Mason-Willis-Dixon House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Historic Structure Report

December 2015

for

Cape Lookout National Seashore Southeast Region, National Park Service

by

JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN–ARCHITECT, P.A. 

539 N. Trade Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

www.jkoa.net | office@jkoa.net | (336)721-1711

Mason-Willis-Dixon House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Historic Structure Report

December 2015

for

Cape Lookout National Seashore Southeast Region, National Park Service

by

JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN–ARCHITECT, P.A. 539 N. Trade Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

www.jkoa.net | office@jkoa.net | (336)721-1711
The historic structure report presented here exists in 

two formats. A traditional, printed version is available 

for study at the park, at the Southeast Regional 

Office of the NPS (SERO), and at a variety of other 

repositories. For more widespread access, the historic 

structure report also exists in digital format through 

the IRMA Portal, Integrated Resource Management 

Applications, including the NPS Data Store, accessed 

at <https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Welcome>, a 

website of the National Park Service.

Cultural Resources, Partnerships, 

 and Science Division

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 507-5847

2015

Historic Structure Report

Mason-Willis-Dixon House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO)

Mason-Willis-Dixon House

 LCS #: 012514

 CALO ID#: 503

Mason-Willis-Dixon Shed

 LSC #: None Associated

Cover image: Joseph K. Oppermann, 2014
Mason- Willis-Dixon House 

Portsmouth Village 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Historic Structure Report 

2015 

Approved by: 

National Seashore Date 

Recommended b{1"C1insQ r-----L__., 

Chief, Cui Date 

Recommended by: . O~..t.L 1.- ~~ 

{\ 'Deputy Regional Director, Southeast Region 

Yh-h"~k I 7 

Date 

Approved by: 

Date 

We are pleased to make available this Historic Structures Report, part of our ongoing effort to provide 

comprehensive documentation for the historic structures and cultural landscapes of National Park Service 

units in the Southeast Region. A number of individuals contributed to the successful completion of this 

work, but we would particularly like to thank the Project Team who authored the report. 

The authors would like to thank the staff at Cape Lookout National Seashore who assisted with the 

project, especially Patrick Kenney, Superintendant; Jeri L. DeYoung, Chief of Resource Management, 

who provided helpful comments; and Karen L. Duggan, park ranger, whose research on the people of 

Portsmouth was used in this report. Dr. Ali Miri, historical architect with the National Park Service’s 

Southeast Regional Office, provided helpful comments as part of his technical review and project oversight. 

The authors extend special appreciation to the Friends of Portsmouth Island and the many volunteers and 

descendants who readily provided information and interviews. We hope that this study will prove valuable 

to park management in ongoing efforts to preserve the house and shed, and other Portsmouth buildings, 

and to everyone in understanding and interpreting these unique resources.

Dan Scheidt, Chief

Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science Division

Southeast Regional Office

2015

Foreword

Table of Contents

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

Management Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1

Administrative Data ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Part I - Developmental History

A. Historical Background and Context .................................................................................................. 13

B. Chronology of Development and Use .............................................................................................. 25

 Timeline ................................................................................................................................................. 41

C. Physical Description ............................................................................................................................ 45

General Description .............................................................................................................. 45

Locale ................................................................................................................ 45

The Architecture .............................................................................................. 48

Construction Characteristics ................................................................................................ 50

Structural Systems ............................................................................................ 50

Exterior Features .............................................................................................. 55

Interior Features ............................................................................................... 64

Room-by-Room Descriptions .............................................................................................. 65

Character-Defining Features ................................................................................................ 79

Summary of Concerns ........................................................................................................... 81

Part II - Treatment & Use

A. Ultimate Treatment & Use .................................................................................................................. 83

B. Requirements for Treatment ............................................................................................................... 85

C. Alternatives for Treatment and Use ................................................................................................... 89

D. Recommendations for Treatment and Use ....................................................................................... 91

 

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 97

Appendix

Documentation Drawings

 Floor Plan

 North Elevation

 East Elevation

 South Elevation

 West Elevation

 Shed Plan

 Interior Details

National Park Service i 
ii Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
Project Team

National Park Service – Southeast Regional Office

 Laurie Chestnut, Contracting Officer

 Dr. Ali Miri, Historical Architect and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

National Park Service – Cape Lookout National Seashore

 Patrick Kenney, Superintendent

 Jeri L. DeYoung, Chief of Resource Management

Joseph K. Oppermann–Architect, P.A. (JKOA)

 Joseph K. Oppermann, FAIA, Historical Architect

 Langdon E. Oppermann, Architectural Historian

 Rebecca L. McCormick, AIA

 Christopher M. Woollard, Associate AIA

National Park Service iii 
iv Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 1

Management Summary

The purpose of this report is to document the 

development, use, and current condition of the 

Mason-Willis-Dixon House (Harry and Lida 

Dixon House) in the Portsmouth Village Historic 

District at Cape Lookout National Seashore. The 

National Park Service (NPS) will use this report 

to inform and guide its stewardship of this historic 

structure. 

The house and its reconstructed shed are part of 

a group of historic structures that provide what is 

perhaps the iconic image of Portsmouth. Anchored 

by the Methodist church, this concentration of 

residences, outbuildings, community buildings and 

cemeteries provides visitors a sense of the village 

in the early twentieth century when it was still 

a thriving community. Treatment and use of the 

present house and shed should be predicated on 

preserving their place in that ensemble of buildings.

The present study first provides historical 

background and context for Portsmouth Village 

based on a series of studies, interviews, and 

reports developed by NPS since the 1970s. 

Portsmouth’s history has been well documented; 

this Historic Structure Report includes no 

additional archival research on the larger 

community, but does include substantial research 

and historical documentation on the house and its 

considerable changes over the years.

Determination of the physical evolution of the 

house is based primarily on early photographs 

combined with building investigation and extensive 

dating of building fabric, a process sometimes 

called “building archaeology.”

The report is divided into two major segments, 

Part I: Developmental History, and Part II: 

Treatment & Use. Part I is organized into three 

sections that address in sequence the historical 

background and context of Portsmouth; a 

chronology of development and use of the house 

specifically, including a timeline; and a physical 

description of the house’s exterior and interior 

on a room-by-room basis. This last section 

includes an assessment of condition and a listing of 

character-defining features. 

Part II presents the recommended “ultimate 

treatment and use,” and also examines 

alternatives for treatment and use as well as 

requirements that guide the house’s treatment and 

use. A bibliography follows.

The Appendix contains scaled drawings of floor 

plans, exterior elevations of the existing building, 

and selected details.

Historical Overview

Established in 1753 by an act of the colonial 

legislature of North Carolina, Portsmouth is 

located on the south side of Ocracoke Inlet, which 

was the principal access into Pamlico Sound and 

North Carolina’s seaports until a storm opened 

competing Hatteras Inlet in 1846. The community 

flourished in the late eighteenth century and by 

1800 was the largest on the Outer Banks with 

a population between 200 and 250. Because 

Portsmouth was a center of maritime trade, the 

Federal government established a customs house 

there in 1806, a marine hospital in 1827, and a 

post office in 1840. The town reached its peak 

population in 1860 with more than 600 residents.

Evacuated during the Civil War, Portsmouth 

recovered neither its population nor its economic 

vitality, and the customs house was abolished in 

1867. As the inlet shoaled up and the population 

declined, the number of houses in the town 

dwindled as well, falling from 109 in 1860, to 

59 in 1870, and to 44 in 1880. Many buildings 

must have sat abandoned in the late nineteenth 

century, including the marine hospital, which 

burned in 1894. Of those that survived hurricanes 

and the generally harsh environment, most were 

dismantled or relocated as the village slowly 

contracted along with the local economy. After 

1883, the shifting sands of the Outer Banks closed 

Ocracoke Inlet to shipping.
2 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

The village got a boost in 1894 when the U. S. 

Life-Saving Service built a station at Portsmouth. 

Over the next four decades, a number of 

Portsmouth residents found employment there. 

Others made a livelihood in commercial fishing or 

catering to the wealthy sportsmen who frequented 

the Outer Banks to hunt and fish.

The island was regularly inundated by tidal surges 

accompanying tropical storms and hurricanes; 

these often caused more damage than the wind. 

In September 1913, for example, a relatively 

weak hurricane blew across Portsmouth, but 

the accompanying storm surge destroyed both 

the Primitive Baptist and Methodist churches, 

the only buildings of worship on the island. The 

community was still strong enough, however, to 

support construction of a new church.

In 1933, a strong hurricane hit the village with 

sustained winds of 100 mph and torrential rain that 

flooded most of the island and destroyed many 

houses. Many residents moved to the mainland.

In 1937, the Coast Guard Station (former LifeSaving Station) was closed, further diminishing the 

town’s vitality, until by 1940 only 42 permanent 

residents remained, and after another devastating 

hurricane in 1944, the number dwindled further. 

