The 

metal roofing was replaced with similar 24-inch 

5-V crimp metal panels with a Galvalume finish, 

installed over new treated plywood sheathing and 

a moisture barrier. Salvageable samples of the 

original shake or shingle roof that lay under the 

old metal roof were retained for park collections. 

The rest of the original shake or shingle roofing 

was removed as it was deteriorated beyond repair. 

The building was then whitewashed using a 

historically appropriate formula and technique 

(Figure 59). 

FIGURE 58. The corn crib during repairs in 2015. 

Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

FIGURE 59. The corn crib following completion of 

repairs and application of whitewash, 2015. Source: 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

 
Developmental History 

46 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Snee Farm Chronology 

Late 1600s Richard Butler received a 500-acre land grant, which included the future Snee 

Farm. 

1738 Richard Butler’s son, Benjamin, sold the property to John Allen, who would 

increase the parcel to 715-acres by 1744. 

1748 John Allen died, leaving the property to his widow Anne Scott Allen. 

1754 Charles Pinckney II acquired Snee Farm from John Savage and his wife Anne Scott 

Allen Savage, the widow of John Allen. 

1782 Following the death of his father, Charles Pinckney III inherited Snee Farm. 

1817 

Snee Farm, which was placed in a trust by Charles Pinckney III in 1816, was sold to 

Francis G. Deliesseline, who served as the overseer of the plantation under 

Pinckney for seven years. The farm was 767-1/2 acres at the time of the sale. 

1828 William Mathews, a merchant from Charleston, purchased the farm. 

circa 1830 Mathews constructed a new home at Snee Farm on the foundation of an earlier 

dwelling. 

1841 An 1841 plat map shows that Snee Farm had grown to 915 acres. The plat 

indicates a plantation house, outkitchen, and slave quarters. 

1848 William Mathews died, leaving Snee Farm to his daughter, Susan Hunt. 

1853 William McCants, a planter, purchased Snee Farm. 

1859 Lockwood Allison (L. A.) McCants, inherited ownership of the farm. 

1888 L. A. McCants died, leaving the property to his widow, Mary Jane Hamlin 

McCants. 

1900 Thomas J. Hamlin purchased Snee Farm. 

1910 A corn crib was constructed on the property. 

1911 The wood shingle roofs on the house and corn crib were covered with galvanized 

sheet metal. 

1936 Thomas Ewing purchased Snee Farm. 

1936 

Ewing enlarged the house with flanking wings added to the northeast and 

northwest corners with a porch in between. A new roof was installed on the 

house at this time. Interior renovations, including the construction of two 

bathrooms in the northwest room on the second floor, were also undertaken. 
Developmental History 

National Park Service 47

1943 Alexandra Ewing Stone, the daughter of Thomas Ewing, and her husband, 

Thomas Stone inherited Snee Farm. 

circa 1943 A new barn was constructed on the property. 

1959 Bookshelves were added to the south end of the second floor hall. 

1968 

The Stones sold 687 acres of land at Snee Farm to developers. The remaining 28 

acres, which included the dwelling complex, grove, barn area, entrance from 

Long Point Road, and a portion of the agricultural fields was purchased by Guilds 

and Joyce Hollowell. 

1968-1986 

Several changes to the property were made during this time, including the 

installation of a swimming pool, upgrades to the electrical and plumbing systems, 

the removal of the overseer’s house, and the construction of a basketball court. 

The cottage was adapted for use as a pool house and guesthouse. 

1973 Snee Farm was listed in the National Register of Historic Places and designated a 

National Historic Landmark. 

1986 

C and G Investments purchased the Snee Farm from the Hollowells with the 

intention of developing the property as forty residential lots. While grading work 

was initiated, the project was halted after strong objections were raised by local 

residents. 

1988 

The Friends of Historic Snee Farm acquired the property for $2 million. On 

September 8, 1988, Congress enacted Public Law 100-421, which authorized the 

establishment of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

1989 Hurricane Hugo came ashore in nearby Charleston. Approximately 40 percent of 

the trees at Snee Farm were lost. The house survived in relatively good condition. 

1990 Title to Snee Farm was transferred to the United States government. 

1990–1993 The barn was rehabilitated. 

1990–1995 The main house was rehabilitated. 

1991 The swimming pool south of the caretaker’s cottage was removed and backfilled. 

1993 The corn crib was rehabilitated. 

1995 Charles Pinckney National Historic Site was opened to the public. 

1996 The curatorial building, comfort station, and visitor parking area were 

completed. 

1996 Wood lattice was installed between the foundation piers of the main house. 

1997 A dry pipe sprinkler system was installed in the main house. 
Developmental History 

48 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

2001–2002 A new cedar shingle roof was installed on the main house. 

2003–2004 The house was repainted, and damaged plaster was repaired. 

2012–2013 The house was repainted, and deteriorated wood siding was replaced. 

2015–2016 The exterior wood cladding of the barn and corn crib was repaired and selectively 

replaced, and the roofing on both structures was replaced. 
National Park Service 49

Physical Description and Condition Assessment

Site 

The Charles Pinckney National Historic Site is 

located in the town of Mount Pleasant, South 

Carolina. Mount Pleasant is in Charleston County, 

northeast of Charleston and on the opposite side 

of the Cooper River. Snee Farm is located on the 

Wando Neck, a peninsula of land formed by the 

Wando River to the northwest, the Cooper River 

estuary to the southwest, and Atlantic Ocean tidal 

marshes to the southeast. Most of the historic 715 

acre Snee Farm was developed with suburban 

residential and commercial properties in the 

second half of the twentieth century. The 

remaining 28 acres of the historic estate comprise 

the national historic site, which is located on the 

south side of Long Point Road and contains the 

historic farm structures. The park forms an 

irregularly shaped, approximately rectangular 

parcel located approximately 15 feet above mean 

sea level. A 3-acre forested wetland occupies the 

western portion of the park. A drainage ditch 

forms the property boundary along this edge. 

The Snee Farm main house is located near the 

center of the national historic site. Originally, a 

long approach road with an allée of trees led to the 

south front of the house from the Public Road 

(present-day U.S. Highway 17). The trace of this 

allée survives south of the house, with open fields 

to either side (Figure 60). The immediate vicinity 

of the house includes a mown turf lawn with shade 

trees and ornamental plantings (Figure 61 and 

Figure 62). Relatively dense woodland buffers the 

house site from Long Point Road and also screens 

views from the house to the other historic 

buildings of the site. Concrete sidewalks circle the 

house and connect it to the visitor parking lot and 

other contemporary park facilities at the northeast 

quadrant of the site (Figure 63). There are also 

brick pavers at grade, west of the northwest wing 

(Figure 64), although the existing patio is not as 

extensive as the patio shown on the Historic 

American Building Survey drawings. 

FIGURE 60. A view of the former allée south of the 

house. Source: All photographs in this chapter by the 

authors, September 2014, unless noted otherwise. 

FIGURE 61. Shade trees and a mown turf lawn 

adjacent to the house. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

50 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 62. Shade trees and a mown turf lawn 

adjacent to the house. 

FIGURE 63. Concrete sidewalks circle the house. 

FIGURE 64. Brick pavers west of the northwest wing. 

The Snee Farm corn crib and barn are located at 

the northwest corner of the park. The structures 

share a large flat mown-turf clearing, measuring 

approximately 200 feet by 100 feet, that is bound 

by Long Point Road to the north (Figure 65). The 

mown-turf clearing is approximately 400 feet 

northwest of the Snee Farm house and is accessed 

from the east by a gravel-paved road that extends 

approximately 800 feet west from the main 

entrance and runs parallel to Long Point Road. A 

grass-covered walking path extends through the 

woods from the south side of the clearing. 

FIGURE 65. A large mown-turf clearing in front of the 

corn crib. 

The barn, located at the north side of the clearing, 

is a two-story wood-framed gable roof structure 

with a covered breezeway and a lean-to addition. 

The barn is on a mostly east–west axis and aligned 

with the grass-covered walking path at the south 

side of the clearing. The corn crib is approximately 

50 feet southwest of the barn and is a one-story 

wood-framed gable roof structure with outward 

sloping walls that are narrow at the base and 

project outward at the roof eaves. This building is 

oriented on an east–west axis. 

Along the south side of the gravel road from the 

clearing shared by the barn and corn crib to the 

main park access road is the caretaker’s cottage. 

This structure was abandoned previously, and is 

now partially collapsed (Figure 66 through 

Figure 69). The building is surrounded and 

infiltrated by extensive plant growth. Due to the 

unsafe condition of the structure, it was viewed 

from the exterior only. 

A visitor parking lot is located in a wooded area 

east of the house, in the northeast portion of the 

site (Figure 70). The parking lot is accessed from 

Long Point Road. A shelter/comfort station and 

curatorial storage building are located adjacent to 

the parking area. The shelter/comfort station, a 

one-story structure with wood siding and a 

standing seam metal roof, is located just west of 

the parking lot. The building has a broad overhang 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 51

providing shelter from weather, and contains 

restrooms for visitors. South of the parking lot is 

the curatorial storage building, a one-story 

structure clad in wood siding with a standing seam 

metal roof (Figure 71). Concrete sidewalks 

connect the parking area with the Snee Farm 

House. 

FIGURE 66. A view of the caretaker’s cottage, looking 

southeast. 

FIGURE 67. A view of the caretaker’s cottage, looking 

northeast. 

FIGURE 68. A view of overgrown vegetation adjacent 

to the caretaker’s cottage, looking west. 

FIGURE 69. The interior of the caretaker’s cottage, 

looking east. 

FIGURE 70. A view of the visitor parking lot looking 

west. Note the shelter/comfort station in the 

background. 

FIGURE 71. The curatorial storage building, looking 

south. Source: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 

2016. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

52 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

House 

Historic American Building Survey drawings of the 

house are provided in Appendix A. 

Exterior Description 

The main (original) portion of the house is a sidegable one-and-a-half story structure, 

approximately 38 feet wide east to west and 36 feet 

deep north to south. It is elevated above grade on 

brick piers (Figure 72). The peak of the gable is 

about 26 feet above the first floor. The front of the 

house faces south and includes a full-width porch. 

There are three gabled dormer windows on the 

south and north faces of the main gable roof. 

Attached to the main house at its northeast and 

northwest corners are one-story wings (Figure 73). 

Each wing consists of a small connecting link and a 

front-gable main portion approximately 18 feet 

wide and 31 feet deep. The northwest wing was 

the kitchen and service wing, while the northeast 

wing was the master bedroom suite. There is a 

covered rear porch facing north between the 

connecting links for the two wings. 

FIGURE 72. The south elevation of the house. 

FIGURE 73. The north elevation of the house. 

Foundation. The northwest wing has a full 

basement with Flemish bond brick masonry walls 

(Figure 74). The main house and the northeast 

wing are supported on Flemish bond brick 

masonry piers. At the northeast wing, doublewythe running bond brick masonry infill walls 

extend between each structural pier. In the main 

house, the openings between piers are closed with 

white-painted wood picket fences, some of which 

are operable for access to the crawl space beneath 

the house (Figure 75). All of the exposed brick 

masonry is painted white. 

FIGURE 74. A view of the brick foundation. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 53

FIGURE 75. Painted fences cover openings in the 

foundation at the main house. 

Walls. The exterior walls are clad with horizontal 

wood siding, painted white, with exposures that 

vary from 6-1/2 to 8-1/4 inches. At corners of the 

walls, there are vertical trim boards, and the siding 

at the wings does not align with the siding on the 

main house (Figure 76). 

Much of the exterior siding dates to the 1930s 

renovation, but some pieces near the peak of the 

gable may be original.191 Also, the siding at the 

south wall, which is protected by the south porch, 

is considered to be original.192

FIGURE 76. The siding at the wings does not align 

with the siding on the main house. 

 

191. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991), 20. 

Porches. The south porch extends the full width 

of the building. The shed roof for the porch 

engages the main roof just below the dormer 

window sills (Figure 77), and the south edge of the 

porch roof is supported on six wood columns. The 

columns are not evenly spaced, with a narrower 

center opening where stairs ascend from grade. 

The front and sides of the porch have a wood 

balustrade with turned balusters. Each porch post 

has beveled corners above the height of the 

balustrade. Five sandstone steps, supported on 

unpainted Flemish bond brick masonry walls, rise 

from grade to the porch; the lowest step extends 

wider than the others and has semicircular ends 

(Figure 78). There is no railing at the steps. The 

porch ceiling is paneled with wood (Figure 79). 

FIGURE 77. The shed roof over the south porch. 

FIGURE 78. Sandstone and brick stairs at the south 

porch. 

192. Judith Jacob, Architectural Conservator to 

Chief, Cultural Resources Management 

Division, National Park Service North Atlantic 

Region, Trip Report, Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site, October 7–8, 1991. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

54 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 79. The porch ceiling is paneled with wood. 

The north rear porch is similar, with a shed roof 

meeting the main roof below the dormer window 

sills (Figure 80). The porch roof is continuous over 

the side wings. The porch has four equally spaced 

posts and a balustrade similar to the south porch, 

although the balusters are more closely spaced. At 

the center of the porch, four brick masonry steps 

ascend from grade (Figure 81). The steps are 

supported on flaring brick masonry side walls. A 

metal pipe handrail is located along one side. The 

westernmost bay of the porch has been modified 

to accommodate universal accessibility. In this 

area, a wood platform has been built atop the 

porch deck to provide direct level access to the 

interior at the northwest wing (Figure 82). The 

original porch baluster has apparently been 

relocated to divide this raised platform from the 

remainder of the porch. At the edge of the porch, a 

matching replica baluster with an operable gate 

has been built (Figure 83). A mechanical platform 

lift is located at grade adjacent to the porch 

(Figure 84). A treated wood ramp ascends from 

grade to provide access to the lift in the lowered 

position. 

FIGURE 80. The north rear porch. 

FIGURE 81. Brick masonry steps at the center of the 

north porch. 

FIGURE 82. The wood platform on the west end of 

the porch. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 55

FIGURE 83. A replica baluster with an operable gate 

at the west end of the porch. 

FIGURE 84. The mechanical platform lift and adjacent 

wood ramp. 

Exterior Doors. The front door to the house at 

the south porch is a six-panel wood door 

(Figure 85 and Figure 86). The door has brass 

rimlock hardware with glass doorknobs; on the 

exterior side, the doorknob has a rosette and there 

is a separate escutcheon at the keyhole. Repairs to 

the wood at the hardware location indicate that 

this is not the original hardware for this door 

(Figure 87 and Figure 88). The door also has a 

mortise deadbolt and an exterior-mounted 

knocker. The door is supported on black-painted 

iron strap hinges mounted to the interior surface 

of the door and frame (Figure 89). The leaf of the 

hinge attached to the door is an L-shaped bracket 

secured by eight slotted screws with a single 

knuckle. The leaf of the hinge attached to the 

frame is a flat bar with two knuckles, secured with 

five slotted screws. Abandoned larger mortises in 

the frame indicate that this is not the original 

hinge. The door is protected by an exterior woodframed storm door with a large glass panel and a 

short lower wood panel. The storm door has 

mortised hinges, a hydraulic closer, and a mortised 

lockset. There is a four-light transom above the 

door. 

FIGURE 85. The exterior side of the front door. 

FIGURE 86. The interior side of the front door. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

56 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 87. Detail of the south exterior door showing 

the hardware and patched location on the door stile 

and mid-rail. 

FIGURE 88. Detail of the interior side of the south 

exterior door showing the hardware. 

FIGURE 89. Detail of the hinges at the south exterior 

door. Note the abandoned mortise on the frame 

below the existing hinge. 

There are three exterior doors at the north porch, 

one to the central hall of the original house and 

one directly to each side wing. 

The north door to the central hall is a six-panel 

wood door matching the details of the south 

exterior door, but with a narrower overall door 

width (Figure 90 and Figure 91). The door has 

several types of hardware, including a wood and 

iron rimlock with keyhole only and a brass 

escutcheon on the exterior side; an iron pull 

handle with interior latch; a contemporary brass 

keyed deadbolt; and a contemporary brass-plated 

pull on the interior side (Figure 92 and Figure 93). 

The door is supported on black-painted iron strap 

hinges mounted to the interior surface of the door 

and frame, matching the hinges of the south 

exterior door. The door is protected by an exterior 

wood-framed storm door with a large glass panel 

and a short lower wood panel. The storm door has 

mortised hinges, a hydraulic closer, and a mortised 

lockset. There is a three-light transom above the 

door. 

FIGURE 90. An exterior door along the north porch. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 57

FIGURE 91. An exterior door along the north porch. 

FIGURE 92. Exterior side of the hardware at the north 

exterior door in the central hall. 

FIGURE 93. View of the interior hardware on the 

north exterior door in the central hall. 

The northwest wing exterior door is also a sixpanel wood door (Figure 94 and Figure 95). This 

door has iron rimlock hardware with brass 

doorknobs; there is no keyhole on the exterior 

side. There is also a contemporary steel keyed 

deadbolt. The door is supported on two sets of 

iron five-knuckle mortised hinges. This door 

opening has no storm door. 

FIGURE 94. The exterior door at the north porch 

leading to the northwest wing. 

FIGURE 95. Interior face of the exterior door at the 

northwest wing. 

The northeast wing exterior door is a six-panel 

wood door, generally matching the northwest 

wing door (Figure 96). It has the same rimlock 

hardware and keyed deadbolt. However, the 

hinges are three-knuckle iron strap hinges similar 

to the central hall doors, but secured to the door 

with square-head nails (Figure 97). This door has 

an exterior wood-framed storm door with a large 

glass panel and a short lower wood panel. The 

storm door has mortised hinges, a hydraulic 

closer, and a mortised lockset. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

58 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 96. The exterior door at the north porch 

leading to the northeast wing. 

FIGURE 97. Interior face of the exterior door at the 

northeast wing, showing iron strap hinges. 

There is also an exterior door on the west side of 

the northwest wing. This door is at grade; an 

interior staircase leads down to the basement and 

up to the first floor. This is a six-panel wood door 

surrounded by plain wood trim. It has a stone 

threshold painted black (Figure 98). The door 

hardware includes iron rimlock hardware with a 

brass doorknob on the interior and a brass keyhole 

escutcheon and ring pull on the exterior; mortised 

iron five-knuckle hinges; and a contemporary steel 

deadbolt. 

FIGURE 98. The door on the west elevation of the 

northwest wing. 

Windows. The first floor windows of the main 

house are wood nine-over-nine double-hung, 

while the second floor windows are six-over-six 

(Figure 99 and Figure 100). The second floor 

windows only have extended lugs on the stiles of 

the sash. At the side wings, the windows are 

typically six-over-nine (Figure 101), except at the 

small connecting links, which have six-over-six 

double-hung windows. All of the windows, except 

at the second floor dormers, have solid wood 

shutters. Each shutter consists of three vertical 

planks joined by three battens attached with 

clinched nails. 

FIGURE 99. Typical window on the first floor of the 

main house. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 59

FIGURE 100. Typical windows on the second floor of 

the main house. 

FIGURE 101. Typical side wing window. 

The shutters have iron strap hinges and S-shaped 

retaining clips to secure the shutters in the open 

position. There are several variations in the shutter 

hinges and clips, perhaps representing material 

dating to original construction, 1936 renovation, 

and more recent repair work. One type of S-hook 

consists of a wide, flat S (Figure 102); most 

examples of this style of hook are assumed to be 

older, but relatively new-looking stamped steel 

hooks are also present. Another type of S-hook 

consists of 3/8-inch square wrought iron bar stock 

(Figure 103); this style is assumed to be newer than 

the other S-hooks on the building, due to the good 

condition of the metal. There are three basic styles 

of hinge straps: simple tapered straps, which may 

be original (Figure 104); straps with circular 

terminations (Figure 105); and straps with pointed 

terminations (Figure 106). At most windows, the 

shutters are supported on pintles with surfacemounted backplates. Pintles with rectangular 

backplates appear to date to the 1936 renovation, 

while rounded-corner style backplates appear to 

be newer. At the first floor windows within the 

south porch, the pintles are simple spikes that 

appear to be nailed in to the window trim. 

FIGURE 102. An S-shaped retaining clip. 

FIGURE 103. An S-shaped retaining clip fabricated 

from square wrought iron bar. 

FIGURE 104. Hinge strap (possibly original). 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

60 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 105. Hinge straps with circular terminations. 

FIGURE 106. Hinge straps with pointed terminations. 

Roof. The roof is covered with cedar shingles. 

Lead-coated copper flashings are used at valleys, 

changes in slope, around dormers, and at 

chimneys (Figure 107 and Figure 108). The ridges 

are covered with wood shingles. There is almost 

no roof overhang; the wood siding terminates in a 

two-part trim board that forms the edge of the 

roof. There is also a perimeter galvanized metal 

trim at the perimeter of the roof that conceals the 

thickness of the furring strips and nailers added 

when the current cedar shingles were installed 

(Figure 109). The roof drains to half-round 

hanging copper gutters, supported on semicircular 

galvanized brackets (Figure 110); the gutters drain 

to circular copper downspouts that discharge at 

grade. Brown plastic extensions attached to each 

downspout direct water out into the landscaping 

(Figure 111). 

FIGURE 107. A view of the cedar shingle roof and 

lead-coated copper flashings. 

FIGURE 108. A view of the cedar shingle roof. 

FIGURE 109. Perimeter galvanized metal trim at the 

roof edge. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 61

FIGURE 110. Copper gutters along the edge of the 

roof. 

FIGURE 111. Plastic extenders have been added to the 

downspouts. 

There are three gabled dormers each on the south 

and north faces of the main roof. Each dormer 

contains one six-over-six double-hung window. 

No shutters are present at the dormers; remnant 

hardware to attach exterior screens or storm 

windows is present at the head of the window. The 

side walls are clad with wood siding. The roof edge 

trim of the dormer side wall wraps horizontally 

across the front face of the dormer, giving the 

gable a pedimented design. Sheet metal flashings 

are present where the dormer walls, window sill, 

and roof intersect the main roof. 

 

193. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991). 

FIGURE 112. View of typical dormers at the main roof. 

Based on typical building practices of the era, it is 

assumed that the original roof was likely split 

cedar or cypress shakes. The roof was likely 

replaced one or more times during the nineteenth 

century, and sawn cedar or cypress shingles would 

have been used. Remnants of sawn wood shingles 

have previously been retrieved from the attic of 

the house. In 1911, following a major hurricane, 

the wood shingle roof was covered with metal 

roofing. 

The roof was apparently re-sheathed in the 1930s 

with 1x pine boards varying from 6 to 8 inches in 

width. A few remnant original 1x3 shingle nailers 

are present, with a 3-inch space between each 

board, indicating an approximately 6-inch 

exposure for the original wood shingle roof. 

Assuming a typical triple layer installation, each 

original shingle would have been 18 inches in 

length. A mixture of cut nails and wire nails were 

observed in 1991, indicating successive reroofing 

campaigns from original construction up to the 

1930s.193
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

62 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Exterior Condition Assessment 

Baseline drawings annotated with existing exterior 

condition observations are provided in 

Appendix C. Conditions described are as observed 

in September 2014. 

 The building roof is generally in good 

condition. Occasional cupped or curled 

shingles were observed (Figure 113). 

 One location of active water leakage is known 

to exist, in the northwest first floor room. It is 

not certain if this leakage is related to a defect 

at the roof or dormer window above, or to 

plumbing within the second floor bathroom. 

 Currently, the roof dormers appear to be in 

good condition, with intact paint on window 

components, sills, siding, and trim, and sheet 

metal flashings integrated with the wood 

shingle roof. However, some details of the new 

sill flashing installation appear to rely on the 

application of sealant at the surface and may 

not be durable over the long term (Figure 114). 

 Water staining from overflow at gutter ends 

was observed (Figure 115). 

 Splashing of dirt at grade against the building 

foundation was observed (Figure 116). 

FIGURE 113. Occasional cupped or curled shingles 

were observed on the roof. 

FIGURE 114. Detail of a dormer window sill, showing 

sheet metal flashing and sealant used to integrate 

the flashing with the wood window frame (arrow). 

FIGURE 115. Water staining as a result of gutter 

overflow was observed. 

FIGURE 116. Splashing of dirt at grade was observed. 

 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 63

 Typically, all downspouts have been 

disconnected from underground cast iron 

piping and connected to plastic extensions at 

grade (Figure 117). The abandoned cast iron 

piping is open and exposed. 

 Areas of previous siding replacement are 

evident due to the slightly rougher finish and 

less paint build-up on the newer boards 

(Figure 118). 

 The wood siding and trim are generally in 

good condition, but localized areas of wood 

siding decay were observed. Localized 

splitting of the wood (Figure 119 through 

Figure 121) affects less than 5 percent of the 

cladding. 

FIGURE 117. Underground cast iron piping is no 

longer in use and left exposed. 

FIGURE 118. Areas with replaced siding are easily 

distinguished. 

FIGURE 119. Splitting of the wood siding was 

observed. 

FIGURE 120. Splitting of the wood siding was 

observed. 

FIGURE 121. Splitting of the wood siding was 

observed. 

 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

64 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

 The existing coating has areas of cracking 

(Figure 122) and debonding and peeling paint 

(Figure 123 and Figure 124). The paint failure 

affects approximately 20 percent of the siding 

and may be related to poor surface 

preparation or the reported previous 

application of a linseed-oil based sealer. 

 At both the wood siding and the window sash, 

occasional corrosion staining from embedded 

nails and similar fasteners was observed 

bleeding through paint coatings (Figure 125 

through Figure 127). 

FIGURE 122. Non-uniform surface preparation for 

repainting was noted. 

FIGURE 123. Peeling of excessive paint layers. 

FIGURE 124. Localized area of debonded paint. 

FIGURE 125. Non-uniform surface preparation was 

noted; corrosion staining from nails is also visible. 

FIGURE 126. Corrosion staining was observed 

bleeding through the paint from fasteners. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 65

FIGURE 127. Corrosion staining was observed 

bleeding through the paint from nails. 

 Organic growth including mildew was 

observed on the wood siding and on the 

window sash, particularly at glazing putty 

(Figure 128 through Figure 130). 

 The grade-level door at the west wall of the 

kitchen wing is in poor condition, with 

substantial organic growth on the outside 

surface (Figure 131). 

 In sheltered areas, including the surface of the 

wood siding behind window shutters, insect 

nests were observed (Figure 132). 

FIGURE 128. Organic growth on the wood siding. 

FIGURE 129. Organic growth was observed on the 

wood siding. 

FIGURE 130. Organic growth observed on the wood 

siding and trim. 

FIGURE 131. The west door is in poor condition. Note 

the organic growth. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

66 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 132. Insect nests were present at shutters. 

 Minor surface delamination and one corner 

spall were observed at the front entrance steps 

(Figure 133). Previous spalls have been infilled 

with mortar (Figure 134). 

 The southeast post of the front porch has been 

previously spliced and partially replaced 

(Figure 135). One baluster on the east side 

railing is damaged (Figure 136). 

FIGURE 133. Spalling was observed at the front 

entrance steps. 

FIGURE 134. Previous repairs were made at the front 

entrance steps. 

FIGURE 135. Splice repair at the southeast post. 

FIGURE 136. A damaged baluster at the east side 

railing. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 67

Interior Description 

The interior of the main portion of the house has a 

straightforward plan, with a central north-south 

hall and four rooms, one at each corner of the 

almost square plan. Each room has a fireplace. The 

hall is relatively narrow at the south half, and the 

southeast and southwest rooms are 

correspondingly larger. An arched opening divides 

the north half of the hall from the south half. The 

north half contains the stairway to the second 

floor. Side passages connect the southwest and 

northwest room, and the southeast and northeast 

room. From the northeast room, a door opening 

leads to the connecting link, which in turn leads to 

the former master bedroom suite in the northeast 

wing. Some partition walls have been removed, 

and the former master bedroom and closets now 

form a large meeting room. There is a fireplace at 

the north wall of this room. The two former 

master baths have been renovated to create 

universally accessible restrooms. The western 

restroom is open for public use; the eastern 

restroom is now used for storage, but all plumbing 

fixtures remain in place and operational. From the 

northwest room, a door opening leads to the 

connecting link, formerly the butler’s pantry, 

which in turn leads to the former kitchen in the 

northwest wing, now used for park offices. The 

kitchen occupied the south half of the wing, while 

a laundry room occupied the northeast part of the 

wing. At the northwest part, a staircase descends 

to a landing at grade; a toilet room and door to the 

exterior are located at this landing. The staircase 

continues to descend to the full basement below 

the kitchen wing. 

The second floor, located in the main original part 

of the house only, originally had a similar floor 

plan, with a central north-south hall and a room at 

each corner of the plan. The northwest room has 

been subdivided to create two bathrooms, one 

accessible from the hall and one from the 

southwest bedroom. Each bedroom has a closet, 

and there are fireplaces serving the southwest and 

 

194. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991), 20. 

southeast rooms. Bookcases line the walls at the 

south half of the hall. There is a scuttle in the hall 

ceiling providing access to the attic. 

Where not covered by bead board or wood 

wainscot, the interior walls and ceilings were 

finished with riven lath nailed to the wood framing 

and covered with plaster.194

Typical window and door openings have wood 

trim measuring 4-3/8 inch wide. At some rooms 

the trim is painted. The windows have wood sills 

which are integrated with the top of the wainscot. 

Typical hardware includes non-original semicircular brass sash locks. 

Throughout the first floor, stained wood crown 

molding is present where the walls meet the 

ceiling. Previous analysis indicated that the wood 

cornices at the first floor are attached with wire 

finishing nails; therefore, it is assumed that the 

crown molding may date to the 1936 renovation.195

195. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991). 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

68 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 137. Plan of the first floor, original portion of 

house. Source: HABS. 

First Floor Hall. The first floor hall extends 

through the house from the south to the north 

exterior doors. The south part of the hall is 

narrower than the north part; the north part 

contains the stairs to the second floor. The 

division between the two parts is defined by a 

segmental arch opening (Figure 138). The opening 

has stained wood trim on both sides including 

fluted pilasters at the jambs, curved head trim, and 

a keystone block at the top. The intrados of the 

arch is fluted. 

FIGURE 138. A segmental arch opening separates the 

two parts of the first floor hall. 

The floor of the hall is carpeted, with small 

portions of the wood floor visible at the perimeter. 

The walls are clad with stained wood planks above 

a stained wood baseboard. The planks are oriented 

horizontally at the bottom half of the wall up to 

the stained wood chair rail, and the planks are 

oriented vertically at the top half of the wall. The 

planks at the lower portion of the wall are very 

wide, with some individual planks in excess of 

17 inches wide (Figure 139). The vertical planks 

are 4 to 6 inches wide and have a beaded profile 

along each joint. There is a stained wood crown 

molding at the top of the wall. The ceiling is 

painted plaster. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 69

FIGURE 139. Wide wood planks at the base of the hall 

wall. 

The hall has two closets, one each on the east and 

west walls of the north part, as well as a small 

cupboard under the stairs. Within each closet, the 

wood floor is visible. The walls are painted wood 

planks at the north, south, and front sides but 

painted plaster at the back wall, applied to the 

brick masonry of the adjacent chimney; the 

ceilings are painted plaster. The cupboard under 

the stairs is similarly finished with painted wood 

planks (Figure 140). The west closet contains 

electrical conduit, a vertical riser for the fire 

protection sprinkler, and a control panel for the 

fire alarm system. This closet has a utilitarian 

ceiling-mounted porcelain lamp base. The east 

closet also contains electrical conduit and a 

vertical riser for the fire protection sprinkler. This 

closet also has a ceiling-mounted porcelain lamp 

base, but this fixture has decorative fluting and 

may date to the 1930s (Figure 141). In both closets, 

where the painted finish has chipped, a stained 

finish is visible on the wood plank wall cladding. 

At both closet doors, the rimlock has been 

removed from the interior side of the door 

(Figure 142). The west closet only has a brass 

escutcheon on the hall side of the door at the 

keyhole. (As visible in the HABS photography, 

there was previously no escutcheon at the west 

closet door, but one was present at the east closet 

door. The escutcheon visible in the HABS 

photography does not match the existing item.) 

There is no doorknob or similar pull hardware on 

these doors (Figure 143). At the east closet, the 

jamb trim at the strikeplate has been patched, 

indicating that other hardware may have once 

been present at this door. The cupboard door 

retains its hardware, consisting of an iron rimlock 

on the inside of the door, a brass escutcheon at a 

keyhole, and a brass pull ring on the hall side of 

the door. 

FIGURE 140. The cupboard under the stair. 

FIGURE 141. The porcelain lamp base in the closet. 

FIGURE 142. The rimlock has been removed from the 

interior side of the door. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

70 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 143. No hardware is present on the closet 

doors. 

Southeast Room. Previously a parlor, this room 

now contains interpretive displays related to South 

Carolina Lowcountry life in the eighteenth 

century (Figure 144). 

FIGURE 144. The southeast room. 

The southeast room has a stained wood plank 

floor, stained wood baseboard, stained wood 

wainscot and chair rail, painted plaster walls and 

ceiling, and stained wood crown molding and 

door and window trim. At the north wall there is a 

fireplace with a marble surround, a decorative 

stained wood mantelpiece, and a stone hearth and 

brick firebox (Figure 145). 

FIGURE 145. The fireplace along the north wall of the 

southeast room. 

To the right of the fireplace is the door opening for 

the passage to the northeast room. As seen in the 

HABS photograph of this wall, in recent years, the 

door at this location was oriented with the hinges 

on the east jamb and the strikeplate for the rimlock 

hardware on the west jamb. Patched areas on the 

east jamb and hinge mortises on the west jamb 

show that at some time in the past, the orientation 

of the door was reversed, with the hinges on the 

west and the strikeplate on the east. 

There are two windows each on the east and south 

walls. Each window has a stained wood valance. A 

door opening on the west wall leads to the center 

hall. The door has been removed from this 

opening, but mortises for the hinges and rimlock 

strikeplate are visible at the jambs. 

The east passage connects the southeast room to 

the northeast room. The wood plank floor in the 

passage is painted (Figure 146). The west wall has 

remnants of painted plaster applied directly to the 

brick masonry of the adjacent fireplaces 

(Figure 147). The north, east and south walls are 

covered with painted wood planks; a ghosted line 

indicates where the passage was subdivided into 

two closets during the 1930s, but there are 

remnants of paint on the east wall even within the 

limits of the 1930s closet partition wall 

(Figure 148). The south half of the east wall also 

has ghosted outlines indicating the position of 

shelving that was installed for the gun rack in the 

closet of the southeast room. No ceiling is present; 

the floor structure above is exposed. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 71

FIGURE 146. The wood plank floor in the east 

passage; note the plaster at the west wall and 

painted planking on the other walls. 

FIGURE 147. Remnants of painted plaster directly 

applied to brick masonry was observed. 

FIGURE 148. East wall in the east passage, showing 

ghosted outline of the partition, now removed, that 

subdivided the passage into two closets. No ceiling is 

present. 

Northeast Room. Previously a study, this room 

now contains interpretive displays related to the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

(Figure 149). 

The northeast room has a stained wood plank 

floor, a painted wood baseboard, a painted wood 

wainscot and chair rail, painted plaster walls and 

ceiling, and painted wood crown molding and 

door and window trim (Figure 150). There is a 

window on the east wall. At the south wall there is 

a fireplace with a stone surround, painted black, a 

painted wood mantelpiece, and a brick hearth. To 

left of the fireplace is the door opening to the east 

passage to the southeast room. This door opening 

is narrower than the other door openings and 

formerly contained a closet door, with a 1930sstyle brass mortised lockset, as visible in the HABS 

photography. 

FIGURE 149. The northeast room. 

FIGURE 150. The south wall of the northeast roof. 

At the east end of the north wall, a door opening 

leads to the northeast wing. As compared to the 

HABS photography, the door swing has been 

reversed, and now swings outward to the 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

72 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

northeast wing, rather than inward to this room. 

Previous inspection from the crawlspace of the 

wood structure of the house at the location of this 

door showed that one original stud is missing, and 

the mortise into the sill is clearly visible. This 

evidence indicates that the door opening from the 

northeast room into the northeast wing was a solid 

wall area prior to the construction of the wing in 

the 1930s.196

A door opening on the west wall leads to the 

center hall. The door has been removed from this 

opening, but mortises for the hinges and rimlock 

strikeplate are visible at the jambs. There is one 

window each on the east and north walls. 

The east passage connects the northeast room to 

the southeast room; refer to the description of this 

passage under the Southeast Room, above. 

Southwest Room. Previously a parlor, this room 

now contains interpretive displays related to 

Charles Pinckney and the U.S. Constitution 

(Figure 151). 

FIGURE 151. The southwest room. 

The southwest room has a stained wood plank 

floor, painted wood baseboard, painted wood 

wainscot and chair rail, painted plaster walls and 

ceiling, and painted wood crown molding and 

door and window trim. At the north wall there is a 

fireplace with a stone surround, a stained wood 

mantelpiece, and a stone hearth (Figure 152). The 

 

196. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991). 

firebox has decorative cast iron plates on either 

side (Figure 153). To left of the fireplace is the 

door opening to the passage to the northwest 

room; this opening had been closed up in the 

1930s, and the original door opening was recreated in the 1990s, with new painted wood trim. 

There are two windows each on the west and 

south walls. A door opening on the east wall leads 

to the center hall. The door has been removed 

from this opening, but mortises for the hinges and 

rimlock strikeplate are visible at the jambs. 

FIGURE 152. The fireplace on the north wall of the 

southwest room. 

FIGURE 153. Decorative plates are present on each 

side of the firebox. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 73

The west passage connects the southwest room to 

the northwest room. The wood plank floor in the 

passage is painted. The east wall has remnants of 

painted plaster applied directly to the brick 

masonry of the adjacent fireplaces. The north wall 

is unfinished, with the wood studs and back side of 

the northwest room lath and plaster visible 

(Figure 154). The other two walls are covered with 

painted wood planks; a ghosted line indicates 

where the passage was subdivided into two closets 

during the 1930s, but there are remnants of paint 

on the west wall even within the limits of the 1930s 

closet partition wall. No ceiling is present; the 

floor structure above is exposed. 

FIGURE 154. The unfinished north wall of the west 

passage. 

Northwest Room. Previously the dining room, 

this room now contains the reception desk and gift 

shop (Figure 155). 

The northwest room has a stained wood plank 

floor, painted wood baseboard, painted wood 

wainscot and chair rail, painted plaster walls and 

ceiling, and painted wood crown molding and 

door and window trim. At the south wall there is a 

fireplace with a stone surround, painted black, a 

painted wood mantelpiece, and a brick hearth. To 

right of the fireplace is the door opening to the 

passage to the southeast room. In the 1930s, a 

china cabinet was installed at this location; the 

original door opening was re-created in the 1990s, 

 

197. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

“Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm” 

(1991). 

with new painted wood trim. There is one window 

each on the west and north walls. 

At the west end of the north wall, a framed 

opening leads to the northwest wing. A straight cut 

through the chair rail on the north wall indicates 

the possible former location of an earlier door 

opening into the lean-to seen in historic 

photographs that was demolished and replaced in 

the 1930s by the present northwest wing.197

A door opening on the west wall leads to the 

center hall. The door has been removed from this 

opening, but mortises for the hinges and rimlock 

strikeplate are visible at the jambs. 

FIGURE 155. The northwest room. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

74 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 156. Plan of the first floor, northeast wing, 

prior to removal of partitions. Source: HABS. 

Northeast Wing. Previously the master 

bedroom suite, this area is now used for group 

meetings and presentations. Several partition walls 

were removed to eliminate a group of closets and 

enlarge the former master bedroom into a main 

gathering space. The partitions defining the two 

original bathrooms of the suite were retained, but 

the bathrooms themselves were renovated for use 

as universally accessible restrooms. 

From the main northeast room of the house, the 

northeast wing begins with a small connecting 

room (Figure 157). The connecting room has 

carpeted floors, painted wood baseboard, painted 

plaster walls and ceiling, painted wood crown 

molding, and painted wood door and window 

trim. The door from the northeast room has been 

reversed and now swings in to the connecting 

room. This door is a wood stile-and-rail six-panel 

door with an iron rimlock, brass doorknobs, and 

iron strap-type hinges. There is also an exterior 

door to the north porch, which is also a wood 

stile-and-rail six-panel door with the same type of 

hardware as well as an added keyed deadbolt. 

There is one window each on the north and south 

walls. On the east wall is an opening to the 

classroom in this wing, as well as a door to one of 

the two toilet rooms (Figure 158). 

FIGURE 157. A small connecting room at the 

northeast wing. 

FIGURE 158. The east wall of the connecting room. 

The classroom has carpeted floors, a painted wood 

baseboard, painted wood wainscot and chair rail, 

painted plaster walls and ceiling, and painted 

wood door and window trim (Figure 159 and 

Figure 160). The picture rail molding at the top of 

the wall visible in the HABS photography has been 

removed. Also, wood valances at the windows, 

similar to the valances still present in the southeast 

room, are visible in the HABS photography but 

have been removed. This room was increased in 

size by the removal of former closet partition 

walls. At the east and west walls of the room, there 

are continuous joints where the baseboard, 

wainscot, and chair rail were patched, to extend 

the profiles originally used in the bedroom into the 

former closet area (Figure 161). The south wall 

lacks a wainscot and chair rail but has a matching 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 75

baseboard. There is an offset in the plane of the 

south wall, corresponding to the partition between 

the two toilet rooms as well as a former closet 

partition. There is also an attic scuttle located near 

the south end of the room, within the area that was 

formerly a closet. A door at the east end of the 

south wall leads to the second of the two toilet 

rooms. Along the south wall is the 1930s china 

cabinet, which was removed from the main 

northwest room and salvaged as a free-standing 

piece of furniture (Figure 162). At the center of the 

north wall is a fireplace with a brick surround and 

hearth and wood mantelpiece (Figure 163). The 

mantelpiece is an antique purchased in Charleston 

and placed in the room when it was built in 1936. 

To either side of the fireplace is a window, and 

below each window is a wood-framed cabinet 

containing mechanical grilles (Figure 164). 

FIGURE 159. The classroom. 

FIGURE 160. The classroom. 

FIGURE 161. The chair rail in the classroom; note the 

patches. 

FIGURE 162. A china cabinet salvaged from the 

northwest room. 

FIGURE 163. The fireplace at the center of the north 

wall of the classroom. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

76 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 164. Wood-framed cabinets with mechanical 

grilles on each side of the fireplace. 

The two toilet rooms have identical finishes and 

fixtures. The rooms have 7-inch square ceramic 

tile floors, 4-inch square ceramic tile wainscot, 

painted plaster walls and ceiling, and painted 

wood door and window trim (Figure 165). Painted 

wood crown molding is present along some walls. 

Each toilet room has a six-panel wood stile-andrail door with a full-length mirror mounted on the 

interior side, iron rimlock, brass doorknobs, iron 

strap-type hinges, and a newer deadbolt, with key 

to the exterior and thumbturn on the interior. 

Each toilet room has a universally accessible floormounted toilet and wall-hung sink as well as grab 

bars and other accessories. Currently, the west 

toilet room (accessed from the connecting room) 

is open for public use, while the east toilet room 

(accessed from the classroom) is used for storage. 

A fire sprinkler riser pipe is located in the 

southwest corner of the east toilet room 

(Figure 166). 

FIGURE 165. One of the two toilet rooms. 