By the 1950s, Portsmouth had only fourteen yearround residents.

Several unused buildings were adapted for use 

by sport fishermen, especially after World War 

II, including the Coast Guard Station, which was 

declared surplus property in 1946 and used as 

a sportsmen’s clubhouse. The post office was 

discontinued in 1959, and by the time the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore was authorized in 

1966, only a handful of permanent residents 

remained.

With the death of the village’s last surviving male 

resident in 1971, the two remaining residents 

moved to the mainland. Portsmouth Village 

became uninhabited, without permanent residents 

for the first time since the eighteenth century. A 

number of buildings continued to be occupied 

seasonally as private residences through an NPS 

lease program that only recently ended. Other 

buildings, such as the Methodist Church and Coast 

Guard Station, are open year-round to the public. 

In all but the coldest months Portsmouth Village is 

a popular destination for day-trippers arriving by 

small boat from Ocracoke. 

The House

The multiple names used for this house can be 

confusing, and have changed to reflect updated 

research. Over the years, NPS documents, reports, 

tourist information, and waysides have used several 

names for the house, including the Dennis MasonDave Willis House (as in the 1978 National Register 

nomination), the Captain Dave Willis House, the 

Willis-Dixon House, the Harry Dixon House, and 

most recently the Lida and Harry Dixon House. 

The title of this Historic Structure Report reflects 

the correct chronological sequence of apparent 

occupants. The State Historic Preservation Office 

has stated its intent to amend the National Register 

nomination accordingly.

The scant historical documentation for the 

earliest period of the house (most in the form 

of oral interviews) suggests that a house was 

built on the site of the present structure by 

1897. In interviews conducted in the 1980s with 

former Portsmouth residents, the first dwelling 

remembered on this site was a small three-room 

house without a porch, apparently called a 

“straight” house, one room deep and three wide, 

consisting of a living room, kitchen and bedroom 

“all straight across.”

An early, but undated, photograph may show this 

house in the latter years of Willis ownership. It 

shows a one-story, side-gabled house with front 

porch. At the west end, set back from the main 

block, is a lower, one-story gable wing, which 

physical evidence shows was an early addition to 

the main block.

Between 1914 and 1918, Harry Dixon (1889-

1931) and his wife Lida Woolard Dixon (1888-

1961) acquired the property. The son of George 

Dixon, a fisherman, and his wife Martha “Patsy” 

Dixon who operated a store, Harry grew up 

in a house that his parents built along Doctors 

Creek in 1887. As an adult, Harry worked as a 

carpenter and joined Jodie Styron and Tom Bragg 

in constructing the Styron-Bragg House as a 

hunting and fishing clubhouse. Perhaps inspired 

by that project, Dixon made major alterations to 
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 3

his own residence in 1928 that recast the plain 

vernacular of the old Willis house into a stylish 

Craftsman bungalow with a new form from the 

roof down.

After Harry Dixon’s death in 1931, his widow 

and daughter occupied the house into the 1950s. 

After Lida’s death in 1961, her daughter sold the 

property to Charles D. and Jeanne Carrington who 

may have been responsible for replacing most of 

the Dixons’ three-over-one sash with the present 

six-over-six sash. The property changed hands 

once more before acquisition by the State of North 

Carolina in 1969 as part of the early efforts to 

create a national seashore at the southern end of 

the Outer Banks.

When the Cape Lookout National Seashore was 

established in 1976, ownership of the house was 

transferred to the National Park Service, which 

used the house as a residence for its chief ranger 

and, later, for volunteers. The front porch and deck 

were almost entirely rebuilt in 1979, and the porch 

and deck flooring was replaced again in 1987. The 

septic system failed in 1996, after which the house 

has remained unoccupied.

Statement of Significance

The Portsmouth Historic District was listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places in 1978 for its 

significance to the state’s early maritime history 

and as the only remaining village on Core Banks. 

As the park’s Long-Range Interpretive Plan 

(2011) points out, “the park contains cultural 

resources rich in the maritime history of humankind’s attempt to survive at the edge of the sea.”1

The 1978 National Register nomination identifies 

thirty-one historic structures and sites that 

contribute to the district’s historic character, one 

of which is this house. Unfortunately, several of 

the thirty-one were already in ruins when the 

nomination was written, and others have since 

been lost to storms and decay. No eighteenthcentury buildings remain, and only a handful of 

nineteenth-century buildings have survived into 

the twenty-first century.

The nomination identifies no period of 

significance; it was written before these were 

included in nominations. More recently, 

the Cultural Landscape Report (2007) has 

recommended a period of significance ending 

in 1971, when the island lost its last permanent 

residents. The authors of this report agree with 

that recommendation.

The house and its reconstructed shed continue 

to contribute to the historic character of 

Portsmouth. They are historically significant for 

associations with the Mason, Willis and especially 

the Dixon families, all with roots in Portsmouth 

that stretch back to the very foundation of the 

village.

1. NPS,Cape Lookout National Seashore Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan (2011), p.11.

Figure 1. Portsmouth Village viewed from Ocracoke Inlet, 2013. (JKOA)
4 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

The house is architecturally significant as an 

excellent local interpretation of the Craftsman 

bungalow, so wildly popular in America in the 

first decades of the twentieth century. Harry 

Dixon’s stylish and extensive remodeling of an 

earlier structure, even as Portsmouth was in 

decline, illustrates the resilience of Portsmouth 

and its residents.

Methodology

The objectives of this Historic Structure Report 

(HSR), which complies with the guidelines 

at NPS-28 (Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline), are to research and prepare a 

comprehensive and scholarly assessment of the 

two buildings’ histories and fabric, to describe their 

existing physical conditions, and to recommend 

treatment for preservation.

The findings and recommendations made in this 

report rely on the combined research of primary 

and secondary sources, early photographs, oral 

histories, and the physical investigation of extant 

building fabric.

The Scope of Work prescribed by NPS for this 

HSR specifies “limited” historical research 

as defined by Director’s Order #28: Cultural 

Resources Management Guidelines. Nevertheless, 

additional research was necessary for an adequate 

understanding of the context and history of 

the house and shed prior to park ownership. 

Information gathered from that period comes 

primarily from the park’s genealogical research 

and from careful study of historic photographs 

and oral histories. 

The Scope of Work also specifies “limited” physical 

investigation of the buildings to determine their 

evolutionary histories. However, that too was 

a large component of the work. Investigations 

involved a close look at architectural features and 

details such as framing materials and methods; the 

relationship of finish treatments; and the variety 

of siding, ghost marks, and nail types. Together 

these research efforts, both documentary and 

physical, provide a dual, coordinated approach to 

determining how the house was used and adapted 

over the progression of its history.

The firm of Joseph K. Oppermann–Architect, P.A. 

(JKOA), prepared this HSR. The team for the work 

was led by Joseph K. Oppermann, FAIA, historical 

architect and principal-in-charge; Rebecca L. 

McCormick, AIA, and Christopher M. Woollard, 

Associate AIA, assisting architects; and Langdon 

Edmunds Oppermann, architectural historian. 

The team conducted the historical research and 

building investigation, documented the buildings 

with photography and measured drawings, 

and authored the HSR. This interdisciplinary 

approach improves understanding of the buildings’ 

histories and present conditions, both necessary 

prerequisites for the development of appropriate 

treatment recommendations.

An initial multi-day visit to the site and the 

archives was made by the team in September 

2013 with follow-up visits in April and October 

2014. Measurements were compiled using 

manual measuring tape, carpenter ruler, digital 

cameras, and digital recorder, a Leica Disto laser 

distance meter. Photography was completed for 

building exteriors and interior spaces. Detailed 

field drawings were made and used to create 

digitized AutoCAD drawings of floor plans and 

elevations. The initial digitized drawings were 

the base document on which final recordations 

and assessed conditions were made during the 

subsequent return trips.

During these subsequent trips, a standard 

assessment methodology was used for the 

condition survey of each exterior feature and each 

interior room, itemizing features and elements 

and correlating with research findings. Detail 

photography was conducted. Visual observation 

of surface conditions, supplemented by a 

20-power magnification loupe and Protimeter 

BLD 2000 moisture meter, was the basis for 

assessing the physical condition of building 

materials. In accordance with the NPS Scope 

of Work, no building system components were 

tested, and no invasive methods of investigation 

were employed.

Unique to these field visits was the necessity of 

wearing hooded net suits while on Portsmouth 

Island. Present for most of the year, the mosquitoes 

can be so thick at times that the tour boats cease 

operation. It is not uncommon for visitors and 

work crews to don mosquito suits while on the 

island.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 5

Findings

The present house consists of three discrete 

structures that material evidence suggests were 

built at different times in the late 1890s and the first 

decade of the twentieth century, and significantly 

redesigned in the 1920s. The structures are balloon 

framed, but each uses slightly different materials 

and construction details. By World War I, the 

components appear to have been joined to create 

the basic floor plan of the present building.