FIGURE 166. A fire sprinkler riser in the southwest 

corner of the east toilet room. 

FIGURE 167. Plan of the first floor, northwest wing, 

prior to removal of selected casework and kitchen 

appliances. Source: HABS. 

Northwest Wing. Previously the kitchen and 

service wing, this area now contains park offices 

and is not generally open to the public. 

At the connection between the original house and 

the northwest wing is a small room, formerly a 

butler’s pantry (Figure 168). The floor is carpeted, 

the walls and ceiling are painted plaster, and there 

is painted wood baseboard, chair rail, crown 

molding, and door and window trim. A door at the 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 77

east end of the former pantry leads to the north 

porch. There is one window each on the north and 

south walls. An opening at the south wall leads to 

the northwest room, and a door on the west wall 

leads to the former kitchen. 

FIGURE 168. The former butler’s pantry between the 

main house and the northwest wing. 

The former pantry contains painted wood built-in 

casework, with doors and drawers at base cabinets 

and glass fronted doors at the upper cabinets. Each 

drawer has two U-shaped black-painted iron pulls. 

The cabinet doors have black-painted iron strap 

hinges. Each door or pair of doors has a blackpainted iron latch and strike plate. The base 

cabinets support a stained wood countertop with 

stained wood trim where the countertop meets the 

wall. The cabinets lack any toe space or soffit and 

fully extend to the floor and ceiling. At the south 

wall, the original base cabinets have been removed 

to create space for a desk (Figure 169). At the 

north wall, one original base cabinet has been 

modified from the original configuration as shown 

on the HABS drawings; the portion in front of the 

window has been removed. The cut edge of the 

countertop for the remaining portion of the 

cabinet, as well as a splice joint within the 

baseboard of the north wall, are evidence of this 

modification (Figure 170). 

FIGURE 169. The south wall of the former pantry. 

FIGURE 170. Modifications were made to the base 

cabinets in the former pantry. 

The finishes in the former kitchen are identical to 

the butler’s pantry. Base cabinets along the north 

and south walls have been removed to create space 

for office furniture, while other cabinets have been 

retained (Figure 171). The original base cabinets 

have wood countertops. At the west wall, a wood 

door has been added to a cabinet that formerly 

contained two ovens. The pull handle and hinges 

for this cabinet door do not match the rest of the 

casework. The ceiling in the kitchen is higher than 

the pantry; therefore, the cabinets stop short of the 

ceiling (Figure 172). The cabinets on the west wall 

may have been altered or newly installed after 

original construction of the kitchen wing in the 

1930s; unlike the pantry cabinets and kitchen 

cabinets at the east wall, the west wall base 

cabinets include a toe space. As seen in HABS 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

78 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

photography, the previously removed base 

cabinets at the north and south walls also had a toe 

space. At the north wall is a painted wood sixpanel stile-and-rail providing access to a closet 

(Figure 173). The closet has a wood floor. The 

closet door has a 1930s-style mortised brass 

lockset with brass doorknobs and keyhole 

escutcheons, and mortised hinges. 

FIGURE 171. Original kitchen cabinets along the north 

wall. 

FIGURE 172. The cabinets stop short of the ceiling in 

the kitchen. 

FIGURE 173. A six panel door on the north wall of the 

kitchen leads to a closet. 

At the north end of the wing is the former laundry 

room, now used as office space (Figure 174). There 

is a cedar-lined closet along the west wall 

(Figure 175) and painted wood casework on the 

north and east walls. A scuttle in the ceiling 

provides access to the attic. Base cabinets and a 

built-in ironing board on the south wall shown on 

the HABS drawings have been removed. 

FIGURE 174. The former laundry room. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 79

FIGURE 175. A cedar lined closet on the west wall of 

the former laundry room. 

At the north end of the kitchen, there is a six-panel 

painted wood stile-and-rail door with mortised 

hinges and a newer cored lockset leading to the 

basement staircase (Figure 176). From the kitchen, 

stairs descend to a landing at grade. There is a 

small toilet room located at this landing. Stairwell 

and toilet room finishes are typical of the kitchen 

wing. The toilet room contains a relatively new 

toilet and a wall-hung sink (Figure 177). The toilet 

room and the stairwell each have a suspended 

ceiling fixture with a metal shade; these are likely 

relatively new historic-style reproduction fixtures 

(Figure 178). At the stair landing, there is also an 

exterior door at the west wall. 

FIGURE 176. A door leading to the basement stair. 

FIGURE 177. A newer sink is present in the toilet 

room. 

FIGURE 178. A reproduction light fixture in the 

stairwell. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

80 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 179. Plan of the basement, northwest wing. 

Source: HABS. 

Basement. From the grade-level landing, the 

northwest wing stairs continue down to the 

basement. There is no door separating the 

basement from the stairwell (Figure 180). The 

northwest wing foundation is apparently cast-inplace concrete below grade, with brick masonry 

above grade, finished with a cementitious parge 

coat within the basement. The wall is thicker near 

the bottom, with an offset ledge about 20 inches 

above the basement floor. The basement floor is a 

concrete slab on ground. At the west wall of the 

basement, several original openings have been 

infilled with single-wythe brick masonry. At the 

center of the basement is a brick masonry 

chimney; there is an unsealed opening to a central 

flue on the south face of the chimney (Figure 181). 

The wood framing for the kitchen is exposed at 

the basement ceiling. The basement contains a 

variety of mechanical systems and equipment. 

FIGURE 180. No door separates the basement from 

the stairwell. 

FIGURE 181. An unsealed opening on the south face 

of the chimney. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 81

FIGURE 182. Plan of the second floor, original house. 

Source: HABS. 

Staircase and Second Floor Hall. The 

staircase to the second floor begins with several 

winding treads before ascending along the east 

wall of the hall (Figure 183). There is a patched 

notch within the stair balustrade at the level of the 

second floor structure (Figure 184). It is assumed 

that this notch indicates that the opening in the 

second floor was originally narrower, and the floor 

joist intersected the balustrade. At some point, the 

joist was moved and floor boards were trimmed to 

widen the opening, and the notch in the balustrade 

was patched. 

FIGURE 183. The staircase to the second floor in the 

hall. 

FIGURE 184. A patched notch within the stair 

balustrade. 

The second floor hall extends through the house 

from south to north, with a single dormer window 

at each end (Figure 185). Unlike the first floor hall, 

the second floor hall is of a consistent width. 

FIGURE 185. The second floor hall. Note the dormer 

window. 

The hall floor is stained and varnished wood 

planks. The walls are clad with vertically oriented 

stained wood planks. The vertical planks are 4 to 6 

inches wide and have a beaded profile along each 

joint. The north and south walls are mainly sloped, 

following the underside of the roof structure. The 

lower portion of the sloped wall is clad with 

similar horizontally oriented wood planks, up to 

the level of the dormer window sill. The walls and 

ceiling within the dormer are also clad with wood 

planks (Figure 186). The sloped north and south 

walls above the sill are finished with painted 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

82 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

plaster. The ceiling is also painted plaster. The hall 

has four doors to adjacent rooms; these door 

openings have minimal wood trim consisting of a 

stop on the hall side. The south end of the hall has 

built-in wood bookcases on three walls; these 

bookcases date to 1959 (Figure 187). 

FIGURE 186. Wood cladding at the walls and ceiling 

of the dormer. 

FIGURE 187. Built-in bookcases on the south end of 

the hall. 

Second Floor Bathroom. The northwest hall 

door leads to a bathroom. There is a wall-hung 

sink, a toilet, and a bathtub with a ceramic tile 

surround (Figure 188 and Figure 189). The walls 

and ceiling are painted plaster, and the floor is 

sheet vinyl. Built-in cupboards are present along 

the north wall (Figure 190). Inside the cupboard, 

older linoleum flooring is present (Figure 191). 

The sink, bathtub, and built-in cupboards may 

date to the 1930s, while other fixtures and finishes, 

including the ceramic tile surround, flooring, and 

toilet, appear to be newer. 

Second Floor Northeast Room. The northeast 

room has a stained wood plank floor; painted 

wood baseboard; painted wood wainscot and 

chair rail on the east, south, and west walls; 

painted plaster walls and ceiling; and painted 

wood door and window trim (Figure 192). It is not 

clear whether the painted wood wainscot and trim 

were originally stained and varnished. The north 

wall has a plaster finish secured to the interior 

surface of the sloped roof framing. Below the 

plaster, the wall is clad with painted wood planks 

up to the level of the dormer sill, and the walls and 

ceiling inside the dormer are also painted wood 

plank (Figure 193). Most of the flooring planks in 

this room are continuous from east to west, except 

for two boards near the middle of the room that 

previously have been cut to create an access 

opening through the floor (Figure 194). 

FIGURE 188. The second floor bathroom. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 83

FIGURE 189. The second floor bathroom. 

FIGURE 190. Built-in cupboards along the north wall 

of the bathroom. 

FIGURE 191. Old linoleum flooring is present inside 

the cupboard. 

FIGURE 192. The second floor northeast room. 

FIGURE 193. Painted wood planks inside the dormer. 

FIGURE 194. Floor planks were cut to create an access 

opening through the floor. 

On the south wall is a door opening to a closet 

(Figure 195). The door itself is a painted wood sixpanel door with a 1930s style mortised brass 

lockset. The door to the corridor at the west wall is 

an identical painted wood six-panel door. Rimlock 

hardware at this door has been removed. The hall 

doorway has a stained wood threshold, while the 

closet doorway has a ghosted outline where a 

similar threshold has been previously removed. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

84 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 195. A door opening on the south wall. 

Second Floor Southeast Room. The southeast 

room has a stained wood plank floor; painted 

wood baseboard; painted wood wainscot and 

chair rail on the east, north, and west walls; 

painted plaster walls and ceiling; and painted 

wood door and window trim (Figure 196). It is not 

clear whether the painted wood wainscot and trim 

were originally stained and varnished. The south 

wall has a plaster finish secured to the interior 

surface of the sloped roof framing. The lower 

portion of the wall is clad with painted wood 

planks up to the level of the dormer sill, and the 

walls and ceiling inside the dormer are also 

painted wood plank. Most of the flooring planks 

in this room are continuous from east to west, 

except for two boards near the middle of the room 

that previously have been cut to create an access 

opening through the floor. Many interior doors 

previously removed from the first floor of the 

house are stored in this room. 

FIGURE 196. The second floor southeast room. 

At the center of the north wall is a fireplace with a 

stone surround and hearth and a painted wood 

mantelpiece (Figure 197). On the north wall to the 

right of the fireplace is a door opening to a closet 

(Figure 198). The door itself is a painted wood sixpanel door with a 1930s style mortised brass 

lockset. The door to the corridor at the west wall is 

an identical painted wood six-panel door. Rimlock 

hardware at this door has been removed. The hall 

doorway has a stained wood threshold, while the 

closet doorway has a ghosted outline where a 

similar threshold has been previously removed. 

FIGURE 197. A fireplace at the north wall of the 

southeast room. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 85

FIGURE 198. A door opening to the right of the 

fireplace. 

Second Floor Southwest Room and 

Bathroom. This room was locked and 

inaccessible during the site visit for this study. As 

seen in the HABS photography, the southwest 

room is finished identically to the southeast room 

(Figure 199). The bathroom is not documented in 

the HABS photography. 

FIGURE 199. The southwest room at the second floor. 

The door at right leads to a second bathroom. 

Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-46. 

Interior Condition Assessment 

Baseline drawings annotated with existing interior 

condition observations are provided in 

Appendix C. 

The interior of the house is in good condition 

overall; the following items represent minor 

concerns or localized distress. 

 There are occasional splits or checks in the 

wood plank wall cladding throughout the 

house. In some locations, for example the east 

wall of the first floor northeast room, splitting 

of the wood planks has resulted in splitting 

and delamination of applied paint coatings 

(Figure 200). In general, these conditions do 

not require repair; however, control of 

humidity for a relatively consistent interior 

environment will limit future development of 

additional cracks. 

FIGURE 200. Splitting in the wood plank wall 

cladding. 

 Occasional linear cracks are seen in plaster 

wall finishes (Figure 201). Except where these 

cracks are associated with delamination of the 

plaster, they are not considered significant. 

 The east and west side passages, as well as the 

hall closets, retain older paint coatings on 

wood plank and plaster wall surfaces. 

Although the paint is chipped and missing in 

some areas, it is reasonable to maintain these 

areas in their existing condition for 

interpretive reasons. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

86 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

 At the southeast room, the fireplace is missing 

one area of wood trim where the marble 

surround abuts the wood mantelpiece 

(Figure 202). The HABS photographs clearly 

show that trim was formerly present in this 

location. 

 Many interior doors have been removed and 

placed in storage (Figure 203). 

 The keyhole escutcheon at the east hall closet 

door has been removed. It is not clear from the 

HABS photography if this item was made of 

brass or iron. 

 At some windows, plastic film has been 

applied to the interior surface of the glass 

(Figure 204). In some locations, the film has 

bubbled and debonded from the glass. The 

purpose of this film is not clear. 

FIGURE 201. Example of a crack in the plaster, south 

wall of the northwest first floor room. 

FIGURE 202. Wood trim is missing at the fireplace in 

the southeast room. 

FIGURE 203. Removed doors held in storage. 

FIGURE 204. Example of plastic film applied to glass, 

southeast room, first floor. 

 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 87

 In some locations, plaster wall finishes have 

bulged or delaminated from the substrate. 

(Figure 205). 

 During the site visit, an area of cracked and 

displaced plaster fell from the sloped ceiling in 

the southeast room on the second floor, and 

adjacent plaster was observed to be loose and 

in danger of falling (Figure 206 through 

Figure 208). It was apparent that the keys 

within the base coat of plaster had 

broken/sheared from the lath. This fallen area 

of plaster was subsequently repaired and 

repainted (Figure 209). 

FIGURE 205. Example of bulged plaster, south wall of 

southeast room at the first floor. 

FIGURE 206. Bulged plaster in the second floor 

southeast room, May 2014. Photograph by NPS. 

FIGURE 207. An area of plaster fell in the second floor 

southeast room, September 18, 2014. 

FIGURE 208. An area of plaster fell in the second floor 

southeast room, September 18, 2014. 

FIGURE 209. Repaired plaster in the second floor 

southeast room, April 2015. Photograph by NPS. 

 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

88 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

 Some areas of plaster show evidence of minor 

moisture damage (Figure 210). 

 One of the cast iron panels at the first floor 

southwest room fireplace is missing the lower 

inside corner. This damage appears to be old 

does not necessarily require repair, unless 

desired for aesthetics reasons (Figure 211). 

 Occasionally, abandoned plastic screw inserts 

are present in plaster at the locations of former 

smoke detectors and similar items, now 

removed (Figure 212). 

 It appears that much of the interior plaster has 

not been painted since the 1990s; scuffs and 

painted-in patches are visible, particularly at 

the locations of sprinkler heads and other 

similar items added after the last 

comprehensive repainting. 

 Some mechanical supply grilles, in particular 

at the north wall of the classroom in the 

northeast wing, are located very close to 

exterior windows. During the cooling season, 

air flow from these vents cools the glass below 

the exterior dew point, resulting in extensive 

condensation on the exterior face of the glass 

(Figure 213). 

FIGURE 210. Minor moisture damage to the east wall, 

southeast room at the first floor. 

FIGURE 211. One of the cast iron panels in the 

fireplace at the southwest room is missing the lower 

inside corner. 

FIGURE 212. Abandoned plastic screw inserts were 

occasionally visible in the plaster walls. 

FIGURE 213. Condensation on the exterior face of a 

window. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 89

 In the west toilet room of the northeast wing, 

the ceramic tile wainscot has cracked 

horizontally to the left of the window on the 

south wall (Figure 214). This crack may be 

attributed to variations in the tile substrate or 

minor instability in the underlying wall 

finishes but likely does not indicate significant 

structural distress. 

 Severe organic growth has developed on the 

exterior grade-level door at the west wall of 

the kitchen wing (refer to Figure 131). The 

source of this organic growth is not clear, 

although adjacent landscaping shades this 

door from most direct sunlight. Unlike other 

exterior doors, no storm door is present at this 

door, which may therefore experience more 

wetting from weather, as well as more 

condensation during especially warm and 

humid days. The types of coatings on this door 

may also support organic growth. 

 During the site visit, water was present within 

the basement. Seepage is occurring through 

cracks and penetrations in the basement wall 

(Figure 215 and Figure 216). 

 In the basement, the abandoned flue for the 

former boiler is unsealed at the chimney 

(Figure 217). 

 Lead containing paint is present throughout 

the house on interior wood trim, including 

doors and frames, windows and frames, 

baseboards, chair rails, stair railings, cabinets, 

and fireplace components. The passageways 

along the east and west sides of the first floor 

also have lead containing paint on floors and 

walls.198

 The building mechanical system does not 

supply air to the toilet room at the north end 

of the northwest wing. 

 

198. Terry J. Lewis, Lead Based Paint Inspection 

Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

(Ladson, South Carolina: Environmental 

Enterprise Group, Inc., July 30, 2006). 

FIGURE 214. Cracked tile wainscot in the west toilet 

room on the northeast wing. 

FIGURE 215. Water seepage was observed through 

the basement walls. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

90 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 216. Water seepage was observed at pipe 

penetration in the exterior walls. 

FIGURE 217. An abandoned flue for the former boiler 

is unsealed at the chimney. 

 

199. Paul Buchanan, Bernard Herman, Orlando 

Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger, 

Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm

(1991). 

Structural System 

The following description of the structural system 

of the house is based primarily on the 1991 report 

entitled Architectural Investigations at Snee Farm, 

and the 1992 structural inspection report by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.199 Where 

accessible, underlying structure was reviewed 

during the visual inspection of the house for this 

Historic Structures Report; much of the structural 

system is concealed behind the exterior cladding 

and interior finishes. 

As documented in the 1991 report and reviewed 

on site, the brick piers supporting the main house 

show a variety of bonding configurations: the 

perimeter piers, including at the porch, are laid in 

Flemish bond on the exterior face, the chimney 

bases are laid in English bond, and the piers 

between the chimneys and beneath the first floor 

partition walls are built in a three-course American 

bond. 

The wood framing of the house is cypress. The 

first floor framing members are partly notched and 

bear on the sill beams, 3 to 4 inches above the top 

surface of the sill. The sills at the gable side (east 

and west) walls are tenoned into the front and rear 

(north and south) wall sills. The vertical corner 

posts are tenoned into the top surface of the sills. 

Diagonal braces run from the corner posts to the 

far stud at the jamb of the nearest window 

opening. The partition walls are also braced in a 

similar fashion, and the wall studs are tenoned into 

the sills. A ledger board is nailed to the inside face 

of each stud to support the ends of the floor 

boards.200 The first floor is framed with 3 inch 

by 8 to 9 inch joists bearing on 9-1/2 inch wide by 

8-1/2 inch deep wood beams spanning 5 feet 

between brick piers.201 Based on the evidence of 

the wood framing, the existing first floor partition 

layout is original and has never been significantly 

altered. The flooring boards run continuously 

east-west across the joists, and the partition walls 

are built atop the floor boards. Since continuous 

200. Buchanan et al. 

201. Lincoln C. Blake, Charleston District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Memorandum, Structural 

Inspection, Snee Farm, August 7, 1992. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 91

boards over 16 feet in length are used, there are no 

transverse joints in the flooring in the main rooms, 

only in the central corridor.202 As documented in 

the 1992 structural report, total load capacity for 

the first floor was calculated as 76 psf, of which 15 

psf was required for dead load, leaving a 61 psf live 

load capacity.203

At the time of the 1992 structural inspection, the 

east master bedroom wing floor framing had 

previous termite damage, with sills and joists 

previously replaced. This area has since been 

repaired.204

At the time of the 1992 structural inspection, the 

west kitchen wing floor framing had termite 

damage, especially near the stair.205 This damage 

was addressed by National Park Service in the late 

1990s, including replacement of the sill plates at 

the perimeter of the kitchen wing. 

At the north porch, two generations of joist 

mortises are present, indicating two previous 

configurations for the porch. The oldest mortises 

are located at the outer edges of the two central 

brick piers, indicating that the first north porch 

was relatively narrow, approximately 9 feet in 

width and 5 feet deep. The second set of mortises 

are located at the first brick pier off each corner of 

the house, indicating an extension of the porch to 

the east and west, for a total width of 

approximately 14 feet.206 The existing back porch, 

which presumably dates to the 1930s renovation, is 

framed with 2x10 nominal wood joists, spaced at 

18 inches on center and spanning 9 feet. The joists 

are supported by double 2x10 wood girders 

spanning 9 feet between brick piers.207

The original front (south) porch was built with 

joists tenoned into the face of the sill beams of the 

house. The entire 37-foot-wide front porch is 

original to the house.208 The front porch was 

reportedly originally framed with 3 inch by 5 inch 

 

202. Buchanan et al. 

203. Blake. 

204. Blake. 

205. Blake. 

206. Buchanan et al. 

207. Blake. 

joists spaced at 26 inches on center and spanning 

7 feet, supported on 7-3/4 inch by 7-1/4 inch wood 

beams spanning 9 feet between brick piers.209 This 

framing was replaced in kind after 1992. 

The second floor is supported on 3 inch 

by 8 to 9 inch joists, spaced 24 inches on center, 

that are notched and bear on a 5-inch by 9-inch 

beam at the top of the first floor walls. They span 

north-south approximately 17 feet. A large wood 

girder is present, aligned with the arch in the hall 

of the first floor. Each second floor joist is 

generally aligned with a roof rafter. Similar to the 

first floor, the floor boards for the second floor 

were installed first, running east-west, with 

staggered transverse joints in the central hall only. 

With the floor boards in place, the interior 

partition walls were built atop the flooring. The 

continuity and configuration of the floor boards 

indicate that the stairwell is in its original location 

and retains its original size, with minor exceptions. 