Around 1928, Harry Dixon remodeled and rebuilt 

portions of the house as a Craftsman bungalow. He 

reframed the roof over the main block, maintaining 

only the ridge line while adding new rafters front 

and rear to create a longer, wider, lower-pitched, 

side-gabled roof more typical of the Craftsman 

style. Also typical of the style, Dixon left rafter ends 

exposed and added false knee braces in the gables. 

At the front he added a dormer, although it only 

lit the unfinished attic, and replaced the attached 

front porch with an engaged porch supported by 

tapered box columns, paired on each side of the 

steps and tripled at the corners, set on brick piers 

with cast-in-place concrete caps. He surrounded 

the porch with picket balustrades and built new 

concrete steps, flanked by stepped brick cheek 

walls, also with concrete caps. 

In front of the west wing, used as the kitchen, 

Dixon built a large open deck, connected to the 

front porch and featuring the same brick piers 

with concrete caps. To complete the Craftsman 

remodeling, Dixon replaced the window sash on 

the front and sides of the house (but not the rear) 

with three-over-one sash. The house was one of 

the most stylish residences in the village by the time 

the work was finished.

Existing Conditions 

Poor drainage is characteristic of most of 

Portsmouth, but the natural process of decay of 

vegetation and generation of new humus has created 

a bowl-like depression under the house. This traps 

water and keeps the area damp for extended periods 

of time, which not only exacerbates rotting of wood 

posts, but also creates conditions conducive to 

termites, all conditions that are typical of most of the 

structures at Portsmouth.

Much of the mortar in the front porch piers dates 

to 1928 and remains in fair condition. In contrast, 

the mortar in the exposed piers on the deck is badly 

eroded. All but three of the concrete caps on the 

piers and cheek walls are cracked and broken, with 

significant material loss in some. The east cheek wall 

at the steps to the deck leans significantly to the east.

The wood framing appears to be in generally fair 

condition; ridge lines remain straight and floors 

level. Insect damage can be observed in some of 

the sills, and there is likely to be hidden damage 

elsewhere in the building. The house is, like many 

others of the period, under-structured by modern 

standards, especially in terms of spacing between 

the various framing members, but there is no 

apparent systemic failure. However, the ferrous 

nails used in framing have inevitably corroded in the 

damp, salty environment, making the building more 

subject to wind damage and other stresses.

The main front door remains in generally good 

condition, but the front kitchen door has severe 

damage to the bottom rail. The door at the rear of 

Room 104 is new but has no exterior hardware and 

no steps to the ground.

Sash are missing from the windows on the east and 

north sides of the north wing, but most of the rest 

are in fair condition. All of the six-over-six sash 

were installed in the 1960s. Painted finishes are 

in poor condition with peeling paint and staining 

from rusting nails. Glazing of windows is in poor 

condition. Many of the wood-framed screens are 

missing and those that remain are in poor condition.

The roofing is in fair condition with no apparent 

leaks. A few shingles are missing or loose. 

Most of the house’s exterior woodwork is in fair 

condition. Painted finishes are peeling and bare 

wood is being exposed at various locations all 

around the house. Some siding and most of the 

crown molding in the gables need to be renailed.

The porch is in mostly good condition, since the 

entire porch, except for the tripled columns at the 

corners, was completely rebuilt in 1987. The lower 

parts of the box columns are now deteriorating 

along with the wooden plinths, and the painted 

finish on the deck flooring is badly worn. 

The lattice on the lower portion of the north wall 

of the lattice room is badly damaged as is the 
6 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

painted finish on the entire room. The door steps 

are missing entirely.

The interior of the house is in fair condition, 

but most surfaces are soiled or stained and need 

repainting. There is some deterioration of the 

ceiling boards at isolated locations where the roof 

has leaked in the past. Three window sash are 

missing, and as noted earlier, the exterior glazing 

on those that remain is in poor condition, which 

has allowed damage to some interior surfaces.

Wood flooring is in poor condition, primarily from 

multiple floods, including the terrible hurricane 

that washed over the Outer Banks in 1933. These 

events have left much of the flooring cupped 

and most of the fasteners showing evidence of 

oxidation.

The shed has lost material integrity, but it remains 

an important feature in a landscape that has lost 

many of its small ancillary structures.

General Threats

Barrier islands, such as Portsmouth, will be 

especially vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change and sea-level rise, which may negatively 

affect cultural resources on these islands. 

It must be noted that as buildings age, they tend to 

be less able to stand the stress of constant exposure 

to the harsh marine environment. The maintenance 

of a protective exterior paint layer on exterior 

wood elements is difficult but critical. Unpainted 

wooden surfaces are eroded by UV sunlight. 

Termites and wood rot attack and weaken wood 

framing, and blasts of wind-driven sand abrade 

exterior surfaces.

More ominous for the historic structure, the nailed 

connections that hold the house together have 

been compromised by the inevitable oxidation 

of nails and other ferrous materials, a condition 

that may not be readily evident. While wood 

framing that uses mortise-and-tenon joinery, 

such as the nearby Washington Roberts House, 

may withstand high winds and storm surge with 

minor damage, aging balloon or stick frames with 

severely corroded nails are less likely to do so. If 

sea-level rise continues at its present pace, much 

of Portsmouth Island will be inundated, and 

the effects of hurricanes and nor’easters will be 

amplified many times over.

Recommendations for Treatment 

and Use

The Recommended Ultimate Treatment for the 

house is Preservation of the exterior as a major 

feature in the district’s cultural landscape and 

Rehabilitation of the interior to accommodate 

modern use, if possible.

General Recommendations for Portsmouth Village

• Consult with Janet Cakir PhD, NPS 

SER Climate Change, Socioeconomics, 

and Adaptation Coordinator to guide 

management policies.

• Use results from the climate change study 

“Identify Cultural Resources Sites Affected 

by Sea-Level Rise at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore” to guide management policies. This 

study is also applicable to Portsmouth Island.

• Prepare or update a Topographic Survey for 

the site.

• Prepare a Log of Flood Occurrences. Record 

at a minimum the dates of occurrences and 

approximate extent and severity (e.g. depth at 

specific locations). Correlate recordings with 

Topographic Survey. Maintain data so that 

they can be correlated with conditions such 

as tide, moon phase, etc.

• Evaluate site for flood avoidance potential 

including the introduction of dams and/or 

swales to divert or direct flooding waters.

• Evaluate each building, structure, and 

significant site feature for flood avoidance 

potential and/or enhancement potential for 

better withstanding the projected threatening 

events.

• Identify critical services (fresh water supply, 

waste disposal, energy sources, etc.), evaluate 

options, and develop a contingency plan for 

each. 

• Strive to maintain for all buildings a sound 

structural system and a weather-tight exterior 

envelope, especially the roof.

• Use maintenance activities as opportunities 

to enhance the resistive capacities of the 

buildings and structures whenever feasible.

• Prepare minimum level of record 

documentation (overall view photographs 

and text descriptions) for all undocumented 

cultural resources in the community 

that are at risk; prepare more extensive 

documentation (including scaled record 
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 7

drawings with descriptions) for the more 

significant resources at risk.

Recommendations for House Site 

• Investigate feasibility of partial or 

complete filling of the depression beneath 

the house.

• Conduct rigorous annual inspections for 

termite infestation and treat accordingly.

• Secure clearance from an archaeologist 

before commencing work that might require 

ground disturbance.

Recommendations for Foundation Posts

• Replace posts in kind as they fail.

• Preserve distinctive posts and those dating to 

the house’s original construction.

• Install termite shields wherever possible.

Recommendations for Masonry

• Investigate feasibility of righting the sinking 

cheek wall at the deck.

• Repoint all brickwork.

• Repair concrete caps to a sound condition.

• Consider installing a chimney cap.

Recommendations for Wood Framing

• Conduct regular inspection for the presence 

of wood-damaging plants and insects; treat 

accordingly.

• Conduct routine inspections, some during 

rainstorms, to inspect for evidence of water 

intrusion and instances of damage. 

• Periodically review for evidence of deflection 

across planes of framing, framing members 

out of square or plumb, or heightened 

vibration in framing members. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• If the interior is opened to visitors, provide 

additional post-and-beam supports for the 

floor joists if necessary.

Recommendations for Doors

• Ensure all hardware remains operable. 

Apply lubricant on a regular basis.

• Maintain sound paint finish at all exposed 

surfaces.

• Reconstruct steps to ground at Room 104.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Windows

• Replace missing sash in Room 105.

• Return all sash to working order, repair 

glazing, and repaint.

• Repair/replace wood-framed screens.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Roofing

• Routinely inspect for missing or loose 

shingles and repair or replace as needed.

Recommendations for Siding and Trim

• Repair trim, renailing loose pieces as needed.

• Monitor regularly for open joints, displaced 

or loose elements, or other evidence of 

movement; renail loose pieces.

• Monitor checking, splitting, and instances 

of rot, and plan remedial actions 

accordingly. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork to 

keep a sound exterior surface.

Recommendations for Front Porch

• Prepare and repaint woodwork.

Recommendations for Deck and Portico

• Repair trim, renailing loose pieces as 

needed.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork.

Recommendations for Lattice Room

• Remove shower from interior.

• Repair lattice and other trim, renailing loose 

pieces, and replacing if necessary.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork.

• Ensure door is in working order.

• Reconstruct steps to ground.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Flooring

• Avoid aggressive sanding of flooring.

• Do not renew painted or varnished 

finishes until interior use of the house is 

determined. 

Recommendations for Mechanical and Electrical 

Systems

• Rehabilitate mechanical and electrical 

systems to accommodate identified use. 

• Maintain present bathroom and kitchen 

locations.
8 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

• Reinstall bathroom lavatory and kitchen 

sink.

• Continue heating with stoves.

Recommendations for Shed

• Consider adaptive use as an enclosure for a 

composting toilet.

• Consider elevating the structure if it is 

necessary to replace the floor.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 9

Administrative Data

Locational Data

Building Name: Mason-Willis-Dixon House

Location: Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National Seashore

County: Carteret County

State: North Carolina

Real Property Information

Acquisition Date: 1976

Numbering Information

CALO ID: 503

LCS ID: 012514

Size Information

Mason-Willis-Dixon House

Total Floor Area: 602 square feet ±

Roof Area: 2,100 square feet ±

Number of Stories: 1

Number of Rooms: 6

Number of Bathrooms: 1

Mason-Willis-Dixon Shed

Total Floor Area: 108 square feet ±

Roof Area: 200 square feet ±

Cultural Resource Data

National Register Status: Contributing structure in Portsmouth Village Historic District,

 Listed November 29, 1978. 

Period of Significance: No period of significance included in the National Register nomination; 

 it was written before these were included in nominations. 

 

Proposed Treatment 

Preservation of the exterior and Rehabilitation of the interior.
10 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Related NPS Studies

Bemisderfer, Tim and Rene Cote. “Portsmouth Village Storm Damage Assessment Report,” 

November 27, 2012.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Master Plan, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Harkers Island 

NC: Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1971.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Final Environmental Impact Statement on General Management 

Plan / Development Concept Plan, December 1982.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation Document, October 2012.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range Interpretive Plan, June 2011.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, “Portsmouth Village, Historic Structures Management 

Recommendations,” August 1984.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 

1984.

Cote, Rene. “Narrative Report on the Findings of Historic Structures Examination; Preliminary 

Test of Historic Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 1984.

Denver Service Center. General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. Finalized 1982, approved 1983.

Ehrenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical 

Resources. SEAC, NPS, 1976.

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. Department of History, 

Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, NPS, 1968.

Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description of the Eight Villages adjoining Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. Final Technical Report, Vol. 2. 

Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, November 2005.

Jones, Tommy. George Dixon House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2004. 

_______ Wash Roberts House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2003. 

_______ Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2006. 

_______ Ed Styron House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2004. 

Life-Saving Station Logs, excerpted by Tommy Jones, NPS.

National Park Service. “List of Classified Structures Park/Region Report,” March 11, 1987.

National Park Service, Office of Policy. “NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management,” June 11, 1998. 

NPS files including drawings, maps, memos, images and administrative files.
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

National Park Service 11

Olson, Sarah. Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. Denver, Colorado: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, March 1982.

Olszewski, George J. Historic Resource Study for History of Portsmouth Village, typewritten draft for 

NPS, September 1970.

VanBeck, Sara L. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Archives and Records Management Review. 

NPS, 2000.

Whisnant , David E., and Anne Mitchell Whisnant. Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic 

Resource Study, prepared for the Organization of American Historians under Cooperative 

Agreement with the National Park Service, Draft, January 14, 2010.

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Portsmouth Village, Cultural Resources Report. Atlanta: 

National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 2007. 
12 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 13

 “Just think, Portsmouth in 1815 or 150 years 

ago was the largest seaport in North Carolina 

and now there are just four people who live 

there year around. Oh! what changes have 

come about or taken place in 50 years in my 

lifetime and remembrance. What will happen 

in the next 50 years? God only knows.”

 --Ben B. Salter, 19622

From the early days of the eighteenth century, 

North Carolina was dependent on ocean trade 

2. Letter to editor, Carteret News Times, 1962, printed in 

Ben B. Salter, Portsmouth Island: Short Stories & History, 

1972, p. 47.

with other colonies and with the West Indies and 

Europe, exporting pine products–lumber, tar, 

pitch–and importing foods and manufactured 

goods. But access to its ports was not direct; the 

colony’s coastal geography made shipping difficult. 

With the single exception of Wilmington, North 

Carolina’s ports fronted not the ocean but the 

waters of Pamlico Sound, separated from ocean 

trade by the long stretch of the Outer Banks. 

Several inlets spaced along the Banks allowed 

seagoing traffic to reach mainland ports, but by the 

1730s most of these inlets were unusable as storms 

I.A Historical Background and 

Context

Figure 2. Detail of the 1770 A Compleat Map of North-Carolina from an actual Survey by Capt’n Collet, Governor 

of Fort Johnston. Engraved by I. Bayly, London. The map shows Portsmouth just south of the winding channel 

of the inlet. 
14 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

closed or shoaled them. Ocracoke Inlet remained 

navigable and was to become the principal ocean 

passage.3

In 1753, the colonial legislature of North Carolina 

established Portsmouth Village on the south side of 

that inlet. The town was a planned community, the 

act specifying “fifty acres of land on Core Banks, 

most convenient to the said harbour, adjoining the 

said Banks, for a town, by the name of Portsmouth, 

into lots of half an acre each, with convenient 

streets, as they may think requisite.”4 John Tolson 

bought the first lot in 1756. Buildings were to be 

substantial; purchasers were required to build a 

frame or brick house or warehouse, specified to be 

not less than twenty feet long by sixteen feet wide.5

Portsmouth quickly became the largest settlement 

on the Outer Banks, and was soon the largest English 

port south of Virginia.6 A 1770 Survey Map shows 

Portsmouth and Ocracoke Inlet with the essential 

outline of its twisting underwater channel (Fig. 2).

Ocracoke Inlet provided the principal access 

for shipping trade. However, the underwater 

geography of the inlet was precarious, with a 

sandbar at the inlet's entrance and a shoal within. 

Because the waters were too shallow for large, 

heavy-laden ships to navigate, cargo was offloaded 

onto lighters, small boats suited to the shallow 

waters of the inlet, and taken to Portsmouth's 

warehouses while the ships passed through the 

inlet.7

This practice, known as lightering, was the reason 

for Portsmouth’s establishment and for its success. 

At Portsmouth were built the warehouses, wharves, 

and boats needed for the lightering business, 

as well as structures for its residents. The town 

was home to the many pilots and crew, mariners, 

3. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth Village, 

Cultural Resources Report (Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2007), p. 17.

4. David Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-

1958 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 

1958), p. 40, quotes the act.

5. Sarah Olson, Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina (Denver, 

Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, March 1982), p. 17, citing 

State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 25, pp. 252-54.

6. Pat Dula Davis and Kathleen Hill Hamilton, eds., 

The Heritage of Carteret County North Carolina, Vol. 1

(Beaufort, NC: Carteret Historical Research Association, 

1982), p. 63.

7. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth Village, 

Cultural Resources Report, p. 17. 

channel markers and boat builders. Related 

businesses developed, in addition to those needed 

to support a growing population. Five years after 

Collet, Henry Mouzon’s 1775 map of the two 

Carolinas shows Portsmouth as a developed town 

with buildings delineated. The inlet is marked as a 

ship passage (Fig. 3).

Census data give a picture of the village, although 

the listings for Portsmouth are not precise and 

Figure 3. A portion of Henry Mouzon’s 1775 An 

Accurate Map of North and South Carolina, showing 

the lower part of the Outer Banks with Portsmouth 

on the south side of Ocracoke Inlet. Ships are shown 

passing through the inlet at Portsmouth. (North 

Carolina Collection, Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill) 

Figure 4. Nautical chart of 1806 shows the inlet's 

bar and shoals in detail. Skilled local pilots were 

required to navigate the channel, which changed 

with tides, time, and storms. “Ocracock [sic] Bar 

including Shell Castle,” A Chart of the coast of North 

Carolina between Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear from 

a Survey Taken in the Year 1806, Thomas Coles and 

Jonathan Price.
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 15

result in differing interpretations. Nevertheless, the 

figures show the healthy growth of the settlement 

and the importance of slaves to the enterprise. The 

white population in 1800 was 165; slaves numbered 

98. The total of 25 families gives an indication of 

the number of houses in the village. By 1810 the 

white population had increased to 226, the slave 

population to 121. 