At some point after original construction, it 

appears that the stairwell opening was widened by 

approximately 2 inches, which allowed the 

handrail to clear the edge of the floor at the top of 

the stairs. This change is evident in the patched 

trim at the intersection of the north wall and 

second floor at the stair opening, a patched area of 

the stair balustrade, and alterations to the floor 

joist framing at the stair opening. Although the 

balustrade along the stair itself appears to be 

original, the balusters at the second floor landing 

railing were judged in the 1991 architectural 

inspection report to date to the 1930s.210 In the 

1992 analysis, load capacities were calculated for 

the second floor as 60 psf, of which 15 psf was 

required for dead load, leaving a 45 psf live load 

capacity.211

Portions of the roof framing are exposed to view 

behind cabinetry at the second floor level. At the 

observed location, the roof framing consisted of 

nominal 2x6 rafters spaced 24 inches on center 

208. Buchanan et al. 

209. Blake. 

210. Buchanan et al., 22. No reason is given as why 

the baluster was judged to date to the 1930s. 

211. Blake. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

92 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

with 1x2 battens and 1x wood plank sheathing. 

There was no insulation present between rafters. 

The roof consists of irregularly spaced rafters 

located to accommodate the dormer windows. At 

the peak of the roof, each rafter appears to be 

mortise-and-tenon and is pegged into the rafter on 

the opposite face of the roof (Figure 218). Each 

rafter pair is marked with incised numerals at the 

ridge; these numerals would have been used by the 

original carpenters in erecting the roof framing 

after the rafters had been cut and shaped at 

ground level. At the eave, the rafters bear on and 

are nailed to a wood sill plate that rests atop the 

second floor joists.212 The rafters have experienced 

some damage from previous water infiltration.213

For example, there is old water damage to the 

ceiling over the southwest second floor room.214

FIGURE 218. Detail of the main roof rafters, showing 

mortise-and-tenon joint at peak of roof, secured 

with a wood peg. 

As noted in the 1992 structural inspection report, 

the dormer openings are inadequately framed, 

with unstrengthened standard rafters along the 

dormer sides. There is a noticeable sag in the roof 

framing at the dormer at the northeast corner of 

the main house.215 

The rafters for the front porch roof are connected 

to a flat wood board that is nailed to the top 

surface of the main roof rafters. Below this point, 

the tops of the main rafters are free of nail holes or 

 

212. Buchanan et al. 

213. Richard D. Lambert, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Memorandum, Structural 

Inspection, Snee Farm, March 10, 1993. 

214. Blake. 

215. Ibid. 

other evidence of additional covering materials, 

indicating that the front porch dates to the original 

construction of the building.216

Mechanical Systems 

Heating and Air Conditioning. The building is 

heated and cooled by four, split-system heat 

pumps, with blower coil units, electric heat, and 

outdoor heat pump units. This system was initially 

installed in the 1990s. One unit was to have 5 tons 

cooling capacity, while the other three were to 

have 3 tons capacity. Where feasible, existing attic 

ductwork and grilles were retained and reused. As 

part of the work, R-38 fiberglass insulation was 

added to ceilings from the attic, and R-19 

fiberglass insulation was added to the underside of 

the first floor at the crawl space.217 Air handler one 

is located in the crawlspace below the central hall 

of the main house and serves the first floor of the 

main house. Existing grilles in the floor were 

retained for supply and return air, except for one 

existing floor grille at the north end of the hall that 

was abandoned in place. The heat pump for this 

air handler was located in the crawlspace below 

the southwest room. Air handler two is located in 

the basement and serves the northwest wing; the 

heat pump for this unit is located below the 

northwest room of the main house. Air handler 

three is located in the crawlspace below the 

northeast connecting link and serves the northeast 

wing; the heat pump for this unit is located below 

the northeast room of the main house. Air handler 

four is located in the attic to serve the second floor 

of the house, with a heat pump for this unit in the 

crawlspace below the southeast room. The air 

handlers were to be suspended from the wood 

floor construction, while the heat pumps were to 

be placed on new concrete slabs.218 The existing 

air handlers and heat pumps were installed circa 

2012–2013. 

216. Buchanan et al. 

217. Section 106 compliance documentation, July 

17, 1991, and specifications Section 15010, 

Mechanical Work, and Section 16010, 

Electrical Work, no date. 

218. NPS Drawing No. 345-25001, April 1991. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 93

The air handlers connect to insulated metal ducts, 

which serve supply and return grilles that mainly 

predate the 1990s renovation work. 

Electrical. The single-phase electrical service 

enters the house underground at the basement. 

Two, 200-amp electrical panels are located at the 

west wall. The electric meter for the house is 

located at the southwest corner of the northwest 

wing (Figure 219). 

FIGURE 219. The electric meter for the house. 

The primary telecommunications equipment is 

located along the south wall of the basement 

(Figure 220). Internet service control panels are 

located along the east wall (Figure 221). 

FIGURE 220. Telecommunications equipment along 

the south wall of the basement. 

FIGURE 221. Internet service control panels along the 

east wall of the basement. 

Plumbing. Domestic plumbing in the house was 

entirely replaced in the 1990s. Both the drain lines 

and water supply lines are PVC. The upstairs 

bathroom fixtures have been disconnected from 

the plumbing runs. The sanitary drain line runs 

from the two universally accessible toilet rooms in 

the northeast wing, under the north porch, into 

the basement, and exits through the west side of 

the foundation wall under the toilet room in the 

northwest wing. Water supply originates in the 

basement. There is an electric ten-gallon water 

heater in the basement to serve the three toilet 

rooms; the existing unit dates to the 1990s 

(Figure 222). 

FIGURE 222. The water heater in the basement. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

94 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

The basement also contains an open sump along 

the south wall (Figure 223). The pump discharges 

at grade along the south side of the northwest wing 

(Figure 224 and Figure 225). 

FIGURE 223. An open sump along the south wall. 

FIGURE 224. The pump discharges at grade along the 

south side of the northwest wing. 

FIGURE 225. The pump discharges at grade along the 

south side of the northwest wing. 

Fire Protection. Fire protection water service 

enters the west wall of the basement, and the 

major connections and pumps for the fire 

protection system are within the basement 

(Figure 226). 

The fire alarm control panel is located on the 

north face of the brick chimney at the center of the 

basement (Figure 227).

FIGURE 226. Fire protection pumps at the west wall of 

the basement. 

FIGURE 227. The fire alarm control panel on the north 

face of the brick chimney in the basement. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 95

Barn 

Baseline drawings of the barn prepared as part of 

this study are provided in Appendix B. 

Exterior Description 

The barn is a two-story wood-framed horse barn 

adapted for use as a storage and conference room 

for the park. The structure has a rectangular plan 

with a covered breezeway at the south elevation 

and a lean-to along the north elevation 

(Figure 228). The covered breezeway extends the 

full length of the south elevation and consists of a 

shed roof supported on nine wood posts, spaced 8 

feet on center. The lean-to has a shed roof and 

extends the full length of the north elevation. 

Personnel doors are primarily located on the south 

elevation but are also located on the east and west 

elevations. Wood-framed vehicular doors and hay 

loft doors are centered on the east and west end 

gable elevations. Typical window openings are 

wood-framed and located on the north and south 

elevations. The building has a crimped sheet metal 

roof and features a cross gable and square cupola 

with pyramidal roof. 

FIGURE 228. The south elevation of the barn. 

Foundation. The structure has a masonry 

foundation wall that extends approximately 12 

inches above grade and is visible from the exterior 

on all elevations of the building. Most of the 

building has a brick foundation that appears to be 

original to the structure (Figure 229). Portions of 

the foundation at the east elevation and east half of 

the north elevation have been replaced with a 

foundation constructed of concrete masonry units 

(CMU) (Figure 230). At the interior, portions of 

the CMU foundation wall are visible along the east 

elevation. 

Six of the nine wood posts associated with the 

covered breezeway have 12-inch-square brick 

piers that extend approximately 10 inches above 

grade and support the wood post framing 

(Figure 231). One of the support posts has a nonoriginal CMU foundation pier. The remaining two 

posts had no visible foundation support. 

FIGURE 229. The barn has a brick foundation. 

FIGURE 230. Portions of the foundation have been 

replaced with concrete masonry units. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

96 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 231. The base of the wood posts at the 

breezeway. 

Walls. The building has wood-framed walls with 

nominal 1x8 wood clapboard siding painted white. 

Clapboards are lapped approximately 1-1/2 

inches, leaving approximately 6 inches of the 

clapboard exposed to view. There is a vertical trim 

board at each corner of the building (Figure 232). 

FIGURE 232. Vertical trim board at a corner of the 

building. 

The south elevation is the main entrance elevation 

and features a one-story wood-framed covered 

breezeway that extends approximately 8 feet 

beyond the enclosed portion of the building 

(Figure 233). The breezeway is a dirt-covered area 

with four concrete pavers and a non-original 

concrete stoop aligned with the center door 

entrance (Figure 234). A concrete pad and 

mechanical equipment are located at the west end 

of the breezeway. 

FIGURE 233. A wood-framed breezeway is present 

along the south elevation. 

FIGURE 234. The breezeway is dirt-covered with 

concrete pavers at the center door. 

The south elevation is divided into seven bays by 

window and door openings (refer to Figure 228). 

The east portion of the elevation consists of five 

door openings, each spaced 8 feet on center and 

painted black. The four easternmost door 

openings measure approximately 50 inches wide 

and 7 feet 2 inches tall and have 1x4 trim. The 

westernmost door opening measures 36 inches 

wide by 7 feet tall and has a 4-1/2 inch wide trim 

board. The second and fourth door openings from 

the east are infilled with vertical tongue and 

groove wood plank and painted black. Door types 

include tongue and groove plank doors and multipanel wood doors, as further discussed below. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 97

At the west end of the south elevation are two 

window openings. Each opening measures 2 feet 6 

inches wide and 5 feet 2 inches tall and has 4-1/2 

inch wide trim with a 2-inch-wide wood sill that 

extends 4 inches beyond the opening on each side. 

Window openings at the south elevation have a 

double-hung sash, as discussed below. 

In addition to door and window openings, the 

south elevation features a wall-mounted electrical 

panel and wall-mounted electrical conduit, 

junction box, and coolant line associated with the 

condenser unit at the west end of the elevation 

(Figure 235). A small louvered vent opening is 

centered on the elevation above an infilled door 

opening. 

FIGURE 235. A wall-mounted electrical panel and 

additional mechanical equipment on the south 

elevation. 

The east elevation is a two-story end gable 

elevation with the open bay of the covered 

breezeway at the south end and the shed roof leanto at the north end. The elevation has the typical 

wood clapboard siding and a visible CMU 

foundation and features two first floor and one 

upper level door openings (Figure 236). At the 

center of the first floor level is a non-original 

vehicular door opening that is accessed from a 

non-original concrete ramp. The opening has a 

wood sliding door, painted black, which is hung 

from hangers on an exterior-mounted overhead 

track (Figure 237). The clapboard siding has been 

shimmed to provide a flat surface upon which to 

mount the overhead track. The overhead track 

extends along the south end of the elevation. 

There are two metal door bumpers, painted black, 

that are anchored to the wall at the south end of 

the elevation. Surface-mounted to the access ramp 

is a non-original channel that aligns with the track 

of the sliding door and helps stabilize the door 

while in the closed position. Centered at the 

second floor hay loft is a wood-framed door 

opening. The opening has 4-1/2-inch-wide trim, a 

2-inch-wide wood sill, and a double-leaf hinged 

tongue and groove plank door with strap hinges. 

At the lean-to at the north end of the elevation is a 

personnel door that is accessed from a concrete 

stoop. The opening measures approximately 3 feet 

wide by 7 feet tall and has 4-inch-wide trim and a 

single-leaf hinge tongue and groove plank door. 

FIGURE 236. The east elevation of the barn. 

FIGURE 237. A vehicular door opening at the center 

of the east elevation. 

The north elevation has typical wood clapboard 

siding, an exposed CMU foundation at the east 

end, and a brick foundation at the west end. There 

are four small window openings located on the 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

98 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

west end of the elevation (Figure 238). Each 

opening measures 2 feet tall by 4 feet wide and is 

approximately 5 feet 6 inches above grade. The 

openings are framed with 1x4 wood framing and 

have a 1-1/2 inch wood sill that extends the full 

width of the opening. The openings have a woodframed awning sash, discussed below. Other wall 

features include non-original wall-mounted hose 

bib, hose reel, and floor lights located at the east 

end of the elevation (Figure 239). 

FIGURE 238. The north elevation of the barn. 

FIGURE 239. A hose bib, hose reel, and floor lights at 

the east end of the north elevation. 

The west elevation is similar to the east elevation 

with the open bay of the covered breezeway at the 

south end and the enclosed lean-to on the north 

end. There are three door openings at the first 

floor level (Figure 240). A vehicular door, 

measuring approximately 5 feet wide by 7 feet tall, 

is located at the center of the elevation and is 

accessed from a non-original concrete ramp. It has 

4-inch-wide trim along the jambs, 6-inch-wide 

trim at the header, and a double-leaf hinged 

plywood door. Narrower door openings, 3 feet in 

width, are located approximately 4 feet on either 

side of the vehicular door. The narrower door 

openings are accessed from a non-original 

concrete stoop and have 4-inch-wide trim along 

the jambs and 6-inch-wide trim at the header. The 

north opening has a single-leaf hinged tongue and 

groove plank door. The south door opening has 

been infilled with vertically oriented tongue and 

groove plank. Centered on the second floor level is 

a hay loft door opening with 4-inch-wide trim, 

wood sill, and tongue and groove double-leaf door 

with strap hinges. Other features on the west 

elevation include wall-mounted electrical junction 

boxes and telecommunications boxes mounted to 

the wall between the vehicular door and the south 

door opening. 

FIGURE 240. The west elevation of the barn. 

Roof. The building has a wood-framed gable roof 

with a shed roof lean-to on the north elevation and 

a shed roof breezeway on the south elevation. The 

roof is clad with 2-foot-wide crimped sheet metal 

panels and has an overhang of approximately 

4 inches with the typical fascia detail consisting of 

a 1x6 fascia board and wood trim with an ogee 

profile (Figure 241). 

FIGURE 241. A typical fascia at the barn. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 99

Centered on the south elevation, at the ridge 

between the main gable roof and covered 

breezeway roof, is a cross gable (Figure 242). The 

cross gable has wood clapboard siding, painted 

white, and a wood-framed louvered circular vent. 

FIGURE 242. A cross gable at the south elevation. 

Along the ridge of the gable roof is a wood-framed 

and louvered cupola that helps vent the roof and 

attic level. The cupola extends approximately 6 

feet above the roofline, is square in plan, and has 

pyramidal crimped sheet metal roof (Figure 243). 

All four elevations of the cupola have louvered 

openings. The drum of the cupola has clapboard 

siding with wood trim at the corners. Extensive 

repairs have been made to the cupola. 

FIGURE 243. The cupola at the center of the roof. 

Windows. There are two types of window 

openings present on the building. Window 

openings at the south elevations measure 

approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall and 3 feet 4 

inches wide and have a 4-1/2 inch wood trim 

board, projecting wood sill, and are painted black. 

The window units are six-over-six wood-framed 

double-hung sash. Clear glazing lights measure 9 

inches by 12 inches and are separated by 

1/4-inch-wide wood mullions (Figure 244). 

FIGURE 244. A typical six-over-six double-hung 

window. 

At the west end of the north elevation, window 

openings have 1x6 jambs and measure 2 feet tall by 

4 feet wide. There is a 1-1/2 inch projecting sill that 

extends the full width of the opening. The opening 

has a two-light awning sash constructed of 2-inchwide wood framing and clear glazing (Figure 245). 

FIGURE 245. A typical two-light awning sash. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

100 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Doors. There are four general types of door 

construction visible on the barn exterior. Most 

door openings, including the vehicular sliding 

door and personnel doors on the west, south, and 

east, are non-original composite doors. These 

doors have a 1/2 inch plywood core with 1x8 

vertically oriented tongue and groove planks 

mounted to the interior and exterior face 

(Figure 246 and Figure 247). The exterior face of 

the doors are painted black. The interior face of 

the doors are unfinished. 

FIGURE 246. The edge of a typical composite door. 

FIGURE 247. A typical composite door. 

The vehicular door at the west elevation is a nonoriginal door constructed of plywood. The door is 

clad on the exterior with vertically oriented wood 

planks and painted black (Figure 248). 

FIGURE 248. The vehicular door at the west elevation. 

Hay loft doors consist of 1x8 vertical wood plank 

with Z-shaped bracing on the interior side. The 

doors have strap hinges and the exterior is painted 

black (Figure 249 and Figure 250). 

FIGURE 249. A hay loft door. 

FIGURE 250. The interior side of the hay loft door. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 101

The west door at the south elevation appears to be 

original. It is a five-panel wood door with 

4-1/2-inch wide stiles and rails. Each panel 

measures 11 inches tall by 27 inches wide and has a 

beveled panel. The door has a wood sill plate, nonoriginal security lock, and five knuckle ball hinges. 

Exterior Condition Assessment 

Baseline drawings annotated with existing exterior 

condition observations are provided in 

Appendix C. Conditions described are as observed 

in September 2014. 

 Condensation was observed on the exterior 

face of the windows at the conference room 

(Figure 251). Moisture was observed forming 

on the glass and dripping off the window 

frame and sill. The exterior of the windows 

was observed to have mold and mildew. 

 Approximately three window lights in the 

double-hung windows on the south elevation 

were observed to be cracked (Figure 252). 

FIGURE 251. Condensation on the exterior face of the 

conference room windows. 

FIGURE 252. A cracked window light. 

 A sheet metal trim piece was observed to be 

missing from the edge of the roof at the west 

elevation (Figure 253). 

 Peeling paint was observed at multiple 

locations on all elevations of the building 

(Figure 254). The peeling paint was 

concentrated at boards near the bottom half of 

the structure. 

 Mold and mildew was observed on the face of 

the wood clapboard. The biological growth 

was most pronounced on the north and west 

elevations (Figure 255). 

 Mold growth was observed on the face of the 

brick foundation on the north elevation 

(Figure 256). 

 Deterioration was observed at multiple 

boards. The deterioration included rot, 

checking, cracking, and splitting of the wood 

(Figure 257 through Figure 259). In some 

cases, the performance of the wood siding was 

diminished. 

 Surface corrosion was observed at the crimped 

metal roof panels (Figure 260). 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

102 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 253. Detail of the west end of the barn. Note 

that a piece of metal trim is missing at the north half 

(left side of photograph), exposing the ends of the 

roof sheathing boards. 

FIGURE 254. Peeling paint was observed on all 

elevations. 

FIGURE 255. Biological growth on the wood 

clapboard. 

FIGURE 256. Organic growth on the face of the brick 

foundation on the north elevation of the barn. 

FIGURE 257. Deterioration of the wood clapboards 

was observed. 

FIGURE 258. Deterioration of the wood clapboards. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 103

FIGURE 259. Deterioration of the wood clapboards. 

FIGURE 260. Surface corrosion was observed at the 

metal roof. 

Interior Description 

The building has a rectangular plan organized 

around a central hall from which there is direct 

access to most rooms at the first floor level and a 

stair to the second floor hay loft. There are four 

rooms accessed from the south side of the hall 

including a storage room, break room with 

separate bathroom and laundry room, electrical 

room, and conference room. The carpentry shop, 

along with the connected wood storage and tool 

rooms, comprise the north portion of the first 

floor plan. Floor finishes throughout the first floor 

are typically exposed concrete with a single wythe 

brick foundation at the locations of original 

partition walls (Figure 261). The second floor hay 

loft has an open plan. 

FIGURE 261. There is a brick foundation at some 

locations. 

First Floor. The central hall extends east–west 

through the building and connects the vehicular 

door openings at the east and west elevations. It 

has a concrete floor, horizontal tongue and groove 

plank walls, and ceiling joists and cross bracing 

exposed to view (Figure 262 and Figure 263). At 

the center of the hall and along the north wall is a 

wood-framed stair with wood stringer and treads. 

The underside of the stair is clad with tongue and 

groove boards (Figure 264). The stair has a noncode compliant handrail constructed of 2x4 

members nailed together. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

104 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 262. The central hall of the barn. 

FIGURE 263. The central hall of the barn. 

FIGURE 264. The underside of the stair in the central 

hall. 

Previously existing door openings have been 

infilled with new tongue and groove wood siding 

(Figure 265). There are two types of doors visible 

within the hall. The more historic door type is a 

five-paneled wood door and is present at the 

conference room and electrical room (Figure 266). 

It has 2-1/2 inch wood trim at the perimeter of the 

opening and the previous finish has been removed. 

With the exception of the five knuckle hinges, the 

hardware had been removed from the doors and 

replaced with non-original door hardware. The 

interior face of the conference room door was 

painted teal green. Non-original wood doors to 

the break room, storage closet, and carpentry shop 

are hollow core flush. The east end of the north 

wall has a concrete masonry unit (CMU) 

foundation and appears to be of more recent 

construction (Figure 267). The hall has nonoriginal surface-mounted electrical conduit, 

junction boxes, and fluorescent light fixtures. 

FIGURE 265. Tongue and groove siding was used to 

infill door openings. 

FIGURE 266. A historic five panel door. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 105

FIGURE 267. A CMU foundation is present at the east 

end of the north wall. 

The storage room is located at the southeast 

corner of the building and is accessed from an 

exterior door on the south elevation and from an 

interior hall door. The room has an exposed 

concrete floor and unfinished plywood walls and 

ceiling with two ceiling-mounted light fixtures 

(Figure 268). The room is used for storage and has 

wood-framed shelving. 

FIGURE 268. The storage room. 