As expected, the census reveals that over eighty 

percent of workers engaged in some aspect of 

maritime activity.8

 Portsmouth’s life depended on 

the inlet; residents made their living from trade 

through the passage, working as pilots, lighter 

captains, mariners, ship owners. Some were 

customs agents who sailed out to collect duties. 

Others had occupations necessary to support the 

town: teachers, merchants, doctors, and fisherman. 

Supporting all were the slaves, whose labor kept 

the enterprise a success. Slaves were involved 

in most activities of the village. They loaded and 

unloaded cargo, but also operated a dolphin fishery 

and served the critical roles of pilots, who manned 

all types of vessels.9 David Cecelski reports, "At 

Portsmouth Island, slave crews piloted vessels 

through Ocracoke inlet, lightered their cargoes, and 

then guided them to distant seaports of the other 

side of Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds."10

Portsmouth continued to grow, with almost 400 

people by 1830. Two years earlier, Currituck Inlet 

farther north had closed, leaving all shipping 

dependent on Portsmouth’s help at Ocracoke Inlet. 

The community was robust; more than 1,400 vessels 

passed through the inlet in 1836-37.11 Recognizing 

Portsmouth’s importance to commerce, the federal 

government established a customs house there in 

1806, and in 1827 provided for a marine hospital. A 

U.S. post office was established in 1840, and in 1842, 

Congress appropriated funds to buy land and build 

a new marine hospital, which when completed was 

the largest structure ever built in Portsmouth.12

8. Olson, Portsmouth HRS, p. 68. 

9. David E. Whisnant and Anne Mitchell Whisnant, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource Study

(prepared for the Organization of American Historians 

under Cooperative Agreement with the National Park 

Service, Draft, January 14, 2010), pp. 121, 137-138.

10. David Cecelski, The Waterman’s Song: Slavery and 

Freedom in Maritime North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University 

of North Carolina Press, 2001), p. xiii.

11. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth 

Village, Cultural Resources Report, p. 24, cites Stick, The 

Outer Banks, p. 306.

12. Tommy Jones, Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic 

Structure Report (Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Portsmouth is considered today remote and isolated, 

but in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth 

centuries it was a bustling commercial center with 

direct contact with European and Atlantic trade 

and culture, far less isolated than most of North 

Carolina.13 In 1842 the U.S. House Committee on 

Commerce stated, “Ocracoke Inlet is the outlet for 

all commerce of the state of North Carolina, from 

the ports of Newbern [sic], Washington, Plymouth, 

Edenton, and Elizabeth City...more than two thirds 

of the exports of the State of North Carolina pass 

out to sea at this point.”14 

An event four years later would change the shipping 

industry in North Carolina. In 1846, a hurricane 

created an inlet at Hatteras, about twenty miles 

north of the Ocracoke Inlet. This was the undoing 

of Portsmouth. Where Ocracoke Inlet was tricky 

and required lightering, the new Hatteras Inlet 

was deep and navigable. By 1850, Portsmouth’s 

population reached 463—Hatteras had grown to 

661.

Portsmouth depended on its lightering and piloting 

jobs. The 1850 census recorded 27 pilots, 37 

mariners, 7 boat men, 3 fishermen, 5 merchants, 

4 carpenters, 2 farmers, and a teacher with 77 

students.

Portsmouth, with its facilities well established, 

grew in the next ten years to more than 600 and the 

census reported 109 dwellings. This was its peak, 

not only in population but in importance.

The growth of railroads also affected trade, not only 

at Portsmouth but on the ports facing the sound, as 

they strengthened easier north-south travel to the 

port of Wilmington over the east-west trade to the 

sound.15

Portsmouth was still operating as a lightering port 

in 1860 when, during Edmund Ruffin’s visit, he 

explained,

The village of Portsmouth owes its existence 

to the fact of its adjoining the nearest water of 

Pamlico sound, where vessels must anchor and 

wait for fair winds and tides to cross the shallow 

and dangerous bar of Ocracoke inlet—and 

Regional Office, 2006), p. 17.

13. Whisnant, Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic 

Resource Study, pp. 81-82.

14. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth 

Village, Cultural Resources Report, p. 25, cites Stick, Outer 

Banks, pp. 87-88.

15. William S. Powell, North Carolina through Four 

Centuries (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 

1989), pp. 261-63.
16 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

after passing outward, as usual but partly laden, 

to wait to receive the remainder of the cargo, 

carried across the bar by lighters.16 

Ruffin also described the village:

The occupations of the whole resident 

population of Portsmouth are connected with 

the vessels which have to wait here. Pilots, 

and sailors, or owners of vessels, make up the 

greater number of the heads of families and 

adult mails—and the remainder are the few, 

who as shopkeepers, &tc, are necessary to 

minister to the wants of the others.17

Ruffin’s description then became a forecast:

If Ocracoke inlet should be closed by sand 

(which is no improbable event) the village 

of Portsmouth would disappear—or (like 

Nagshead) [sic] remain only for its other use, as 

a summer retreat for transient visitors, sought 

for health and sea-bathing.18

Ruffin’s forecast was timely. The shoals of 

Ocracoke Inlet were spreading into the inlet, no 

longer the easiest access to mainland ports. The 

steady withdrawal of shipping traffic continued and 

Portsmouth lost its strategic importance. Hatteras 

with its favored inlet surpassed Portsmouth.19

The Civil War brought changes to Portsmouth as 

it did throughout the South. Residents fled for the 

mainland as the Union Army advanced down the 

Outer Banks. Many chose not to return; among 

the former slaves and free blacks, only one family 

returned to the island. After the war, the town’s 

decline spiraled. By 1870, the number of houses 

fell from 109 to only 59, and then to 44 in 1880. 

By 1883, the inlet was no longer navigable for 

lightering. Many more left, or turned to fishing as 

occupation.

Other means of livelihood sustained the village. In 

1894 the U.S. established a Life-Saving Station in 

16. Edmund Ruffin, Agricultural, Geological, and 

Descriptive Sketches of Lower North Carolina, and the 

Similar Adjacent Lands. (Raleigh: Printed at the Institution 

for the Deaf & Dumb & the Blind, 1861).

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description 

of the Eight Villages adjoining Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. 

Final Technical Report, Vol. 2 (Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, November 2005), pp. 408-410. 

http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnography/research/docs/

caha_ethno_v2.pdf.

Portsmouth that provided jobs for some residents 

as cooks, surfmen, or mechanics. Others worked 

for the several hunting clubs that opened nearby in 

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

Wealthy northern sportsmen formed clubs near 

the flocks of water fowl that wintered on the warm 

waters of Pamlico Sound. One was the Pilentary 

Club, built by wealthy New Yorkers about ten 

miles from Portsmouth Village and among seven 

similar gun clubs in Carteret County. Despite its 

isolation, the elegant club was visited by prominent 

figures, including Franklin D. Roosevelt while he 

was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The clubs 

provided jobs for both men and women as hunting 

guides, cooks, maids and laundresses.

Hurricanes were a constant threat to Portsmouth. 

The “Great Hurricane of August 1899” brought 

winds that reached 140 miles per hour at Hatteras 

Figure 5. Duck hunter with live decoys near 

Portsmouth, December 1915. (CALO Coll. a33)

Figure 6. FDR travelling by oxcart on a visit to the 

Pilentary Club while Assistant Secretary of the Navy. 

(CALO Coll. a55)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 17

before the anemometer blew away, and submerged 

Portsmouth and Ocracoke under ten feet of 

water in some places.20 The storm destroyed a 

Methodist church. Two churches were destroyed 

in a 1913 storm, though the community was still 

strong enough to support construction of a new 

Methodist Church in 1915-16. 

Many left Portsmouth after the devastation of 

another hurricane in 1933. The last general store 

closed its doors. The force of the hurricane 

opened a new inlet through the Core Banks south 

of Portsmouth, creating an island thereafter called 

Portsmouth Island. Until then, as seen on the old 

maps, Portsmouth had been a town at the north 

end of Core Banks, not its own island.21 

Life on the island in the first half of the twentieth 

century was far different from its prosperous and 

bustling earlier years. Older methods of living 

and housekeeping were rarely updated. Cooking 

stoves were fueled with kerosene for decades after 

electricity was common elsewhere. Heat from the 

stoves dictated summer kitchens, outbuildings 

more typical of the nineteenth and early twentieth 

centuries. Refrigeration was not available, either 

from ice or fuel. Instead, small screened houses, 

known as dairy houses or milk houses but more 

akin to a small compartment, were used for shortterm storage, sheltering the food from the sun 

while welcoming ocean breezes. Electricity from 

generators came late to Portsmouth, after World 

War II, and only to a few houses.

Drinking water was not taken for granted. There 

was only one deep freshwater well on the island, 

and that eventually became brackish. Residents 

depended on rainwater collected from roofs into 

cisterns built adjacent to the houses. These were 

carefully designed and regularly cleaned. Special 

preparations were made before hurricanes to 

prevent infiltration of salt water.22

Years later Ada Roberts Styron visited the island 

and recalled aspects of life there. 