The break roof is immediately west of the storage 

room and is accessed from the exterior by the 

main entrance door centered on the south 

elevation and also from the central hall. The room 

has a concrete floor with traffic coating and 

gypsum board walls and ceiling with wood 

baseboard and trim (Figure 269). The room has a 

non-original ceiling fan and fluorescent lighting. 

Kitchen cabinets have been installed on the east 

wall. Two small rooms are located on the west side 

of the room and are accessed by hollow core wood 

doors. Both rooms have non-original finishes, 

which include gypsum board walls and ceiling, 

wood baseboards, and a light fixture. The north 

room is a bathroom (Figure 270). The south room 

was originally a second bathroom but has been 

converted for use as a laundry room (Figure 271). 

FIGURE 269. The break room. 

FIGURE 270. The north room is used as a bathroom. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

106 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 271. The south room is now used as a laundry 

room. 

West of the break room is the electrical room. The 

room has an exterior door on the south wall and 

an interior door that leads to the central hall. It has 

a concrete floor and unpainted tongue and groove 

wood walls and ceiling (Figure 272). A new 

electrical panel and electrical conduit are surface 

mounted to the wall and ceiling. The room 

includes a storage closet and water heater. 

FIGURE 272. The electrical room. 

The conference room is located at the southwest 

corner of the plan and is accessed from the central 

hall. It has a carpeted floor, gypsum board walls 

painted cream, wood baseboard and ceiling trim 

painted green, and a gypsum board ceiling with 

textured plaster finish (Figure 273). A non-original 

fan and fluorescent light fixtures are mounted to 

the ceiling. The room has two windows on the 

south interior elevation as well as a wall-mounted 

air conditioning unit. This room is the only air 

conditioned space in the building. 

FIGURE 273. The conference room. 

The carpentry shop is located on the north side of 

the building. It consists of a main work room 

space, which provides access to the wood storage 

and tool rooms. The shop contains wood working 

equipment and is accessed from an exterior door 

on the west interior elevation and two interior 

doors from the central hall. The main work room 

of the carpentry shop has an L-shaped plan and a 

concrete floor that is divided into two rectangular 

sections by a one-wythe-wide brick foundation 

wall. The walls and ceiling are plywood painted 

white with wood molding (Figure 274). 

Fluorescent light fixtures are spaced 

approximately 4 feet apart and set in recessed 

openings between framing members (Figure 275). 

All window, door, and recessed lighting openings 

have wood trim painted green. 

FIGURE 274. The carpentry shop. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 107

FIGURE 275. Fluorescent light fixtures in the carpentry 

shop. 

The wood storage room is located at the northeast 

corner of the building, east of the work room. It is 

accessed from an exterior door on a CMU 

foundation and from the work room on the 

interior. The room has concrete floors, plywood 

walls and ceiling painted white, and recessed 

fluorescent light fixtures (Figure 276). Parallel to 

the wood storage room is the tool room. It is 

accessed from the work room and has concrete 

floors, and unpainted plywood walls and ceiling 

with recessed fluorescent lighting (Figure 277). 

FIGURE 276. The wood storage room. 

FIGURE 277. The tool room. 

Second Floor. The second floor loft is accessed 

from the central hall stair and consists of a large 

open plan hayloft space with sloped walls that 

follow the pitch of the roof structure (Figure 278). 

The space is characterized by wood tongue and 

groove floors and exposed wood wall and roof 

framing. As part of the exposed roof framing, the 

interior framing of the louvered cross gable and 

cupola is visible (Figure 279 and Figure 280). The 

hayloft doors are centered on the east and west 

walls of the room. The southeast corner of the 

room has wood-framed storage shelving clad with 

plywood. Non-original electrical conduit and light 

fixtures are mounted to the underside of the roof 

ties. 

FIGURE 278. The second floor loft. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

108 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 279. The interior framing of the louvered 

cross gable. 

FIGURE 280. The cupola at the center of the barn. 

Interior Condition Assessment 

 Evidence of active water leakage was observed 

at numerous locations (Figure 281 and 

Figure 282). The leaks were typically 

associated with holes in the sheet metal roof or 

gaps in the flashing between roof features. 

Roof deck and rafters were observed to have 

water staining or deterioration indicative of 

water leakage. 

 The floor at the second floor level was 

observed to be bowed significantly. The ridge 

of the bow in the floor was located above the 

wall associated with the north wall of the hall. 

The floor sloped noticeably to the north. It 

was observed that the north end of the hay loft 

floor was not supported by a load bearing wall. 

 Interior open joints were observed at the 

perimeter of the hay loft doors on the east and 

west elevations (Figure 283). The sill at the 

west hay loft door was also observed to be 

missing, accentuating the open joint. 

 Gaps were observed at the flashing around 

louvered openings at the cross gable 

(Figure 284). Sealant at the joints was observed 

to have cohesively failed. The joints were up to 

1 inch wide. 

FIGURE 281. Evidence of water leakage was observed. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 109

FIGURE 282. Evidence of water leakage was observed. 

FIGURE 283. Interior open joints were observed at the 

perimeter of the hay loft doors. 

FIGURE 284. Gaps were observed at the flashing 

around louvered openings at the cross gable. 

 A continuous open joint was observed at the 

transition between the gable roof and the lowslope lean-to roof (Figure 285). The joint was 

located under the lap in the sheet metal 

between the two roof slopes and was lined 

with sheet metal. There was no sealant or joint 

filler observed. 

 Peeling paint, mold, mildew, and moisture 

staining were visible on the wood six-panel 

interior door to the conference room 

(Figure 286). The deterioration was most 

pronounced at the lower three panels of the 

doors. The door felt cool and damp to the 

touch. 

 Evidence of vandalism was observed at the 

second floor level of the barn (Figure 287). 

The vandalism included spray-painted text 

and images on the wood. It appeared that 

attempts had been made to clean the wood. 

 1x6 tongue and groove cladding boards were 

observed to be missing from the underside of 

the stairs (refer to Figure 264). 

 Concrete patch repairs and extensions were 

made to the concrete floor slab (Figure 288). 

FIGURE 285. Continuous open joints at the transition 

between the gable roof and the low-slope lean-to 

roof. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

110 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 286. Peeling paint, mold, mildew, and 

moisture staining on the wood six-panel interior 

door to the conference room. 

FIGURE 287. Evidence of vandalism at the second 

floor of the barn. 

FIGURE 288. Concrete patch repairs and extensions 

were made to the concrete floor slab. 

 

219. Blake; Mark A. Jackson, Jackson Engineering, 

Inc., Evaluation of Structural Issues and 

Change of Use for Main House and Barn 

Structure at the Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site (2015) 

Structural System 

The following description of the structural system 

of the barn is based on the visual inspection 

conducted during this study at locations where 

structural framing was exposed to view. 

Observations were compared with previous 

structural assessments, specifically the 1992 report 

entitled Structural Inspection at Snee Farm, 

prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

and a 2015 report entitled Evaluation of Structural 

Issues and Change of Use for the Main House and 

Barn Structure, as noted below.219 

The barn is a wood-framed structure constructed 

on a masonry foundation. The structure consists 

primarily of 2x6 exterior and interior load-bearing 

walls. The walls support 2x10 floor joists spaced 

16 inches on center at the second floor level. 

Previous structural reports indicate that the joists 

range in span from 10 to 19 feet, depending on 

location within the building.220 Wood bridging was 

observed at lap joints between joint members. 

The main gable portion of the roof is constructed 

of 2x8 rafters, spaced 16 inches on center, with 2x6 

collar ties and a 1x8 ridge. The roof has 1x6 tongue 

and groove decking. 

The framing for the lean-to shed roof and covered 

breezeway consists of 2x8 wood framing members, 

spaced 24 inches on center. The upper end of the 

rafters are nailed to the gable roof rafters and 

supported on continuous wood-framed knee 

walls. The knee walls have 2x4 construction with 

double top plate. The lower end of the rafters is 

supported on a wood beam. 

At the north lean-to shed, the doubled 2x10 joists 

extend from the interior load-bearing wall to the 

exterior wall and support the north knee wall. At 

the covered breezeway at the south side of the 

building, the rafters are exposed to view. Joists, 

spaced 5 feet 4 inches on center, extend from the 

220. Blake. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 111

building and are nailed to the bottom of the rafters 

(Figure 289). 

The cupola is constructed of 2x4s and clad with 

plywood sheathing. It is anchored to the sheathing 

of the gable roof. 

FIGURE 289. The underside of the breezeway roof. 

Repairs were observed at seven severely 

deteriorated rafters at the shed roof canopy on the 

south elevation. The repairs included sistering 

existing rafters where the wood was deteriorated 

and had a significant loss in section. The sistered 

rafters extend from the roof fascia to the face of 

the cladding (Figure 290 and Figure 291). 

In the 1992 analysis, the load capacity for the 

second floor of the barn was determined to be 89 

psf total, of which 9 psf was required for dead 

load, leaving 80 psf live load capacity, which was 

noted in the1992 report as suitable for light storage 

loads.221 The 2015 report stated concerns 

regarding the structure of the barn, specifically at 

the knee walls, and recommended supplemental 

repairs to the structure.222 In conjunction with the 

present study, WJE reviewed the Jackson 

Engineering, Inc., report provided to us by the 

National Park Service, and recommends that 

further investigation be conducted before 

structural repairs are performed.223

 

221. Ibid. 

222. Jackson. 

FIGURE 290. Repairs were previously made to 

deteriorated rafters. 

FIGURE 291. Repairs were previously made to 

deteriorated rafters. 

223. WJE comments on the Jackson Engineering, 

Inc., structural assessment report were 

provided to the National Park Services in the 

WJE e-mail dated August 20, 2015. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

112 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Corn Crib 

Baseline drawings of the corn crib prepared as part 

of this study are provided in Appendix B. 

Exterior Description 

The corn crib is a one-story wood-framed 

structure set on masonry piers. It has slightly 

pitched side walls and a wood-framed gable roof 

with flared eaves (Figure 292). The building has a 

rectangular plan that, at its base, measures 12 feet 

by 17 feet. The main entrance is centered on the 

east end gable elevation. Louvered openings are 

located on the east and west elevations. Siding on 

the north and south elevations have wide spaces 

between boards to allow for ventilation. The 

building is currently being used as a storage 

facility. 

FIGURE 292. The corn crib. 

Foundation. The building is supported on six 

masonry piers: one at each corner and one at the 

middle of both the north and south elevations 

(Figure 293). Each pier measures approximately 

12 inches square and projects approximately 

4 inches above grade. The three piers on the north 

elevation, as well as the pier at the southwest 

corner, are constructed of brick masonry. The 

remaining two piers at the south elevation are 

CMU construction and appear to be a later 

alteration (Figure 294). 

FIGURE 293. Masonry piers at the corner of the corn 

crib. 

FIGURE 294. CMU piers at the south elevation. 

Within the plan established by the perimeter 

foundation piers is a non-original cast-in-place 

concrete slab on grade, which serves as a 

secondary foundation. The concrete slab is 

approximately 10 inches thick and has a stepped 

edge profile that supports the platform wall 

structure. The edge of the bottom step of the 

concrete slab extends between the foundation 

piers and is exposed to view from the exterior. 

Walls. The main elevation is at the east end gable 

and consists of twenty-five rows of horizontallyoriented nominal 1x8 wood clapboard, painted 

white (Figure 295). The clapboards have a 1/2-inch 

lap and are fastened to the wood framing with wire 

nails. The east elevation includes a wood-framed 

door and louvered opening centered on the 

elevation. The wood-framed louvered opening has 

seven 1x8 wood louvers (Figure 296). Portions of 

three of the horizontal siding boards have been 

replaced with new wood boards (Figure 297). The 

replacement boards are not painted and have 

smaller fastener heads. The west elevation is very 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 113

similar to the east elevation but without an 

entrance door (Figure 298). At the west elevation, 

the louvered opening at the end gable also features 

a 1-inch-thick wood sill that projects 

approximately 2 inches from the face of the 

clapboard siding (Figure 299). 

FIGURE 295. The east elevation of the corn crib. 

FIGURE 296. Wood-framed louvered opening. 

FIGURE 297. Portions of the horizontal siding boards 

have been replaced with new wood boards. 

FIGURE 298. The west elevation. 

FIGURE 299. Louvered opening at the west elevation. 

As described above, the north and south walls are 

slightly angled outward, giving the east and west 

elevations a pentagonal shape (refer to Figure 292). 

The north elevation consists of nine rows of 

horizontally-oriented 1x6 wood plank siding, 

painted white (Figure 300). In general, the siding 

boards are spaced 3 inches apart (Figure 301). 

Between the lower two boards the space is wider, 

nearly 12 inches wide, and ghosting is evident on 

the framing and underlying hardware cloth, 

indicating that one wood plank has been removed. 

The lower four rows of siding consist of a single 

17-foot-long board. The upper five rows of siding 

each consists of two boards with staggered vertical 

joints aligned with one of the end framing 

members (Figure 302). Hardware cloth is fastened 

to the underlying wood framing and visible 

through the gaps between the wood clapboard. At 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

114 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

the east and west ends of the north elevation is a 

vertical trim board that measures 1 inch thick by 4-

1/2 inches wide and is set flush with the adjacent 

plank siding. 

FIGURE 300. The north elevation of the corn crib. 

FIGURE 301. The wood siding on the corn crib. 

FIGURE 302. The upper five rows of siding consists of 

two boards with staggered vertical joints. 

The south elevation is similar to the north 

elevation; however, it consists of seven rows of 1x8 

wood siding (Figure 303). As on the north 

elevation, the siding is spaced 3 inches apart and 

has hardware cloth visible between spaces in the 

siding. There is a wider space and ghosting 

between the lower two boards indicating one 

horizontal plank has been removed. 

FIGURE 303. The south elevation of the corn crib. 

Doors. The corn crib has one door opening 

centered on the east elevation. The door opening 

is wood-framed and measures approximately 35 

inches by 81-1/2 inches. The bottom of the 

opening is approximately 10 inches above grade. 

The exterior face of the opening is framed with 

2x4 wood trim set flush with the surrounding 

wood clapboard and painted white. The door 

consists of five full-width wood planks, each 

measuring approximately 1 inch thick by 6-1/4 

inches wide, and one half-width board. There are 

two metal three-knuckle strap hinges on the north 

side of the door and a metal latch with a padlock 

on the south side of the door. A non-original 

“Danger Flammable Liquids” sign is mounted to 

the door. The interior face of the door is 

unpainted. The interior door face has 1x8 upper 

and lower cross bracing and a 1x4 diagonal brace 

nailed to each door plank, which form a Z-shaped 

pattern (Figure 304). Additional wood blocking is 

located at the door lock. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 115

FIGURE 304. The interior face of the door on the east 

elevation. 

Roof. The building has a gable roof structure with 

flared eaves. The main portion of the roof framing 

has a 12:12 pitch and overhangs approximately 4 

inches on the east and west elevations and 6 inches 

on the north and south elevations. At the east and 

west end gable elevations, the roof framing at the 

overhanging eaves is visible from the underside 

and has 1x10 fascia board (Figure 305). At the 

north and south elevations, the roof has an 

enclosed eave consisting of a 1 inch by 6 inch eave 

board that projects approximately 5 inches from 

the face of the wall, a 1 inch by 6 inch wood fascia 

board that extends perpendicular to the eave, and 

a triangular-shaped wood trim board along the top 

of the fascia (Figure 306). The eave, fascia, and 

trim are all painted white. At some locations, the 

fascia at all elevations of the building has been 

overclad with a non-original 1/2 inch particle 

board and painted white (Figure 307). The roof 

has wood shingles but has been overclad with 

24 inch wide crimped sheet metal panels 

(Figure 308). In 1911, following a major hurricane, 

the original wood shingle roof was covered with 

metal roofing. 

FIGURE 305. The roof framing at the overhanging 

eaves is visible from the underside. 

FIGURE 306. A triangular-shaped wood trim board 

along the top of the fascia. 

FIGURE 307. The fascia has been overclad with 

particle board in some areas. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

116 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 308. The wood shingle roof has been overclad 

with crimped metal panels. 

Interior Description 

The corn crib is currently being used as a tool 

storage room. The interior consists of a single 

room and is characterized by its exposed concrete 

floor slab wood framing. Non-original hardware 

cloth is exposed to view at the walls and ceiling, 

above the ceiling joists (Figure 309). Plywood has 

been applied to the interior framing at the west 

wall, as well as at a small section of the east wall 

(Figure 310). A strip of sheet metal has been nailed 

along the joint between the top plate and ceiling 

joint on the east elevation (Figure 311). 

FIGURE 309. Non-original hardware cloth is exposed 

at walls and ceilings. 

FIGURE 310. Plywood has been installed at the 

interior framing at the west wall. 

FIGURE 311. A strip of sheet metal nailed along the 

joint between the top plate and ceiling joint on the 

east elevation. 

Structural System

The building has platform-framed walls that 

consist of non-original 6 inch by 6 inch pressure 

treated wood sill plates that rest on the interior 

edge of the masonry piers and are supported on 

the stepped edge of the concrete slab. The sill plate 

wraps around the entire perimeter of the structure 

and is visible from both the interior and exterior of 

the building. Nailed to the sill plate, and at some 

locations clipped with small steel angles, are 2x6 

studs spaced 2 feet on center with double studs at 

each corner and wall opening (Figure 312). The 

studs at the north and south elevation are angled 

outward, approximately 5 degrees, from 

perpendicular. Each wall has a single 2x6 top plate. 

Along the north and south walls, there are 2x4 

diagonal cross bracing members that are anchored 

to the wood studs and extend from the corners of 

the top plate to the midpoint of the sill plate. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 117

FIGURE 312. Sill plates at the perimeter of the 

structure. 

Horizontal 2x10 wood ceiling joists extend in a 

north–south direction and are supported by the 

top plate. The joists are aligned with the wall studs 

and secured by 1x6 wood diagonal bracing 

members that sandwich each end of the joist and 

the adjacent stud (Figure 313). 

FIGURE 313. The wood ceiling joists. 

The roof framing consists of 2x6 wood rafters 

spaced 2 feet on center and a continuous 1x6 

wood ridge beam. The rafters have bird’s-mouth 

joints that rest on the top plate and are nailed to 

the adjacent ceiling joist. At the lower 18 inches of 

the roof framing, near the eaves, supplemental 

wood kickers are nailed to the wood rafters. These 

kickers are supported by wood cleats that alter the 

roof pitch, giving the roof the appearance of 

having flared eaves. Horizontal 1x6 wood collar 

ties extend between the midpoints of opposite 

rafters. The 1x2 wood battens are spaced 6 inches 

apart and anchored perpendicular to the rafters. 

There are four 1x6 queen roof ties that extend 

diagonally across the roof framing. 

Condition Assessment 

Baseline drawings annotated with existing 

condition observations are provided in 

Appendix C. Conditions described are as observed 

in September 2014. 

Wood Structure 

 Approximately 10 percent of the boards had 

large cracks, checks, or splinters (Figure 314). 

Cracks, checks, and splinters were typically 

horizontally-oriented, along the grain of the 

wood. 

FIGURE 314. Cracks, checks, and splinters are present 

in the boards. 

Walls 

 Approximately 15 percent of cladding boards 

are severely deteriorated. Deterioration 

includes severe rot resulting in soft or 

crumbling wood (Figure 315 and Figure 316). 

Deterioration was typically observed along the 

bottoms or at the end grain of cladding 

boards. Deterioration was most pronounced 

at the east and north elevations. 

 Mold growth was observed on nearly all of the 

cladding boards. There were many types of 

mold and mildew observed, including a light 

green moss on the face of the boards, as well as 

black surface mildew (Figure 317). 

 Deteriorated and peeling paint was observed 

throughout the structure, on all elevations of 

the building (Figure 318). 

 Wood siding boards were observed to be 

missing on the north and south elevations 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

118 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

(Figure 319). On both elevations, the second 

board from the bottom was missing across the 

full length of the elevation. The former 

location of the historic board was visible 

through ghosting on the partially painted 

hardware cloth. 

 Small holes and rips were observed in the 

metal hardware cloth between the wood 

siding on the north and south elevations 

(Figure 320). 

FIGURE 315. Severe rot at the edge of the roof. 

FIGURE 316. Deterioration at the cladding boards. 

FIGURE 317. Mold growth at the cladding boards. 

FIGURE 318. Deteriorated and peeling paint was 

observed throughout the structure. 

FIGURE 319. Wood siding boards were observed to be 

missing on the north and south elevations. 

FIGURE 320. Small holes and rips were observed in 

the metal hardware cloth between wood siding 

members. 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

National Park Service 119

Roof 

 General surface corrosion was observed on 

the face of the crimped sheet metal roofing. At 

a few locations, there were small pin holes in 

the sheet metal. The pin holes in the roof 

cladding were visible from the interior. A 

portion of the sheet metal roof cladding at the 

northwest end was missing, exposing wood 

shingles to view (Figure 321). 

 At various locations, 1/2-inch-thick particle 

board was installed over the face of the wood 

siding boards. The particle board was typically 

located at the roof fascia and painted white 

(Figure 322 and Figure 323). The particle 

board appeared wet and the wood adjacent to 

the alteration appeared to be more severely 

deteriorated. 

 Displaced wood trim was observed at various 

locations (Figure 324). The displaced trim was 

typically located along the roof line, associated 

with deteriorated wood, and displaced 

approximately 1 inch to 2 inches from its 

intended location. 

FIGURE 321. Wood shingles are exposed to view 

where the metal roof is missing. 

FIGURE 322. Particle board installed over the face of 

the wood siding boards. 

FIGURE 323. Particle board installed over the face of 

the wood siding boards. 

FIGURE 324. Displaced wood trim along the roof line. 