20. Tommy Jones, George Dixon House Historic Structure 

Report (Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2004), p. 10.

21. The inlet later closed, then reopened. Today the sand 

between Portsmouth and the Core Banks is more often 

above water than below.

22. Delores Gaskins interview, April 26, 2014 Homecoming 

(Babb descendant).

"Usually two of our cows would come up 

from the range at night, to nourish their 

penned-up calves and supply us with milk, 

cream and butter. For them we drew 

brackish water from a shallow well. We 

drank rain water from our large juniper 

cistern. There was only one deep well of 

good, fresh drinking water on the island. It 

was on land Up-the-Banks."23 

Essential to the island were provisions from 

Ocracoke across the inlet, and especially from the 

mainland. The mailboat Aleta served multiple 

functions. Officially the ferry to Ocracoke across 

the inlet, it also came out to the inlet to serve 

Portsmouth. In the 1930s, the Aleta made a round 

trip to the mainland every day, leaving Ocracoke 

at 6 am for Atlantic, then leaving the mainland at 

1 pm for a stop at Cedar Island and a second stop 

at Portsmouth. A designated resident took a small 

boat over the shallow waters to meet the mailboat 

and pick up or deliver items. From the Aleta came 

mail, groceries and provisions from general stores 

in Atlantic. It also served as a passenger ferry.

24

In 1937, the Coast Guard's Life-Saving Station 

was closed, further diminishing the town's vitality. 

The population by 1940 dropped to 42 people 

and continued its rapid decline. There were two 

students in the school when it closed in 1943 (Fig. 

10). Families still lived on the island, but their older 

children went to school off the island, probably in 

Ocracoke.25 

23. Ada Roberts Styron recalling 1968 visit to Portsmouth, 

Ocracoke Newsletter, February 21, 2011, http://www.

villagecraftsmen.com/news022111.htm.

24. Charles S. Killebrew, Raleigh News & Observer, February 

1, 1948, quoted in "Doctor's Creek Journal," Summer 2015 

newsletter of Friends of Portsmouth Island, p. 11.

25. Lynn Salsi and Frances Eubanks, The Crystal Coast.

(Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000), p. 90.

Figure 7. The mailboat Aleta. (NPS photo gallery 

website)
18 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

A year later the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 

flooded Portsmouth and caused great damage to 

buildings, causing yet more residents to relocate 

to Ocracoke or to the mainland. Families with 

young children had no choice but to leave.26 The 

Coast Guard reactivated the station during World 

War II, but in 1945 closed the station, taking 

more jobs from the island. The church was next; 

it ended services in 1956. Thereafter, a minister 

26. By 1950 the youngest resident was 28; NPS exhibit at 

Portsmouth Visitor Center (Dixon-Salter House).

from the mainland visited congregants at their 

houses once a month. Finally, the mailboat made 

its last Portsmouth stop in the late 1950s and the 

Portsmouth Post Office closed in 1959. The former 

Life-Saving Station (Coast Guard) was used as a 

lodge by a hunting and fishing club.27

In the 1950s while Portsmouth institutions were 

closing their doors, individuals began buying 

abandoned houses for use as summer cottages, and 

the State of North Carolina began purchasing land 

on Core Banks, including properties in Portsmouth 

Village, for the purpose of preserving the natural 

barrier islands.

When the Cape Lookout National Seashore was 

authorized in 1966, the State of North Carolina 

began acquiring buildings in Portsmouth for 

eventual transfer to the National Park Service. 

Most owners who used the properties seasonally 

sold outright, but the remaining residents were 

granted life estates allowing them to live in their 

houses until their deaths. The state transferred all 

27. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Portsmouth Village 

Cultural Landscape Report, pp. 43-44.

Figure 8. Carl Dixon taking mail from the mailboat to 

the Post Office by wheelbarrow, ca 1930. (CALO c29, 

Aycock Brown Coll.) 

Figure 9. Only three people on Portsmouth owned 

automobiles, among them Walter Styron's 1929 

Chevy shown in 1931 on a barge at Portsmouth, 

heading for Atlantic on the mainland. (CALO a15, 

Sarah Roberts Styron Coll.)

Figure 10. Teacher Mary Dixon with two of her last 

students. (CALO Coll. b04)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 19

properties to the Park Service in 1976 when the 

National Seashore was established.28 

Although Portsmouth houses continued in 

seasonal use, in 1950 only fourteen residents 

remained, and only four were living year-round on 

the island in 1962. Soon there were three, a man 

and two women, all elderly. By the late 1960s, all 

spent their winters at Ocracoke or on the mainland 

but the majority of the year at Portsmouth.29 In 

1970 the man, Henry Pigott, became ill and moved 

to Ocracoke to live with a friend.30 After his death 

in 1971, the women agreed reluctantly to move to 

Beaufort. Those were the island’s last year-round 

residents. Marian Babb retained a lifetime right to 

her house and continued to return to Portsmouth 

in the summers.31

In the 1970s, the Park Service was juggling life 

estates, special use permits, and a court judgment 

for a 25-year lease.32 It began a successful leasing 

program for several Portsmouth houses. The longterm agreements, generally twenty years, required 

leaseholders to maintain and improve the buildings 

following the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards 

for Rehabilitation" and specific conditions of the 

lease, including a requirement for a compost toilet 

if a flush toilet was not installed.33 A typical rental 

amount was about $5,000 per year.34 Some were 

leased to fishermen and many to families with a 

connection to Portsmouth, who used the houses 

for weekends and summer vacations. The program 

was successful for many years in putting the houses 

to use and helping with their maintenance.35 

NPS Planning Efforts

The first planning document for the park that 

addresses Portsmouth is the 1971 Master Plan, 

compiled from studies carried out from the 1966 

28. George J. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study for 

History of Portsmouth Village," typewritten draft, 

September 1970, p. 73.

29. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study,"pp. 70, 72.

30. Rudy and Celestine Carter of Hampton, Virginia, 

interview, April 26, 2014 Homecoming. Pigott was Rudy 

Carter's uncle.

31. Salsi and Eubanks, Crystal Coast, p. 86.

32. Site map, "Special Use Permits," showing categories of 

agreements, June 24, 1976.

33. Ellen Fulcher Cloud interview, April 26, 2014 

Homecoming.

34. For example, the lease of January 3, 1990 made to 

Charles Jackson Gilley and Jacob Eli Fisher, Jr. for the Henry 

Pigott House.

35. Cloud interview, 2014 Homecoming.

authorization of the park to 1970.36 One of the 

studies for the plan was a preliminary Historic 

Resource Study (HRS), produced by NPS historian 

George Olszewski in a 1970 draft "to satisfy the 

research needs specified in the Historical Resource 

Study Proposal CALO-H-1, Historic Resource 

Study, Portsmouth Village." The area's historic 

sites were identified, evaluated, and plotted on an 

historical base map.37 The HRS examined a large 

number of primary documents not previously 

researched, and may be the first academic study of 

the island's history. 

The Study recommended the "theme" that 

should guide the National Seashore's treatment 

of Portsmouth. The village "should be restored 

to accent the cultural and economic life of the 

Bankers. At Portsmouth the story could be 

told of how the people lived, earned their daily 

bread, raised their children and adapted to their 

environment. Economic activity centering around 

Ocracoke Inlet should be emphasized since it 

relates so closely to the life of the Portsmouthers."38

36. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Master Plan, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore (Harkers Island NC: Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, 1971).

37. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study," p. 1.

38. Ibid., p. 77.

Figure 11. View of the village from the Coast Guard 

tower ca 1928, when wild cattle grazed the island. 

(CALO c19, Aycock Brown Coll.)
20 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

The 1971 Master Plan repeated earlier informal 

proposals in focusing on the natural environment. 

It introduces historic resources only generally, 

loosely stating an intention to “restore the 

historical scene” at Portsmouth Village.39

The Park Service did address immediate issues 

at Portsmouth. Vegetation had grown up on the 

island since the 1950s when the state of North 

Carolina outlawed free-range grazing on the Outer 

Banks (Fig. 11). In the following years, trees and 

low vegetation took over much of the open land in 

the village when only a tiny and elderly population 

lived on island. In the late 1970s and early 1980s 

after the Seashore was established, NPS began 

clearing the trees and overgrown brush and began 

an as-needed program of repair to buildings.

In response to requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978, NPS completed a more 

comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) 

in 1982 (printed in 1983).40 The plan reflects 

additional research on Portsmouth, for which a 

National Register nomination had been completed. 

The plan incorporated historic resources planning 

and introduced interpretive themes for the village, 

39. Master Plan,1971, p. 81.

40. General Management Plan / Development Concept 

Plan, 1982-83

mostly taken from Ross Holland’s 1968 Survey 

History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

The GMP was preceded by a draft released in 

August 1978. Work at this time is explained in an 

undated article:

According to its proposed management plan, 

released in August of 1978, the National 

Park Service intends to preserve the exterior 

of the buildings remaining on Portsmouth. 

Work has already started on some of the 

buildings. The Coast Guard Station has been 

reshingled and both the church and the post 

office-general store have been painted. 

The Park Service hopes to provide 

transportation to the island for 150 visitors a 

day. These visitors will receive guided tours 

during the busy season and may go on selfguided tours in the off-season. Also planned 

for the village is a dock, water and sanitation 

facilities, a ranger station, and a maintenance 

area.

According to Portsmouth district ranger 

Kevin Kacer, in The News-Times, a halfmillion dollars has been appropriated by 

Congress for restoration of the buildings over 

the next five years. However, it will be ten 

years before restoration is finished.41

41. Caroline Smith, "Historic Portsmouth,” undated article 

in SHPO files.

Figure 12. Path through the overgrowth to the church. Undated. (CALO Coll. 04847)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 21

The early history of Portsmouth is compelling, and 

is reflected in planning documents as it supersedes 

the more recent history of the town. Economics 

and hurricanes destroyed all eighteenth century 

and all but two nineteenth-century buildings, yet 

the documents do not address an interpretive plan 

for the buildings actually on site. 

In 1982 the park finalized the Historic Resource 

Study on Portsmouth Village, many years in the 

making. The 1970 draft was delayed by the park’s 

work on the 1976 American Bicentennial. When 

picked up again it was revised and updated by three 

other historians before its 1982 publication.42

The park completed a Resources Management 

Plan and Environmental Assessment in 1984 

that more explicitly addresses historic resources. 

This was the first indication of a systematic 

look at cultural resources by the park, mainly 

to comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Its emphasis 

is on preventing deterioration; the plan places 

historic resources as the park’s third priority, 

behind recreation and natural resources. 

Recommendations for cultural resources 

management, focus largely on Portsmouth and the 

42. Olson, Portsmouth HRS, preface.

Cape Lookout Light Station (because both were 

listed in the National Register), the park museum, 

archives, and archaeological sites. 43 Portions of 

this plan apparently were written some years earlier 

and state in one place that Portsmouth was not yet 

listed in the National Register, though the listing 

was effective in 1978.44

The Resources Management Plan recommended 

detailed HSRs, necessary to conduct proper 

stabilization as well as management of rampant 

overgrowth around the buildings of the village. At 

that time, work in the village was unprogrammed 

and reactive, without benefit of historic research 

to guide decisions. No interpretive themes were 

proposed in the plan, but the report recommended 

hiring a full-time park historian.45 

In December 1983, NPS staff led by Rene Cote, 

Southeast Region Historical Architect, inspected 

the buildings of Portsmouth and prepared a 

report in January 1984, its purpose “to establish 

areas of priority which can later be systematically 

43. Resources Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment, (Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1984), 

pp. 8-9, 115-16; the plan includes a chronology of 

archaeological work in the park.

44. Ibid, Archaeological Data Section.

45. Ibid, pp. 162-72, 173-74.

Figure 13. The marsh at Doctor's Creek, looking out to the sound. (JKOA, 2013)
22 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

programmed into budget proposals.” The report 

first recognizes the inalterable geographical 

conditions of Portsmouth that affect its buildings: 

the limited natural horizontal drainage, the 

aggressive marine environment (wind, salt, sun, 

flooding, humidity), the high water table, and the 

saline soil.46 

The geography of the waterways surrounding the 

island was also noted as a preservation issue, their 

shallow channels limiting the size of boats and 

transport of equipment, materials and crews to 

the buildings. The shoaling that contributed to 

Portsmouth's economic decline was now affecting 

its preservation.

After their inspections, Cote and his team 

addressed factors that could be improved. 

• crews (carpenters, painters, roofers) who 

had conducted repairs and maintenance 

were not adequately qualified;

• crews were using incompatible paints on 

structures, applying oil-based primer coat 

and one latex finish coat;

• water was ponding under and around 

structures, and sand buildup had caused 

some structures to sit below grade, leading to 

moisture deterioration and insect infestation;

• these conditions were causing structural 

settlement, in turn restricting the operation 

of windows and doors for interior 

ventilation.

NPS completed Structure Survey forms in the field 

to assess conditions at Portsmouth’s buildings. 

These are dated 1984 in CALO files, but are more 

likely the field notes that Cote’s team made in 

December 1983 to create the January 1984 report 

cited above. 

A management plan completed in 1990 includes 

brief historical information on Portsmouth. A 1997 

plan addresses interpretive themes, not mentioned 

in the 1984 plan, but a repeat of the “sea” theme 

in the General Management Plan. The focus for 

Portsmouth was its early development associated 

with shipping at Ocracoke Inlet. The plan gave 

some emphasis to the need for in-depth historical 

study of Portsmouth's buildings.47 

46. Rene Cote, “Narrative Report on the Findings of 

Historic Structures Examination; Preliminary Test of Historic 

Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 1984.

47. Resources Management Plan, pp. 31, 42, 50. 

In the early and mid-2000s, four Historic Structure 

Reports (HSRs) were completed by Tommy Jones of 

the NPS Southeast Regional Office. These in-depth 

studies of the physical histories of buildings are 

invaluable to the park's decisions for repair.

The park’s first comprehensive study of Portsmouth 

was not until 2007, when the Cultural Landscape 

Report provided a lengthy history of the island and 

specific recommendations. The CLR endorsed the 

finding of the 1978 National Register nomination 

that Portsmouth was over 200 years old, and "the 

only existing village on the Core Banks south of 

Ocracoke Inlet.” It recommended an extension 

of the period of significance to the 1971 end of 

permanent residency.48

In 2010, David and Anne Whisnant submitted their 

excellent draft Historic Resource Study for CALO, 

which includes a comprehensive history of the 

lands within the park, including Portsmouth, and 

recommendations for interpretation.

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan of 2011 

addresses the difficulties of providing adequate 

sanitary facilities for leasing Portsmouth's buildings 

for residential use. Other daytime, administrative 

uses might be found, since such facilities for nonresidential uses may be feasible. Compost toilets can 

be housed in the village's outbuildings with minimal 

impact on historical fabric.

Hurricanes have continued to flood and damage 

Portsmouth's buildings during NPS ownership. 

During Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, the 

village was flooded by storm tides. The Post Office 

received approximately eight inches of water and 

the Portsmouth School lost some windows. The 

Methodist Church was damaged by the heavy 

winds, loosing roof shingles and developing a 

significant structural tilt.49

Documented changes in climate are projected to 

produce larger and more violent storms. Sea levels 

are rising as predicted, and the dangers affecting 

the buildings of Portsmouth Village are expected 

to increase. Faced with these threats, the National 

Park Service (NPS) recognized the need to record 

the buildings of the village. The impact of sea level 

rise is addressed in the Foundation Document of 

2012. Eight properties are extensively documented 

48. Wiss, Janney, Elstner. and John Milner Associates, Inc., 

Cultural Landscape Report, .

49. NPS press release, "Historic Portsmouth Village 

Methodist Church is Damaged by Hurricane Sandy," 

November 16, 2012.
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 23

in HSRs; NPS selected thirteen other building 

complexes to be documented in a new approach to 

create a permanent visual and descriptive record of 

the buildings. The Portsmouth Village Documentation 

Project was completed in August 2015, with thirteen 

stand-alone reports bound in two large volumes.

Portsmouth is celebrated and not forgotten. In 

1992 the first Portsmouth Homecoming was held, 

and has continued to be held in April every other 

year. In 2000, only nine people were living who 

were born on Portsmouth; two of them attended 

the homecoming, including Jesse Lee who was 

reputedly the last baby born on the island.50 

50. Village Craftsman, Ocracoke Newsletter, May 4, 2000.

The 2014 Homecoming was held on April 26. Over 

400 people attended, arriving over several hours 

in small groups as shallow-draft boats made 

the rounds from Ocracoke, Core Banks, and 

Cedar Island. From many states and as far away 

as California, nineteen Portsmouth families 

were represented by their descendants, many 

of whom had spent summers and vacations in 

Portsmouth houses through NPS leases. The 

Homecomings are important to the people 

and beneficial to the village, helping retain an 

attachment to place. Planning for the 2016 

Homecoming is underway.
24 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

MAP OF PORTSMOUTH VILLAGE

OCRACOKE

INLET

N

Map of Portsmouth Village showing location of the Mason-Willis-Dixon House. (CALO base map)
National Park Service 25 

The multiple names used for this house can 

be confusing, and have changed to reflect 

updated research. Over the years, NPS 

documents, reports, tourist information, 

and waysides have used several names for 

the house, including the Dennis MasonDave Willis House (as in the 1978 National 

Register nomination), the Captain Dave 

Willis House, the Willis-Dixon House, the 

Harry Dixon House, and most recently 

the Lida and Harry Dixon House. All refer 

to the structure discussed in this Historic 

Structure Report. The title of this report 

reflects the correct chronological sequence 

of possible and known occupants. The 

State Historic Preservation Office has 

stated its intent to amend the National 

Register nomination accordingly.