 
Physical Description and Condition Assessment 

120 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 
National Park Service 121

Significance and Integrity 

Evaluation of Significance 

Significance Criteria 

The Criteria for Evaluation for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places state: 

The quality of significance in American history, 

architecture, archeology, engineering, and 

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects that possess integrity of 

location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association, and: 

A. That are associated with events that have 

made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history; or 

B. That are associated with the lives of 

persons significant in our past; or 

C. That embody the distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or method 

of construction, or that represent the work 

of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; or 

D. That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, 

information important in prehistory or 

history. 

Criteria Considerations 

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of 

historical figures, properties owned by 

religious institutions or used for religious 

purposes, structures that have been moved 

from their original locations, reconstructed 

historic buildings, properties primarily 

commemorative in nature, and properties that 

have achieved significance within the past 50 

years shall not be considered eligible for the 

National Register. However, such properties 

will qualify if they are integral parts of districts 

that do meet the criteria or if they fall within 

the following categories: 

a. A religious property deriving primary 

significance from architectural or 

artistic distinction or historical 

importance; or 

b. A building or structure removed from 

its original location but which is 

primarily significant for architectural 

value, or which is the surviving 

structure most importantly associated 

with a historic person or event; or 

c. A birthplace or grave of a historical 

figure of outstanding importance if 

there is no appropriate site or building 

associated with his or her productive 

life; or 

d. A cemetery that derives its primary 

importance from graves of persons of 

transcendent importance, from age, 

from distinctive design features, or from 

association with historic events; or 

e. A reconstructed building when 

accurately executed in a suitable 

environment and presented in a 

dignified manner as part of a restoration 

master plan, and when no other 

building or structure with the same 

association has survived; or 

f. A property primarily commemorative in 

intent if design, age, tradition, or 

symbolic value has invested it with its 

own exceptional significance; or 
Significance and Integrity 

122 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

g. A property achieving significance 

within the past 50 years if it is of 

exceptional importance.224 

National Register Significance 

Evaluation 

Snee Farm was listed in the National Register on 

April 13, 1973, and designated a National Historic 

Landmark on November 7, 1973.225 The National 

Register nomination and National Historic 

Landmark nomination primarily address the main 

house, and does not address the barn, corn crib, or 

surrounding cultural landscape. The National 

Register nomination notes a state level of 

significance, citing the areas of Architecture and 

Political significance, while the National Historic 

Landmark indicates a national level of 

significance, citing only the area of Political 

significance. 

The version of the nomination form that was used 

in 1973 does not indicate specific National 

Register evaluation criteria. Based on information 

available at the time the nomination 

documentation was prepared, the construction 

date of the Snee Farm main house is given as circa 

1754 and the house is indicated to be “unaltered.” 

Later investigation revealed that the house was 

likely constructed circa 1830, and it is now known 

to have been altered since original construction, 

primarily in the 1930s. 

Based on research and review of documentation 

conducted for this study, updating of the National 

Register nomination for the Charles Pinckney 

 

224. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60, 

“The National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation.” 

225. Wright Caughman, Historic Preservation 

Assistant, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History, National Register of 

Historic Places nomination for Snee Farm, 

July 21, 1972; the property was entered into 

the National Register of Historic Places, April 

13, 1973. Charles Snell, Historian, National 

Park Service, National Historic Landmark 

nomination for Snee Farm, January 15, 1973; 

the property was designated a National 

National Historic Site is warranted to provide a 

more accurate assessment of the history, 

significance, and integrity of the main house, as 

well as to address the barn, corn crib, and overall 

cultural landscape of Snee Farm. The property 

could be assessed in terms of the Criteria for 

Evaluation, reevaluated in terms of relevant areas 

of significance, and the period of significance 

updated. 

Research and analysis conducted since the 

National Register nomination was completed 

suggest that Snee Farm does not appear to be 

significant under Criterion A in the area of Politics, 

because the existing house and other structures 

postdate the life of notable figure Charles 

Pinckney III. 

Under Criterion B, the existing house, as well as 

the barn and corn crib, are not directly related to 

the life and work of Charles Pinckney III. 

However, further assessment is appropriate for the 

site to place the cultural landscape within the 

context of Pinckney’s life and work. 

Under Criterion C, the house could be further 

assessed in terms of its significance as a distinct 

and well preserved example of an early nineteenth 

century plantation residence, illustrating the broad 

patterns of pre-Civil War plantation life in coastal 

South Carolina. Comparison with similar 

Lowcountry farmsteads and residences would be 

needed to determine whether the house is a 

unique or particularly representative example of 

Historic Landmark on November 7, 1973. At 

the time there was not a separate form for 

National Historic Landmark nominations, and 

the NHL nomination was therefore prepared 

on a National Register form. A new National 

Register nomination for Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site was prepared by Emily 

Kleine, Historian, National Park Service, in 

May 2000 and submitted to the State Historic 

Preservation Office. Additional information 

related to the updated nomination was not 

available for this study. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 123

the type, and also to determine whether its 

significance is at a local, state, or national level. 

Further research is also needed to evaluate the 

significance of the property under Criterion D, for 

its potential to yield archeological information. 

Based on studies completed to date, the Snee Farm 

property contains important archeological 

resources that enhance the understanding of 

notable American Charles Pinckney III and daily 

life on South Carolina coastal plantations, and will 

likely be significant under this criterion.226

Detailed consideration of the archeological 

potential of the site is beyond the scope of this 

Historic Structures Report, but is recommended 

for further study below. 

Period of Significance 

The National Register nomination for Snee Farm, 

which primarily addresses the main house, 

indicates a period of significance of eighteenth 

century, with a specific date of circa 1754. The 

National Historic Landmark documentation 

indicates a period of significance of the eighteenth 

century, with specific dates given as 1754–1824. 

The 1754 date was understood to be the 

approximate original construction date of the 

house, at the time the nominations were prepared 

(1972–1973).227 The 1824 date noted in the 

National Historic Landmark documentation 

coincides with Charles Pinckney’s death. 

As noted above, further investigation and analysis 

of nails used in construction of the house 

conducted by the National Park Service in the 

early 1990s, as well as consideration of the 

ownership history of the property, resulted in a 

revised construction date for the main house of 

circa 1830. Based on limited available archival 

documentation, the house appears to have 

retained its essential form and character through 

various owners at least until 1936, when various 

additions and other alterations were made. 

The Snee Farm corn crib was constructed circa 

1910, and the Snee Farm barn was constructed 

 

226. Blythe et al., 1–3. 

circa 1945. Both of these structures are associated 

with the later agricultural use of the Snee Farm 

property. 

Based on the assessment of criteria and areas of 

significance as discussed above, review of available 

documentation for this study suggests that a 

period of significance of circa 1830 to 1945 is 

appropriate for the main house, barn, and corn 

crib, as a collection of farm resources. This period 

of significance could be considered as part of an 

updated National Register nomination for Snee 

Farm as a historic district, significant at a local 

level for its association with the transition from 

antebellum plantation life to postbellum practices. 

227. Ibid. 
Significance and Integrity 

124 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Character-Defining Features 

The historic nature of significant buildings and 

structures is defined by their character, which is 

embodied in their identifying physical features. 

Character-defining features can include the shape 

of a building; its materials, craftsmanship, interior 

spaces, and features; and the different components 

of its surroundings.228 

The following list identifies existing characterdefining features of the exterior and interior of the 

main house: 

 General form of the structure including 

central gable-roof volume and side wings 

 Exterior envelope materials, including brick 

foundation piers and walls, wood siding, wood 

shutters and hardware, and wood windows 

and doors 

 Copper gutters and downspouts 

 Porches with wood columns and balustrades, 

wood floors and ceilings, and masonry 

approach steps 

 Wood plank interior flooring 

 Wood wainscot and plaster walls and ceilings 

 Wood baseboard and door and window trim, 

staircase and balustrade, and interior stileand-rail doors and hardware 

 Wood and stone fireplace surrounds 

 Built-in kitchen and pantry casework 

The following list identifies existing characterdefining features of the exterior and interior of the 

barn: 

 General form of the structure including gable 

roof with lean-to shed roofs on north and 

south 

 Wood siding 

 Wood windows and sliding and hinged doors 

 Metal roofing 

 Rooftop ventilation cupola and center crossgable with circular vent 

 Open porch along south side 

 Interior wood plank wall cladding 

 Interior stile-and-rail wood doors 

The following list identifies existing characterdefining features of the exterior and interior of the 

corn crib: 

 General form of the structure including sloped 

side walls and gable roof 

 Exposed wood structure 

 Wood plank wall cladding 

 Sheet metal roofing 

 

228. Lee H. Nelson, FAIA, Preservation Brief 17:

Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual 

Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to 

Preserving Their Character (Washington, D.C.: 

National Park Service, Technical Preservation 

Services, 1988). 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 125

Summary Table of Features 

Feature Date of Extant 

Material 

Comments 

Main House 

Brick pier and wall foundation Original; 1930s

Masonry chimneys Original

Wood infill between piers 1996

Wood clapboard siding Original; 1930s Portions just above foundation on kitchen wing 

replaced, circa 1998. Most recent repainting, 2013. 

Wood shutters 1930s

Shutter hardware Various

Wood window sash 1930s

Wood exterior doors Original; 1930s

Wood shingle roofing 2001–2002 Originally wood shingle. Likely covered with sheet 

metal after August 1911 hurricane. Replaced with 

cement asbestos shingles, 1930s. New fiber-cement 

shingles, 1993. 

Copper gutters and downspouts 2001–2002

Accessible lift at north porch 1996

Brick and stone entrance steps at 

south porch 

Original

Columns and balustrade at south 

porch 

Original? Evidence of prior repairs

Brick entrance steps at north porch 1930s

Columns and balustrade at north 

porch 

1930s

Wood flooring Original

Wood wainscot and baseboard Original

Wood crown molding 1930s

Interior doors and trim Original

Door hardware 1930s Some antique pieces salvaged from other structures 

and installed at house, 1930s. 

Plaster finishes Original; 1930s Some later repairs.

Stair and balustrade Original Opening at second floor widened, circa 1930s.

Upstairs bathroom fixtures 1930s

First floor public restrooms 1991

Bookshelves, south end of upstairs 

hall 

1959

China cabinet 1930s Removed from former dining room and salvaged as 

free-standing furniture, 1995. 

Finishes inside east and west first 

floor passages 

Original Both closed off to create closets, 1930s. East passage 

re-opened, 1993. West passage re-opened, 1995. 

Kitchen and pantry casework 1930s and later

Fireplace surrounds, main house Original

Fireplace surround, east wing 1930s Older mantelpiece salvaged and installed in house, 

1930s. 

Electrical system, including most 

light fixtures 

1991

Plumbing system and fixtures 1991

Mechanical system 1991 Many grilles are older, circa 1930s–1960s. New air 

handlers, 2013–2014. 

Alarm system 1991

Fire protection system 1997

Barn

Concrete masonry foundation 1940s or later

Wood siding 1940s; 1993; 

2015 

Wood exterior doors 1940s; 1993

Wood windows 1940s

Sheet metal roofing 2015
Significance and Integrity 

126 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Feature Date of Extant 

Material 

Comments 

Concrete floors 1993

Brick thresholds 1940s?

Hayloft wood floor 1940s Portions altered.

Gypsum board wall and ceiling 

finishes 

1993

Wood plank wall cladding 1940s

Plywood wall cladding 1993

Wood stile-and-rail doors 1940s

Wood hollow-core doors 1993

Electrical system and light fixtures 1993

Mechanical and plumbing systems 1993 and later

Corn Crib

Concrete slab foundation 1993

Wood structural framing circa 1910

Wood plank siding and louvers circa 1910; 2015

Metal screening circa 1910

Wood door circa 1910

Sheet metal roofing 2015 Perhaps first installed after August 1911 hurricane.

Previously wood shingles 

Plywood and other added 

elements for storage on interior 

1993
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 127

Assessment of Integrity 

Assessment of integrity is based on an evaluation 

of the existence and condition of the physical 

features which date to a property’s period of 

significance, taking into consideration the degree 

to which the individual qualities of integrity are 

present. The seven aspects of integrity as defined 

in the National Register Criteria for Evaluation are 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. As noted in National 

Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation: 

Location is the place where the historic 

property was constructed or the place where 

the historic event occurred. . . . Design is the 

combination of elements that create the form, 

plan, space, structure, and style of a 

property. . . . Setting is the physical 

environment of a historic property. . . . 

Materials are the physical elements that were 

combined or deposited during a particular 

period of time and in a particular pattern or 

configuration to form a historic property. . . . 

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the 

crafts of a particular culture or people during 

any given period in history or prehistory. . . . 

Feeling is a property’s expression of the 

aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period 

of time. . . . Association is the direct link 

between an important historic event or person 

and a historic property.229

The property must retain the essential physical 

features that enable it to convey its historical 

significance. The essential physical features are 

those features that define both why a property is 

significant (National Register criteria) and when it 

was significant (period of significance). The 

National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation defines 

integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its 

significance.”230 

 

229. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office, 1997), 44–45. 

The historic integrity of the main house, barn, and 

corn crib has been assessed within the context of 

their contribution to Snee Farm. Historic integrity 

is considered under the proposed criteria and 

period of significance discussed above, taking into 

consideration research findings after the time the 

National Register nomination was prepared in 

1973. 

House 

Integrity of Location. The main house retains 

a high degree of integrity of location in 

relationship to its site for the proposed 1830‒1945 

period of significance. The location of the building 

has remained unchanged since it was constructed 

circa 1830. 

Integrity of Design. The main house retains a 

high degree of integrity of design as related to its 

1936 appearance. (As relates to the original circa 

1830 construction and occupancy period, the 

integrity of design of the house is substantially 

diminished and would be characterized as 

moderate. The substantial changes made in the 

1930s have resulted in lowered integrity of design 

as related to the original house.) 

Integrity of Setting. The main house retains a 

moderate degree of integrity of setting. 

Modifications to the landscape, the loss of the 

historic entrance approach to the house from the 

south, the removal or loss of outbuildings, and the 

loss of formal gardens and ornamental plantings 

have diminished integrity of setting. 

Integrity of Materials and Workmanship.

The main house retains a high degree of integrity 

of materials and workmanship as related to its 

1936 appearance. (As relates to the original circa 

1830 construction and occupancy period, the 

integrity of materials and workmanship of the 

house is substantially diminished and would be 

characterized as moderate. Although features of 

the original materials and workmanship remain on 

230. Ibid. 
Significance and Integrity 

128 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

the interior, including wood floors, wood wainscot 

and trim, and plaster and lath, exterior materials 

have been altered, including extensive 

replacement of siding, shutters, and window sash.) 

Integrity of Feeling. The main house retains a 

high degree of integrity of feeling. The structure 

conveys its historic character and feeling as an 

antebellum farmhouse, even with its 1930s 

additions. 

Integrity of Association. The main house 

retains a moderate degree of integrity of 

association, although as noted, the house itself is 

not directly associated with Charles Pinckney. 

Diminished integrity of setting, due to loss of 

outbuildings and related structures, also impacts 

the integrity of association for the house. 

Barn 

Integrity of Location. The barn retains a high 

degree of integrity of location in relationship to its 

site. The location of the building has remained 

unchanged since construction circa 1945. 

Integrity of Design. The barn has a moderate 

degree of integrity of design. While the exterior is 

generally intact to its 1945 appearance, extensive 

alterations have been made to the interior of the 

structure. 

Integrity of Setting. The barn retains a high 

degree of integrity of setting. The structure was 

historically set in an agricultural clearing 

surrounded by trees. The adjacent corn crib was 

present when the barn was constructed, and 

earlier outbuildings on the site were removed to 

make space for the new barn. These conditions 

survive today. 

Integrity of Materials and Workmanship.

The barn retains a moderate degree of integrity of 

materials and workmanship. In addition to 

alterations made to the interior to permit reuse of 

the structure, various exterior components such as 

roofing and clapboard siding have been replaced 

to address deterioration. 

Integrity of Feeling. The barn retains a high 

degree of integrity of feeling as a relatively intact 

example of an agricultural structure of the midtwentieth century. 

Integrity of Association. As a relatively intact 

example of a mid-twentieth-century agricultural 

structure, the barn retains a high degree of 

integrity of association with its period of 

construction and building type. 

Corn Crib 

Integrity of Location. The corn crib retains a 

high degree of integrity of location in relationship 

to its site. Although currently sited on a new 

foundation somewhat higher than its original 

grade circa 1910, it remains on its original site. 

Integrity of Design. The corn crib has a 

moderate degree of integrity, and is little changed 

since its original construction. Due to the addition 

of a raised concrete foundation, the building is 

somewhat taller in relation to grade than it was in 

the original design. 

Integrity of Setting. The corn crib retains a 

high degree of integrity of setting. The structure 

was historically set in an agricultural clearing 

surrounded by trees. Although the existing barn 

was not present at the time the corn crib was 

constructed, the smaller structure was associated 

with other agricultural outbuildings. 

Integrity of Materials and Workmanship.

The corn crib retains a moderate degree of 

integrity of materials and workmanship. The 

materials of the structure have been altered 

through past repairs and replacement of roofing. It 

is also raised on a concrete foundation that is not 

part of original construction. 

Integrity of Feeling. The corn crib retains a 

high degree of integrity of feeling. The structure is 

a relatively intact example of simple agricultural 

support structure of the early twentieth century. 

Integrity of Association. As a relatively intact 

example of an early twentieth-century agricultural 

support structure, the corn crib retains a high 

degree of integrity of association with its period of 

construction and building type. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 129

FIGURE 325. View of the Snee Farm house from the southwest, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by 

John McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-1. 

FIGURE 326. A similar view, 2014. Note the replacement of the roofing with cedar shingles and 

removal of ornamental plantings adjacent to the structure. 
Significance and Integrity 

130 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 327. View of the Snee Farm house from the north, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-3. 

FIGURE 328. A similar view, 2014. The universal accessibility lift and associated alterations at the west 

side of the porch are the most distinct alterations. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 131

FIGURE 329. View of the Snee Farm house from the southeast, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-4. 

FIGURE 330. A similar view, 2014. The most distinct changes since 1990 include replacement of the 

cement asbestos shingle roof with a cedar shingle roof, installation of new wood slat enclosures at the 

porch foundation, and removal of ornamental plantings. 
Significance and Integrity 

132 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 331. View of the Snee Farm house from the southwest, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by 

John McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-9. 

FIGURE 332. A similar view, 2014. Note replacement of the roof, removal of ornamental planting, and 

installation of wood slat enclosures at the porch foundation. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 133

FIGURE 333. View of the Snee Farm house from the south, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-11. 

FIGURE 334. A similar view, 2014. Note replacement of the roof, removal of ornamental planting, and 

installation of wood slat enclosures at the porch foundation. 
Significance and Integrity 

134 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 335. The south front of the main house, 1990 Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, 

June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-12. 

FIGURE 336. A similar view, 2014. Replacement of the roof, installation of wood slat enclosures at the 

porch foundation, and removal of ornamental plantings is apparent. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 135

FIGURE 337. The north side of the main house, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, 

June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-20. 

FIGURE 338. A similar view, 2014. The removal of the porch screen and modification of the north porch 

for accessibility is apparent. 
Significance and Integrity 

136 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 339. The north porch, looking east, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-21. 

FIGURE 340. A similar view, 2014. The screen enclosure, ceiling fans, and light fixtures have been 

removed. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 137

FIGURE 341. The center hall of the Snee Farm house, looking north, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by 

John McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-26. 

FIGURE 342. A similar view, 2014, showing the addition of carpet in the hall and the replacement of 

the porch and hall light fixtures. 
Significance and Integrity 

138 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 343. The southwest room at the first floor, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-29. 

FIGURE 344. The southwest room, 2014. Note that with the exception of repainting, the interior retains 

much of its 1990 appearance. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 139

FIGURE 345. The southwest room, view toward the center hall, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by 

John McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-30. 

FIGURE 346. The same view, 2014. Note that the door to the hall has been removed. 
Significance and Integrity 

140 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 347. The fireplace in the southwest room, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, 

June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-31. 

FIGURE 348. The same view, 2014, showing the new opening created at the west passage. Also note 

the addition of fire sprinklers and a smoke detection system. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 141

FIGURE 349. The southeast first floor room, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-33. 

FIGURE 350. The southeast room, 2014. Note that with the exception of some repainting, the interior 

retains much of its 1990 appearance. 
Significance and Integrity 

142 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 351. The fireplace and closet door in the southeast room, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by 

John McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-34. 

FIGURE 352. The southeast room, 2014. The fireplace remains but is missing one piece of wood trim 

around the marble. The door to the closet has been removed and the east passage opened. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 143

FIGURE 353. The northwest first floor room, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-35. 

FIGURE 354. The same room, 2014. The china cabinet has been removed, and the west passage opened 

up. Also, the door to the corridor has been removed. 
Significance and Integrity 

144 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 355. The northeast room, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 1990, 

HABS No. SC-87-38. 

FIGURE 356. The northeast room, 2014. Both the closet and hall doors have been removed. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 145

FIGURE 357. The northeast wing bedroom, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-39. 

FIGURE 358. The former bedroom, 2014, now used as a conference and presentation room. Carpet and 

track lighting have been added. 
Significance and Integrity 

146 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 359. The kitchen, looking southeast, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-41. 

FIGURE 360. The former kitchen, 2014, now used as park offices. The built-in sink cabinet has been 

removed, and fluorescent lighting has been added. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 147

FIGURE 361. The kitchen, view to the northwest, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, 

June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-42. 

FIGURE 362. The former kitchen, 2014. In addition to removing appliances, the built-in seat, and some 

base cabinets, the former double oven cabinet has received a new door for use for storage. 
Significance and Integrity 

148 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 363. The upstairs hall and bathroom, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-44. 

FIGURE 364. The same area, 2014. Other than the removal of wallpaper, the bathroom is little 

changed. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 149

FIGURE 365. The upstairs hall, looking south, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John McWilliams, June 

1990, HABS No. SC-87-45. 

FIGURE 366. The same area, 2014. The upstairs hall is essentially unchanged. 
Significance and Integrity 

150 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

FIGURE 367. The southeast room at the second floor, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-47. 

FIGURE 368. The southeast room, 2014. Other than the removal of wallpaper, this room is mostly 

unchanged. Note the doors removed from the first floor and stored in this room. 
Significance and Integrity 

National Park Service 151

FIGURE 369. The northeast room at the second floor, 1990. Source: HABS photograph by John 

McWilliams, June 1990, HABS No. SC-87-48. 

FIGURE 370. The northeast room, 2014. Other than the removal of wallpaper and replacement of the 

ceiling fan, this room is unchanged. 
Significance and Integrity 

152 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 
National Park Service 153

Treatment and Use 

Requirements for Treatment 

and Use 

The following discussion of treatment and use for 

the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

addresses the house, barn, and corn crib. The 

caretaker’s cottage is in very poor condition, and 

demolition of this structure was proposed prior to 

initiation of the current study.231 Treatment and 

use recommendations are therefore not provided 

for the cottage. 

The National Register nomination for Snee Farm 

(1973) identifies the main house as the primary 

resource of the site.232 Although the date of 

construction of the house was incorrectly 

understood at the time the National Register 

nomination was prepared, the house is considered 

significant and survives with sufficient integrity to 

convey its historic associations. The corn crib and 

barn, although they postdate the original 

construction of the house, also convey the 

continuing historic agricultural use of the property 

into the twentieth century. 

As such, treatment and use of the main house, 

barn, and corn crib should be considered within 

the context of the legal mandates and policy 

directives established by National Park Service 

Cultural Resources Management Guideline 

(Director’s Order 28) for the protection of cultural 

resources. The house should be understood as a 

 

231. Consultation between the National Park 

Service and the State Historic Preservation 

Office regarding the proposed demolition was 

ongoing at the time of this writing. 

well preserved example of an early nineteenth 

century plantation residence of the South Carolina 

Lowcountry. The barn and corn crib are examples 

of early twentieth century agricultural 

outbuildings. The house is expected to remain in 

use as park offices and the visitor contact station 

for the national historic site, while the barn and 

corn crib are expected to remain in use for park 

maintenance and storage. Snee Farm, particularly 

the main house, is used to interpret colonial and 

early American life and the life of Charles 

Pinckney III for visitors to the park. 

Laws, Regulations, and Functional 

Requirements 

Key laws, regulations, and functional requirements 

that apply to the recommended work include the 

following: 

 National Park Service Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline (Director’s Order 28), 

which requires planning for the protection of 

cultural resources on park property. 

 Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), which mandates 

that federal agencies, including the National 

Park Service, take into account the effects of 

their actions on properties listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places and give the Advisory Council on 

232. Wright Caughman, Historic Preservation 

Assistant, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History. National Register of 

Historic Places nomination for Snee Farm, 

July 21, 1971; entered into the National 

Register of Historic Places, April 13, 1973. 
Treatment and Use 

154 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Historic Preservation a reasonable 

opportunity to comment. 

Treatment of the building and site are also to be 

guided by the following: 

 Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties 

 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

 International Building Code (IBC), 2012. The 

2012 IBC is referenced by the National Park 

Service Denver Service Center as a design 

standard. Effective, July 1, 2013, South 

Carolina has adopted the 2012 IBC, with 

minor modifications. 

 International Existing Building Code (IEBC), 

2012. The 2012 IEBC is referenced by the 

National Park Service Denver Service Center 

as a design standard. South Carolina has not 

adopted the IEBC. 

 South Carolina has currently begun the review 

and public comment process for the 2015 IBC, 

but no schedule has been published for 

adoption of the code. Local jurisdictions have 

the option to adopt the 2015 IEBC. 

The National Park Service is self-regulating in 

terms of enacting and enforcing building code 

standards. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

is therefore not legally subject to local or state 

building code requirements. When undertaking 

repairs to historic buildings, the National Park 

Service endeavors to have the work comply with 

model building code standards. At this time, the 

2012 IBC with Appendices (replacing Chapter 34 

with the IEBC) is the model building code used by 

the National Park Service and is referenced by the 

Denver Service Center for design and 

construction. The Denver Service Center also 

references the 2012 IEBC, with Appendices and 

Resource A. 

In the 2012 edition of the International Building 

Code, Section 3409–Historic Buildings, paragraph 

3409.1 states: 

Historic Buildings. The provisions of this code 

relating to the construction, repair, alteration, 

addition, restoration and movement of 

structures, and change of occupancy shall not 

be mandatory for historic buildings where such 

buildings are judged by the building official to 

not constitute a distinct life safety hazard. 

In response to these laws and regulations, threats 

to life safety, if present, should be addressed in the 

repair of the buildings. The house, barn, and corn 

crib are generally well maintained and actively 

used, and were significantly improved in terms of 

life safety during the 1990s rehabilitation work. 

The buildings require repair to address the effects 

of ongoing weathering-related deterioration, but 

the existing conditions do not represent a threat to 

life safety. Since the Snee Farm buildings are 

historic structures, alternatives to full prescriptive 

legislative and code compliance should be 

considered where such compliance would 

compromise the integrity of the character-defining 

features of the buildings. 

Alternatives for Treatment 

and Use 

The U.S. National Park Service has developed 

definitions for the four major treatments that may 

be applied to historic structures: preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. 

The four definitions are as follows: 

Preservation is defined as the act or process of 

applying measures necessary to sustain the 

existing form, integrity, and materials of an 

historic property. Work, including preliminary 

measures to protect and stabilize the property, 

generally focuses upon the ongoing 

maintenance and repair of historic materials 

and features rather than extensive replacement 

and new construction. New exterior additions 

are not within the scope of this treatment; 

however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of 

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems 

and other code-required work to make 
Treatment and Use 

National Park Service 155

properties functional is appropriate within a 

preservation project. 

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process 

of making possible a compatible use for a 

property through repair, alterations, and 

additions while preserving those portions or 

features which convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural values. 

Restoration is defined as the act or process of 

accurately depicting the form, features, and 

character of a property as it appeared at a 

particular period of time by means of the 

removal of features from other periods in its 

history and reconstruction of missing features 

from the restoration period. The limited and 

sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, 

and plumbing systems and other code-required 

work to make properties functional is 

appropriate within a restoration project. 

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process 

of depicting, by means of new construction, the 

form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving 

site, landscape, building, structure, or object 

for the purpose of replicating its appearance at 

a specific period of time and in its historic 

location.233

Of the four treatment approaches, rehabilitation, 

which involves making possible a compatible use 

through repair, alterations, or additions, is most 

appropriate for the main house, barn, and corn 

crib at Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

This treatment would allow for the repairs 

necessary to stabilize and preserve the buildings, 

while permitting minor renovation to meet the 

needs of contemporary park visitation, 

interpretation, and National Park Service 

management needs. 

Preservation, which involves sustaining the 

building in its existing form, is to some extent in 

progress as a result of ongoing repair and cyclical 

maintenance implemented by the park. Further, 

similar preservation efforts would be incorporated 

in the overarching rehabilitation treatment 

approach. Restoration would return the building to 

its appearance during the period of significance. 

 

233. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. 

The earliest date for which the design of the house 

is thoroughly documented is following the 1930s 

additions and renovations. Restoration of the 

house to its late 1930s appearance and 

configuration, however, would interfere with the 

use of the house as a visitor contact station and 

museum interpreting both South Carolina 

Lowcountry plantation life and the life of Charles 

Pinckney III. Restoring the house to its original 

circa 1830 appearance is likely not feasible due to a 

lack of documentation, particularly regarding the 

original north side appearance as well as evidence 

of other minor additions and changes to the north 

side between original construction and the 1930s. 

Similarly, restoration of the barn and corn crib 

would be difficult due to limited documentation of 

the original appearance of these structures. 

Therefore, restoration is not considered an 

appropriate overarching treatment. 

Retention of original materials and characterdefining features during rehabilitation work is 

practical and appropriate, and will also assist in the 

use of Snee Farm to interpret antebellum 

Lowcountry plantation life to the public. 

Ultimate Treatment and Use 

Guidelines for Treatment 

Guidelines and recommendations for treatment 

for the main house, barn, and corn crib at Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site have been defined 

based on the preservation objectives and 

requirements for treatment and use outlined 

above. All treatment guidelines and 

recommendations were developed in accordance 

with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation are as follows: 

1. A property shall be used for its historic 

purpose or be placed in a new use that 

requires minimal change to the defining 
Treatment and Use 

156 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

characteristics of the building and its site 

and environment. 

2. The historic character of a property shall 

be retained and preserved. The removal of 

historic materials or alteration of features 

and spaces that characterize a property 

shall be avoided. 

3. Each property shall be recognized as a 

physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Changes that create a false sense of 

historical development, such as adding 

conjectural features or architectural 

elements from other buildings, shall not be 

undertaken. 

4. Most properties change over time; those 

changes that have acquired historic 

significance in their own right shall be 

retained and preserved. 

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and 

construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property 

shall be preserved. 

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be 

repaired rather than replaced. Where the 

severity of deterioration requires 

replacement of a distinctive feature, the 

new feature shall match the old in design, 

color, texture, and other visual qualities 

and, where possible, materials. 

Replacement of missing features shall be 

substantiated by documentary, physical, or 

pictorial evidence. 

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as 

sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 

materials shall not be used. The surface 

cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall 

be undertaken using the gentlest means 

possible. 

8. Significant archeological resources 

affected by a project shall be protected and 

preserved. If such resources must be 

disturbed, mitigation measures shall be 

undertaken. 

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or 

related new construction shall not destroy 

historic materials that characterize the 

property. The new work shall be 

differentiated from the old and shall be 

 

234. Ibid. 

compatible with the massing, size, scale, 

and architectural features to protect the 

historic integrity of the property and its 

environment. 

10. New additions and adjacent or related new 

construction shall be undertaken in such a 

manner that if removed in the future, the 

essential form and integrity of the historic 

property and its environment would be 

unimpaired. 234

The basic guidelines for work on the main house, 

barn, and corn crib are as follows: 

 Undertake all work in compliance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation. 

 Retain the character of the historic site by 

protecting the individual building and 

significant site features. 

 Ensure that proposed new elements or 

construction are compatible with the historic 

character of the building and site. 

 Protect adjacent natural resources during 

construction activities. 

 Document through detailed as-built drawings, 

photographs, and written narrative all changes 

and treatments to the historic site and 

building. Maintain records of treatments and 

preserve documentation according to 

professional archival standards. Maintain a 

copy of records in National Park Service 

archives. 

 Retain features and materials at both the 

exterior and interior of the building that date 

from the period of significance to the greatest 

extent possible. 

 Incorporate sustainable design principles in all 

future projects that respect the preservation 

principles listed above. 
Treatment and Use 

National Park Service 157

In addition to the above, the National Park Service 

has proposed removal of the above-grade portions 

of the partially collapsed caretaker’s cottage. The 

brick pier foundation could be left in place to 

avoid disturbing any potential archeological 

resources in the vicinity. 

Recommendations – House 

Exterior. 

 The roof should be maintained in good 

condition by replacing individual split or 

broken shingles in kind. The building should 

be monitored for roof leaks. 

 Water testing should be performed to confirm 

the source of leakage in the northwest part of 

the house, and plumbing or roof flashing 

repaired as needed. 

 Consideration could be given to adding taller 

diverter and end cap flashings where gutters 

terminate against perpendicular building 

walls. These flashings would ensure that any 

overflow from the gutters during extreme rain 

events occurs along the outside length of the 

gutter, rather than as concentrated run-down 

at the adjacent wall. These types of flashings 

would be minimally visible from grade and 

would not be intrusive. 

 Low ground-cover plantings and/or gravel 

should be added near the base of the walls to 

minimize dirt splashing against the walls of the 

house. Selection of plantings should reference 

information provided in the Cultural 

Landscape Report (1998). 

 The abandoned cast iron downspout pipes 

should be removed at grade, and the piping 

runs capped off just below grade. Limited 

archeological review may be required due to a 

small amount of excavation required at each 

downspout to complete this work. 

 Plastic extensions at each downspout should 

be maintained and replaced as needed. 

Although not a historic element, they are not 

visually intrusive and serve to keep rainwater 

away from the building foundation. 

 Split or cracked siding boards should be 

repaired where possible, or replaced with 

matching new boards. 

 At locations where loss of paint or corrosion 

bleed-through at nail heads are observed, the 

wood surface should be scraped, spot primed, 

and painted, using alkyd-based paints 

formulated for exterior wood. During future 

wood repair work, consider the use of 

stainless steel fasteners. Cyclical maintenance 

repainting of the house is planned for 2017. 

(Refer to National Park Service PMIS 200223.) 

 In areas of siding that experience heavy 

mildew or organic growth, the wood surface 

should be washed with a biocide and 

repainted using alkyd-based paints. For 

difficult areas where mildew recurs rapidly, 

consideration could be given to stripping the 

surface to bare wood, including removal of the 

previous linseed-oil sealer, and repainting 

using alkyd-based paints containing antimicrobial additives. 

 The grade-level door on the west wall should 

be stripped to bare wood, and then primed 

and painted to match the original color 

scheme, using paints containing anti-microbial 

additives. 

 Insect nests should be removed from the 

exterior walls regularly. 

 The south entrance steps should be 

monitored. If the corner spall at the top tread 

is considered to be a tripping hazard, install a 

squared-off stone dutchman of a matching 

stone type. 

 The building should be inspected and treated 

regularly for termites and other insect pests 

that are endemic in the region. 

 Replacement of the accessible lift on the north 

side of the house has been proposed. (Refer to 

National Park Service PMIS 161395.) 

Alternately, consideration could be given to 

constructing a wood-framed ramp from the 

north porch to grade. 
Treatment and Use 

158 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

 The grade around the building should be 

monitored to ensure positive drainage away 

from the foundation. If ponding occurs, 

consideration could be given to adding French 

drains parallel to the building wall, consisting 

of 6-inch perforated PVC pipe in drain rock 

wrapped in geotextile drain fabric and buried 

in washed gravel. New drains would need to 

be coordinated with the site specific 

archeological and cultural landscape 

considerations. (Refer to the Cultural 

Landscape Report and previous archeological 

studies.) 

 During the site visit, water was present within 

the basement. Seepage is occurring through 

cracks and penetrations in the basement wall. 

To address water infiltration, consideration 

should be given to the installation of a 

perimeter drain tile connected to a new sump 

pump. Consideration could also be given to 

applying waterproofing to the outside of the 

foundation wall below grade. To implement 

this work, archeological investigation and 

possibly mitigation would be required. 

Interior. 

 If the paint finishes at wall surfaces in the east 

and west side passages of the first floor are 

found to be abraded by visitor traffic, or 

otherwise flaking or delaminating extensively, 

consideration could be given to installing 

plexiglass over the wall surfaces to allow for 

continued preservation and interpretation of 

the existing finishes. 

 In the southeast room at the fireplace, new 

replica wood trim should be installed, 

matching the profile visible in the HABS 

photography, sized to meet the ghosted lines 

on the mantelpiece, and stained to match the 

mantelpiece. Providing wood trim at this 

location will help secure and protect the edges 

of the marble fireplace surround from 

chipping and similar damage. 

 Consideration should be given to reinstalling 

some or all interior doors and hardware in 

their original door openings. For ease of 

circulation, the doors can be permanently 

affixed in the open position with wood blocks 

and/or screws, taking care to avoid damage to 

the doors. 

 If available and in storage, the keyhole 

escutcheon at the east hall closet door should 

be reinstalled. If the original item is lost or 

otherwise unavailable, installation of replica 

hardware is not recommended, since locking 

of the interior doors is not necessary. For 

convenience of access to the two hall closets 

and since the original hardware consisted of 

key and lock only, reinstallation of the rimlock 

hardware is not recommended. These 

hardware items should be clearly labeled and 

retained in archival storage. 

 Where existing plastic film applied to glass has 

deteriorated or debonded, it should be 

removed, following the film manufacturer’s 

instructions. Where control of ultraviolet light 

and/or glare is required, consideration could 

be given to more easily reversible window 

treatments such as fabric shades or scrims. 

The exterior wood shutters should not be kept 

in the closed position, as is currently the case 

for the first floor southwest room, since this 

practice interferes with the perception of the 

historic character of the room, and alternative 

means of light and glare control are possible. 

 Replacement of the carpeting within the first 

floor has been proposed. (Refer to National 

Park Service PMIS 190438.) 

 Upgrading of exterior locksets has been 

proposed. (Refer to National Park Service 

PMIS 200229.) In implementing this work, 

historic locksets and doorknobs should be 

retained, even if not operable. If possible, new 

locksets should be installed in existing cores 

for non-historic hardware or within 

previously patched areas of wood doors. 

 Where plaster finishes have bulged or 

delaminated, the plaster should be secured to 

the substrate using screws and plaster washers. 

In some cases, it may be possible to push 
Treatment and Use 

National Park Service 159

bulged plaster back closer to its original 

position. 

 At the southeast second floor room, the roof 

and dormer flashings should be inspected for 

signs of active water leakage. After repair of 

any active leakage that is present, the collapsed 

area of plaster should be replaced with a new 

three-coat plaster system to match the original 

wall and ceiling finish. 

 Abandoned inserts in plaster should be 

removed, and the plaster patched and 

repainted. 

 In conjunction with any future exhibit 

reinstallation or similar work in rooms open to 

the public, all plaster surfaces should be 

repainted. 

 In the west toilet room of the northeast wing, 

remove cracked wainscot tiles, inspect the 

underlying finishes and repair if required, and 

install new matching tile, either from attic 

stock if available or salvaged from the unused 

east toilet room. 

 In the basement, install a new metal door or 

cover plate to close up the opening to the 

abandoned chimney flue and to exclude 

vermin. 

 The building mechanical system should be 

modified to supply air to the northwest wing 

stairwell and toilet room. 

 Interior surfaces are known to contain lead 

paint. Given the museum use of the building, 

intact paint coatings represent little hazard to 

the public. Consideration could be given to 

stripping paint from particular items, such as 

interior doors, that are more likely to be 

abraded during normal use. Appropriate 

procedures should be observed when working 

on plaster and other materials inside the 

house. There should be no eating or drinking 

allowed inside the house. 

 A no smoking policy should be maintained in 

the house and environs. In addition, the 

fireplaces should not be used. 

 Due to limited accessibility, the second floor is 

expected to remain in use for light storage of 

materials related to maintenance and 

interpretation of the house itself. Tour groups 

should not be permitted on the second floor 

and occupancy by park staff should be limited. 

The second floor should not be used for office 

purposes until structural investigation and 

analysis are conducted to assess load limits 

and any necessary structural strengthening 

that may be required. (Refer to 

Recommendations for Further Research, 

below.) 

Current and forthcoming work. 

Work currently in progress or planned by the park 

to be completed at the house includes the 

following: 

 The north patio accessibility lift is being 

replaced. 

 The exterior facades will be washed with low 

pressure water to remove dirt and organic 

growth and staining. 

 The front and back patio deck floors are to be 

painted. 

 On the interior of the house, the walls in the 

west wing are to be painted, and plaster repairs 

and spot painting will be completed at a few 

areas on the main floor in other parts of the 

house. The east wing window frames will be 

scraped and repainted. Plastic screw anchors 

will be removed and plaster repaired in the 

ceilings where former smoke detectors were 

located throughout the main floor rooms. 

 The wood floors on the first and second floors 

are to be cleaned of existing wax and some 

stain, and then re-waxed. 
Treatment and Use 

160 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Mechanical Systems. 

 The existing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, 

and fire protection systems should be 

maintained in good condition. 

 Replacement of the early 1990s phone system 

has been proposed. (Refer to National Park 

Service PMIS 200230.) 

 Where mechanical supply grilles are 

associated with exterior condensation on 

windows, add diverters or relocate the supply 

grille to another location to minimize the 

potential for condensation. 

 To protect the original wood interior 

elements, the mechanical system should be 

operated to maintain a stable interior relative 

humidity, limiting seasonal variations to the 

extent practical. 

Recommendations – Barn 

 The set points and operation of the 

mechanical system should be adjusted to 

minimize condensation on the windows and 

door of the conference room. If the 

conference room is to remain a fully 

conditioned space, consideration should be 

given to modifying the exterior and interior 

walls and ceiling that define this space to 

incorporate appropriate insulation and vapor 

retarder; replacing the door to the center hall 

with an insulated door with weatherstripping; 

and adding fixed storm windows to the 

exterior double-hung windows to minimize 

condensation. Alternately, relocate the 

computer equipment in the room to a more 

easily conditioned space, such as the archival 

storage building on the site, and minimize the 

use of the air conditioning system. 

 

235. Terry L. Highley, Biodeterioration Consultant., 

letter on Snee Farm Barn wood analysis, to 

Deborah Slaton, Wiss, Janney, Elstner 

Associates, Inc., November 5, 2015. Copy 

provided to Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site. 

 Cracked pieces of window glass should be 

replaced in kind. 

 When needed, split or decayed siding boards 

should be replaced with matching new boards. 

Work undertaken by the park in 2015 

included selective replacement of deteriorated 

wood at the barn. At the request of the park, 

WJE obtained an analysis of a wood sample 

from the barn to confirm the wood species. 

The wood was found to be Southern pine 

(Pinus spp.).235

 The barn was repainted in 2015. In the future, 

at locations where loss of paint or minor wood 

decay are observed, the wood surface should 

be scraped, spot primed, and painted, using 

alkyd-based paints formulated for exterior 

wood. 

 In areas of siding that experience heavy 

mildew or organic growth, the wood surface 

should be washed with a biocide and 

repainted using alkyd-based paints. For 

difficult areas where mildew or organic 

growth recurs rapidly, consideration could be 

given to stripping the surface to bare wood, 

including removal of the previous linseed-oil 

sealer, and repainting using alkyd-based paints 

containing anti-microbial additives. 

 Locations of missing trim and open gaps in the 

exterior envelope should be repaired by the 

addition of matching wood trim and/or sealing 

transitions with elastomeric sealant. The use of 

sealant should be limited to transitions 

between different materials or architectural 

components and should be detailed to be 

minimally visible. 

 The new sheet metal roof installed in 2015 

should be maintained and periodically 
Treatment and Use 

National Park Service 161

monitored for indications of water infiltration. 

Plant debris that accumulates on the roof 

should be removed seasonally. 

 The weight of material stored at the north half 

of the hayloft should be limited until 

investigation and analysis of the structural 

framing has been conducted and any 

necessary supplemental structure provided. 

(See Recommendations for Further Research, 

below.) 

Recommendations – Corn Crib 

 The exterior cladding of the corn crib was 

repaired in 2015, including replacement of 

selected wood boards. In the future, when 

deteriorated wood cladding or trim boards are 

observed, they should be replaced, matching 

the original design. Boards with cracks and 

splits that are otherwise intact do not require 

replacement; however, additional fasteners 

may be needed to secure cracked pieces to the 

structure. 

The park has indicated that the original wood 

is yellow pine. Currently available yellow pine 

is much less rot resistant than historically 

available old-growth yellow pine. Therefore, a 

rot-resistant species such as yellow cypress 

(Cupressus nootkatensis) should be considered 

for replacement wood elements. Although not 

identical to the existing wood, the cypress will 

be similar in appearance and provide greater 

durability. New wood components should be 

embossed or stamped on a concealed surface 

with an identifying mark such as “NPS 2015.” 

 The crib barn was whitewashed in 2015. In the 

future, where loss of lime wash is observed, 

the surface should be cleaned with a biocide to 

remove organic growth, and lime wash 

reapplied. The service life of the lime wash 

should be monitored, as well as the condition 

of the wood with only the lime wash as 

protection. A decision could then be made as 

to whether to renew the lime wash, or to 

instead use a paint coating in the future. If the 

lime wash is found to be non-durable and 

excessively maintenance intensive, 

consideration can be given to recoating the 

exterior with alkyd-based paints formulated 

for exterior wood and containing antimicrobial additives. 

When further repairs to the corn crib are 

undertaken, it is recommended that samples 

be taken from concealed or protected areas 

where wood elements may exist with older 

finishes (e.g., lime wash, early paint coatings) 

present. If such areas are identified that retain 

apparent coatings, small samples could be 

taken for laboratory analysis to attempt to 

determine the nature of finishes present early 

in the history of the structure. 

 Where gaps in the hardware cloth screening 

are observed, they should be closed with 

matching wire mesh to secure the interior of 

the corn crib. 

 A new Galvalume finished sheet metal roof 

was installed in 2015. The new roof should be 

maintained and periodically monitored for 

indications of water infiltration. Plant debris 

that accumulates on the roof should be 

removed seasonally. The underlying wood 

shingles salvaged from the previous roof 

should be retained in the park archive. 

Recommendations for Further 

Research 

1. Conduct archival research to understand the 

original design, construction, and evolution of 

the house in greater detail than as represented 

by currently available documentation, with 

particular attention to its pre-1930s 

appearance. 

2. Consider updating the National Register 

nomination to address the entire National 

Historic Site and to further describe the 

landscape, main house, barn, corn crib, and 

other resources of Snee Farm. The existing 

nomination (1973), although titled “Snee 

Farm,” focuses on the main house as an 

individual building and does not address other 

site features. Given the age of the existing 

nomination, it is somewhat limited in content, 
Treatment and Use 

162 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

and does not reflect research conducted since 

completion of the nomination that clarified 

the likely construction date of the existing 

house. Thus, an updated nomination would 

provide a more accurate assessment of the 

history, significance, and integrity of the 

house, as well as the cultural landscape and 

other resources of Snee Farm. In conjunction 

with updating the nomination, further 

consideration could be given to the 

significance of the property under Criterion D, 

for its potential to yield archeological 

information about the life of Charles 

Pinckney III and the South Carolina coastal 

plantations. 

3. Conduct structural investigation and analysis 

of the second floor of the main house to 

determine load limits for storage and potential 

future office use by the park. 

4. Conduct structural investigation and analysis 

of the framing for the north half of the hayloft 

to determine appropriate load limits and 

whether it is necessary to provide 

supplemental beams and/or columns at the 

first floor to adequately support the north half 

of the second floor and roof framing. 

5. Conduct finishes analysis of painted wood 

wainscot, trim, and wall cladding throughout 

the house to identify historic stained and 

varnished finishes, if present, or 

original/historic color schemes. 

Climate Change 

Located near the Atlantic coastline, on low-lying 

terrain and in a region crossed by rivers and 

streams, the Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site is vulnerable to current and future threats 

associated with climate change. Even as this study 

was being completed, in early October 2015, heavy 

 

236. Bob Perry, compiler and editor, Climate 

Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South 

Carolina (South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, 2013), 16, 

http:www.dnr.sc.gov, accessed December 14, 

2015. 

rainfall and flooding associated with Hurricane 

Joaquin overwhelmed portions of coastal South 

Carolina. 

A study entitled, Climate Change Impacts to 

Natural Resources in South Carolina, by the South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources and 

published in 2013 noted: “A predicted result of 

climate change is the increase in intense storm 

events causing greater water inputs in shorter 

periods of time, affecting flood frequency and 

duration.”236 

Especially critical for coastal historic sites is 

identification of the resources anticipated to be 

threatened—both buildings and landscapes—and 

planning for protection as well as mitigation in the 

face of increased storms resulting from climate 

change. 

As loss of historic resource integrity may occur, 

suddenly or slowly, from conditions related to 

climate change, documentation is the first 

response to mitigate anticipated loss or 

diminishment, or to plan for the impacts 

associated with climate change. This Historic 

Structures Report, including the historical 

narrative condition assessment, and 

recommendations, together with photographs and 

measured drawings (which augment prior HABS 

documentation), is an important part of the 

documentation process. 

As part of future efforts to build on and update the 

documentation provided in this Historic 

Structures Report, the National Park Service 

should consider such approaches as more detailed 

documentation resulting from new 

three-dimensional scanning technology, 

monitoring weather-related deterioration, 

updating emergency and disaster planning to 

address climate change-related issues, and 
Treatment and Use 

National Park Service 163

strategic planning for mitigation of the effects of 

climate change on park resources. The latter may 

include special protection, documentation, and 

interpretation measures to address resources that 

are especially vulnerable to damage or loss due to 

climate change-related conditions. Efforts 

conducted for Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site will benefit from coordination with other 

planning and documentation projects to address 

effects of climate change under consideration or in 

the process of being implemented by the National 

Park Service in the Southeast Region. 

On October 1–5, 2015, Charleston County, 

including Mt. Pleasant, experienced historic 

rainfall and flooding. A combination of factors 

associated with Hurricane Joaquin led to rainfall 

with widespread amounts of 15 to 20 inches and 

24 inches in Mt. Pleasant. These extremely heavy 

rains, combined with high tides, persistent 

onshore winds, and already saturated grounds 

from rainfall in September led to extensive coastal 

flooding. Flash flooding was also prevalent along 

creeks and streams, causing damage to area roads 

and bridges and flooding of homes and businesses, 

with many people having to be rescued by 

emergency personnel. 

During the storm, the basement of the historic 

main house at Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site flooded to over 30 inches above floor level. 

Park staff placed two additional pumps in the 

basement to supplement the existing sump pump, 

and by October 6, the basement water level was 

reported to be 6 to 8 inches in depth. However, 

seepage from high water tables continued to flow 

into the basement, particularly through cracks in 

the walls at three locations. Seepage was a source 

of water in the basement for a several weeks, 

though at much lower levels. The park used fans to 

help dry the basement, but seepage did not subside 

until ground water tables returned to normal. In 

response to problems encountered with the 

existing sump pump, it was replaced in November 

2015. 

As evidenced during the October 2015 rainfall, 

during extreme rainfall events and unusually high 

tides flooding also occurs on the park’s boardwalk, 

the trail leading toward the slave quarters from the 

historic road trace, and Long Point Road south of 

the park’s main entrance (Figure 371). Flooding of 

the boardwalk occurs where it intersects the 

nature trail, and can be deep or extensive enough 

to prevent visitors from using the boardwalk. 

Pooling of water along the trail has on occasion 

reached a depth of 12 inches. Flooding on Long 

Point Road occurs at a small section south of the 

park entrance where the road is bordered by tidal 

marsh. This water can become deep enough that 

Mt. Pleasant police close the road and visitors and 

staff must take alternative routes to reach the park. 

FIGURE 371. Flooding of trails and the boardwalk at 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site occurs during 

heavy rainfall events. Source: National Park Service, 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. 

The basement of the Main House and the 

boardwalk, trail, and road noted above are 

particularly vulnerable to flooding during extreme 

rain events; however, other resources of the park 

are also at risk of flooding. These include the main 

house above basement level, the barn and corn 

crib, the curatorial storage building and 

shelter/comfort station, and other built and 

landscape features of the park. 
Treatment and Use 

164 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Although the Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site was fortunate to have avoided severe damage 

as a result of the October 2015 storm, future severe 

weather events, rising sea levels, and other impacts 

related to climate change should be anticipated 

and considered in planning for protection and 

maintenance of the site and its resources. 
National Park Service 165

Bibliography 

Allen, Michael. Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources, Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site, Removal of Caretaker’s House, July 7, 1994. 

Blake, Lincoln C., Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Memorandum, Structural Inspection, 

Snee Farm, August 7, 1992. 

Blythe, Robert W., Emily Kleine, and Steven H. Moffson. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site: Historic 

Resource Study. Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, August 2000. 

Archived as NPS Document No. D23. 

Buchanan, Paul, Bernard Herman, Orlando Ridout V, E. Tolson, and Mark Wenger. “Architectural 

Investigations at Snee Farm.” 1991. 

Buono, Jon, and Tommy Jones. A Report of the Roof of the Main House, Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site. National Park Service, Building Conservation Research Program, Southeast 

Regional Office, March 2001. Archived as NPS Document No. D20. 

Caughman, Wright, Historic Preservation Assistant, South Carolina Department of Archives and History. 

National Register of Historic Places nomination for Snee Farm, July 21, 1972; entered into the 

National Register of Historic Places on April 13, 1973. 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Section 106 Compliance Documentation and general 

correspondence, park files. 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site: Statement for Management. National Park Service, 1990. 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site: Statement for Management. National Park Service, 1992. 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, May 5, 1995. Program for 

public opening of park. 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site: Long Range Interpretive Plan Summary. National Park Service, 

Draft, December 1998. Archived as NPS Document No. D25. 

“Citizens Rally to Save Historic Snee Farm.” The New South Carolina State Gazette 20 no. 4, Summer 

1988. 

Developing and Interpreting the Rural Vernacular Landscape at Snee Farm. Charles Pinckney National 

Historic Site, National Park Service, n.d. [circa 2000]. Archived as NPS Document No. D15.

Edgar, Walter B. “Historic Snee Farm: A Documentary Record.” March 29, 1991. Prepared for Friends of 

Snee Farm. Manuscript in park files. 

Edmonds, Mary Watson, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History, to Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, 

National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, September 8, 1994. 
Bibliography 

166 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Edwards, Mrs. James B. (Ann), and Candice Solyan. Friends of Historic Snee Farm and Charles Pinckney 

Historic Site of the National Park Service. 2012. 

General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Environmental Assessment: Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. National Park Service, March 1994. Archived 

as NPS Document No. D27. 

Gibbs, Tyson. African Americans at Snee Farm Plantation, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. National Park 

Service, October 2006. Archived as NPS Document No. D33. 

Hartwig, Paul B., Deputy Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, to George L. Vogt, Director, Department of Archives and History, 

Columbia, South Carolina, August 25, 1994. 

Highley, Terry L., Biodeterioration Consultant. Letter on Snee Farm Barn wood analysis, to Deborah 

Slaton, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., November 5, 2015. 

“Historic Farmhouse Bought By a Group in South Carolina.” The New York Times, July 26, 1988. 

Historical Architect, Historic Architecture Division, to Chief, Historic Architecture Division, Southeast 

Region. Memorandum, Site inspection Charles Pinckney Barn, October 20, 1992. Archived as NPS 

Document No. D24. 

Historical Overview: The Life of Charles Pinckney, Snee Farm—History of a Landscape. National Park 

Service, June 1994. Archived as NPS Document No. D31. 

Hurricane Hugo Damage to Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

in September 1989. National Park Service, September 1990. Archived as NPS Document No. D163. 

 “Interim Operating Plan: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site.” National Park Service, January 1991. 

Interpretive Prospectus: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Charles 

Pinckney National Historic Site, Fort Sumter National Monument, and Southeast Regional Office, 

National Park Service, May 1994. Archived as NPS Document No. D18. 

Jackson, Mark H., Jackson Engineering, Inc. Memorandum, Evaluation of Structural Issues and Change 

of Use for Main House and Barn Structure at the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, August 7, 

2015. 

Jacob, Judith. Architectural Conservator to Chief, Cultural Resources Management Division, National 

Park Service North Atlantic Region. Trip Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, October 7–8, 

1991. 

Keel, Bennie C., and Amy C. Koval. The Archeology of Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm: A Summary of 

Fieldwork 1987–1999. SEAC Accession No. 943. Tallahassee, Florida: National Park Service Southeast 

Archeological Center, 2014. 

King, Julia A. “Archaeological Investigations at Charles Pinckney’s Snee Farm, Mt. Pleasant, South 

Carolina.” Prepared for the Friends of Historic Snee Farm, Inc., 1991. 

Kleine, Emily. Historian, National Park Service Southeast Region. National Register of Historic Places 

nomination for Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, draft, May 2000. 
Bibliography 

National Park Service 167

Lambert, Richard D., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum, Structural Inspection, Snee Farm, 

March 10, 1993. 

Lewis, Terry J. Lead Based Paint Inspection Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Ladson, 

South Carolina: Environmental Enterprise Group, Inc., July 30, 2006. 

Low County Gullah Culture: Special Resource Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Atlanta, 

Georgia: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, July 2005. Archived as NPS Document 

No. D196. 

Memorandum, House at Snee Farm, Project: New Cedar Shingle Roof, March 6, 2002. 

Miri, Ali A., PhD. Historic Structure Assessment Report: Snee Farm (Main House). Atlanta, Georgia:

National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 1997. Archived as NPS Document No. D30. 

Perry, Bob, compiler and ed. Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina. South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2013, http:www.dnr.sc.gov, accessed December 14, 2015. 

Porter, Arlie. “Preservation Group Wins Battle to Save Snee Farm.” Post-Courier, no date [July 1988]. 

Powers, Bernard E., Jr. “A Founding Father and Gullah Culture,” South Carolina Smiles. Columbia: South 

Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, 2000, 13–17. Reprinted from National Parks 

Magazine. 

Press Release, Friends of Historic Snee Farm, May 7, 1990. Subject: Historic Snee Farm will become 

America’s newest national park through a fund raising effort by volunteers of “The Friends of 

Historic Snee Farm.” 

Resource Management Plan: Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. National Park Service, 1998. 

Archived as NPS Document No. D19. 

Snell, Charles W., Survey Historian, Historic Sites Survey, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 

National Park Service. National Historic Landmark nomination for Snee Farm (Charles Pinckney 

Farm), January 15, 1973; Snee Farm was designated a National Historic Landmark on November 7, 

1973. 

Specification, “Replace Roof System, Charles Pinckney House, Snee Farm National Historic Site, Mt. 

Pleasant, South Carolina.” Atlanta, Georgia: National Park Service Southeast Region, April 21, 1992. 

Strategic Plan, Government Performance and Results Act, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site.

National Park Service, September 22, 1997. 

Vincent, Susan Hart. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site: Cultural Landscape Report. Atlanta, 

Georgia: National Park Service Southeast Region and Charlotte, North Carolina: Historic Land 

Design, 1998. Archived as NPS Document No. D3. 

Yocum, Barbara A., Architectural Conservator, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Lowell, 

Massachusetts. “Trip Report & Materials Analysis: Charles Pinckney House, Plaster & Mortar 

Samples.” November 17, 1999. This report is a review of plaster and mortar samples recovered 

during archeological investigations beneath the existing house. 
Bibliography 

168 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Annual Superintendent’s Reports 

Fort Sumter National Monument & Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Superintendent’s Report, 

1992. 

Superintendent’s Annual Narrative for Fort Sumter National Monument [including Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site], 1994–1995. 

Superintendent’s Annual Narrative for Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 1995. (As archived by the 

Denver Service Center, the 1993 report is appended to this file.) 

Superintendent’s Narrative Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 1996. 

Annual Narrative Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 1997. 

Goal Accomplishments, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 1998. 

Annual Narrative Report, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 1999. 

Superintendent’s Annual Narrative Report for Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site, 2000. 

Superintendent’s Annual Narrative Report for Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney 

National Historic Site, 2001. 

Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 2002 Annual Report. 

Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 2003 Annual Report. 

Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 2004 Annual 

Superintendent Narrative Report. 

Fort Sumter National Monument and Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, 2005 Annual 

Superintendent Narrative Report. 

Drawings 

NPS Drawing No. 345-25000. Snee Farm. 1990. HABS drawings. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-25001. HVAC and Electrical Work. April 1991. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60001A. Other Structures [Barn and Servant’s Quarters]. March 1991. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60001Z. Stables [Barn]. n.d. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60003. Curatorial Storage Building, Snee Farm. n.d. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60003Z1. Maintenance Barn. [Electrical work.] July 1992. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60007. Fire Protection Sprinkler System House at Snee Farm. February 1997. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60008. Single Phase Service Relocation. March 1992. 
Bibliography 

National Park Service 169

NPS Drawing No. 345-60010. Plat of a Part of Snee Farm. July 1967. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60011. Proposed Bookshelves at Snee Farm. January 1959. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60014. Proposed USGS Renovation CHPI Barn 2nd Floor. n.d. Not implemented. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60015. CHPI Cupola Reconstruction 1993. n.d. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60016. Preliminary Plat Pinckney Hall, Snee Farm. September 10, 1987. Proposed 

residential subdivision of site, not implemented. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60017. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site Utilities. February 1992. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-60018. Construction Plans, Pinckney Hall, Snee Farm. February 4, 1987. Proposed 

residential subdivision of site, not implemented. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80000. Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. July 1989. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80002. Alternative 1: Minimum Development. March 1993. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80003. Alternative 2: Nonpersonal Services to Visitors. March 1993. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80005. Management Zoning Alternatives 2 & 3. July 1993. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80007. Existing Site Features. July 1993. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80009. Management Zoning Alternative 1. July 1993. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80010. Construct Comfort Station. July 1994. 

NPS Drawing No. 345-80012. House at Snee Farm Floor Plan Alternative 1. n.d. 
Bibliography 

170 Historic Structures Report: Snee Farm, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 
Appendix A: HABS drawings for house, 1990 











































Appendix B: Sketch drawings for barn and corn crib 

North Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

East Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-1

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

South Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

West Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-2

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3228

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

N

First Floor Plan

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

N

Second Floor Plan

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-3

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

North Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0"

East Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" CRIB BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-1

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

South Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0"

West Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" CRIB BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-2

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Roof Plan

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" N

CORN CRIB ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS A-3

Date

Proj. No.

March 20, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Floor Plan

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" N

Appendix C: Condition drawings 

North Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0"

East Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" CORN CRIB ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-1

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

DETERIORATED SIDING

BOARDS

MISSING SIDING BOARD

MISSING SHEET METAL;

EXPOSED SHINGLES

South Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0"

West Elevation

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" CORN CRIB ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-2

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

DETERIORATED SIDING

BOARDS

DETERIORATED WOOD

TRIM

DETERIORATED WOOD

TRIM

MISSING SIDING BOARD

Roof Plan

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" N

CORN CRIB ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-3

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

Floor Plan

Scale: 3

16" = 1'-0" N

PIN HOLES PRESENT

THROUGHOUT SHEET

METAL ROOFING

North Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

East Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-4

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

DETERIORATED SILL

PEELING PAINT ON SIDING, TYP.

BIOLOGICAL GROWTH

OBSERVED ON SIDING, TYP.

PEELING PAINT ON SIDING, TYP.

BIOLOGICAL GROWTH

OBSERVED ON SIDING, TYP.

DETERIORATION OF

ROOF UNDER

OVERHANGING TREE

DETERIORATED SIDING

South Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

West Elevation

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-5

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3228

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

OPEN MORTAR JOINTS PEELING PAINT THROUGHOUT

MISSING METAL TRIM

DETERIORATED SIDING

DETERIORATED WOOD

N

First Floor Plan

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

N

Second Floor Plan

Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"

BARN ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-6

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

BOARDED-UP DOOR OPENINGS

First Floor Plan

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

MAIN HOUSE ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-7

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

N

1990 Historic American Buildings

Survey drawings with annotations

by report authors.

ORGANIC GROWTH AT STAIR

SPALLING PRESENT AT STAIR

PEELING PAINT

Second Floor Plan

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

N

DETERIORATED FLOOR BOARDS

North Elevation

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

MAIN HOUSE ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-8

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

West Elevation

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

ISOLATED CUPPING OF SHINGLES

ORGANIC GROWTH

ORGANIC GROWTH

ISOLATED CUPPING OF SHINGLES

1990 Historic American Buildings

Survey drawings with annotations

by report authors.

South Elevation

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

MAIN HOUSE ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS MATERIALS SCIENTISTS C-9

Date

Proj. No.

July 31, 2015

2014.3541

Scale As Shown HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT

East Elevation

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"

ISOLATED CUPPING OF SHINGLES

ISOLATED ORGANIC GROWTH

ISOLATED ORGANIC GROWTH

1990 Historic American Buildings

Survey drawings with annotations

by report authors.