The earliest known transaction thought to be 

associated with this property was made on 

November 13, 1894, when Dennis Mason and 

Joseph W. Robinson bought from Thomas S. 

Gaskill "a certain piece of land on the lot of 

Portsmouth Township containing one acre with 

all improvements."51 Whether the improvements, 

meaning one or more structures, included a 

dwelling is not known. Local tradition generally 

holds that Mason built a house on the property, 

though some reports reference his expanding or 

rebuilding.52 Joseph Robinson’s role is unclear.

Dennis Mason was from Hunting Quarters, 

married Jenette in 1892, and by 1894 was living on 

Portsmouth as a fisherman. Deeds from 1880 to 

1916 show that he owned several parcels on the 

island.53 Whether he and his family lived on this 

property full time or on another of his holdings is 

51. Deed book SS/414, recorded 6 July 1895.

52. Lionel Gilgo, interviewed in 1981 and 1982 by Sadie 

Roberts Styron.

53. Jenette's maiden name unknown. “Portsmouth Village 

Structure #3, Dennis Mason House/Dave Willis House,” 

research compiled by CALO ranger Karen Duggan, ca. 2006. 

undocumented, but he sold it in 1897, and by the 

1900 census had moved his family back to Hunting 

Quarters.54 

The 1897 sale was made by Mason, his wife Jenette, 

and Joseph W. Robinson, selling the property to 

Ferdinand G. Terrell.55 Terrell was keeper of the 

Portsmouth Life-Saving Station (LSS), who began 

there in 1894 when the station was established, 

but with no crew. A few months later he quickly 

raised a volunteer crew to go to the rescue of the 

Richard S. Spofford. Dennis Mason was one of 

the volunteers and remained to serve as hired crew 

until 1901. As a surfman, Mason was required 

when on duty to stay at the station, while his 

family was living on Cedar Island. This may have 

precipitated the sale.56

54. Duggan research.

55. Deed Book TT/528.

56. Eleanor Lopes Akahloun, The Magic of Dreams: an 

American Diplomat’s Journey (Xlibris, 2014). Co-purchaser 

Joseph W. Robinson is on the 1895 crew list.

I.B Chronology of Development 

and Use

Figure 14. Aerial looking south across Portsmouth 

Village. House is at the left, circled, and shown on 

map on preceding page. (CALO Coll. c09)
26 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

Terrell’s purchase of “one acre more or less” was 

made on February 15, 1897 for $65. On September 

6 of the same year he sold the property to Missouri 

Willis, also for $65.57 Though the 1897 deeds do 

not mention improvements, it seems likely a house 

was there. In an interviews made in the 1980s with 

former Portsmouth residents, the first dwelling 

remembered on this site was a small three-room 

house without a porch, apparently called a 

“straight” house, one room deep and three wide, 

consisting of a living room, kitchen and bedroom 

"all straight across."58

An early, though undated photograph provides 

valuable information about the house on the 

property in the latter years of Willis ownership 

(Fig. 15). It shows a one-story, side-gabled house 

with an attached front porch, probably shed-roofed 

57. Deed Book UU/303.

58. Lionel Gilgo and wife Ethel Gilgo, interviewed July 7, 

1982 by William Mansfield.

but possibly hipped. A single window is visible in 

the west front bay. The location of the front stair 

railings suggests a central door. At the west gable 

just behind the ridge is an exterior end chimney 

with simple corbelling.

Attached at the west and incorporating the 

chimney is a lower, one-story gable wing, its 

front set back from the main block. The front of 

the wing, though small, is three bays wide with a 

central door flanked by a single window in each 

bay. The house was said to be red or brownish in 

color.59 In front of the house is a picket fence and 

perhaps a wire-covered frame. This was the house 

Harry Dixon was to remake in the 1920s.

The Willis Families 

Missouri W. Rollinson Willis (1854-1931) moved 

to Portsmouth in September 1896 from Hatteras, 

59. Harry Dixon’s niece Marian Gray Babb, interviewed July 

26, 1978 by Nancy Goodwin.

Figure 15. Undated photograph showing the house before the changes of the 1920s. An attached porch fronts 

the main block, and the west wing is in place. Land to the west is vacant where houses would be added in the 

1930s. (Dorothy Byrum Bedwell Coll.)
National Park Service 27

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

where her husband Charles Willis (ca. 1848-1921) 

was a sailor and pilot.60 When they moved to this 

property is not known, but the 1900 census lists 

the family occupants. In addition to Missouri were 

her recently married daughter Lena and husband 

Henry Davis Goodwin (1872-1948) of Cedar 

Island. Goodwin rented the house from Missouri, 

then about 45 years old. Boarding in the house was 

Missouri’s son, George Howard, age 20, single and 

working on board ships. In a rented house next 

door lived the Willis’s 25-year-old son, William 

Tice Willis, who by 1900 had two young sons and 

worked as an LSS crew member (he later became 

LSS keeper). Missouri’s husband Charles is not 

listed on that census, and although Missouri is 

listed as a widow, Charles apparently did not die 

until 1921. He may have moved away.61 

Missouri Willis and her household moved away 

before the 1910 census data was collected, the 

sons down island to the Drum Inlet area, Lena and 

her family to Morehead City, and Missouri to an 

unknown location. Again, Charles Willis is not 

listed, but his younger brother David is listed and 

noted as the owner. 

How or when David Willis became owner of 

his sister-in-law’s property is unclear; no deed 

is recorded. Portsmouth was typical of isolated 

communities, especially coastal and mountain 

communities, in omitting or delaying the recording 

of deeds at the county courthouse. 

What is known is that David S. Willis (1853-1910) 

was the son of Thomas Grace Willis and Ellen 

Willis. In 1875 he married Emma R. Peel (1856-

1895), the wedding apparently held in his brother 

Charles’s house in Hatteras.62 The couple lived in 

Hatteras where David was a fisherman; however, 

after Emma’s death in 1895, he moved with his 

children, daughters Sidney (20) and Mahala (12) 

and son Milan (17), to a house near Sheep Island 

just south of Portsmouth Village. Although the 

1900 census shows that he owned the Sheep Island 

house, no deed is recorded for its purchase or for 

its later disposal when they moved to the village.63 

60. Portsmouth online genealogy compiled by Karen 

Duggan, http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.

cgi?op=SRCH&db=portsmouth_nc&surname.

61. Duggan research, 2006, and Ancestry.com http://

records.ancestry.com/lena_wallace_willis_records.

ashx?pid=32815656.

62. Portsmouth online genealogy.

63. Duggan research.

Willis is also known to have owned a freight boat 

named the Virginia Dare. With son Milan serving 

as mate, he carried freight and occasionally 

passengers between Portsmouth, Ocracoke and 

Washington, NC.64 He is frequently referred to in 

1970s and ‘80s interviews as Captain Dave or Mr. 

Dave, and in an interview, was described as “old 

Mr. Dave Willis, a handsome Hatteras import.”65

David Willis died in September 1910 a few months 

after the census was taken. Although no will is 

recorded, it is likely that the daughters retained the 

house as neither was yet married. Milan, who had 

left his father’s household after marrying in 1905, 

may have inherited the Virginia Dare (Fig. 16).66 

Daughter Mahala (also found as Mahaley, Mahalie) 

married Joseph Roberts in 1913, and by the 1920 

census was living in a different house. Sydney 

never married, dying of typhoid fever in June 1918. 

64. Ibid.

65. “1911 Wedding on Portsmouth Island,” Ocracoke 

Newsletter, February 21, 2011, www.villagecraftsman.com.

66. Milan married Vera Gilgo in July, and in October bought 

a house in Portsmouth’s “middle community” from his 

cousin George T. Parsons.

Figure 16. Milan Willis, undated. (CALO Coll. b43)
28 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

However, she left the first known record of her 

father’s ownership: before her death she signed 

an undated receipt acknowledging $35.00 paid by 

Mrs. Harry Dixon for “the house.”67 Mrs. Dixon 

was Lida Woolard, who had married Harry Dixon 

in June 1914, placing the sale between then and 

Sydney’s 1918 death.68 Lida and Harry would 

create the house we see today.

Lida Woolard (September 18, 1888-July 26, 1961) 

was the daughter of Edward Stanly Woolard and 

Beulah Bragg Woolard. Her mother, who died 

when Lida was a child, was from Portsmouth, but 

Lida did not grow up there. She was living in New 

Bern in 1900, and in Norfolk, Virginia in 1914.69 In 

June 1914 she married Harry Dixon in Portsmouth.

Another family may have lived in the house after 

Dave Willis’s family and before the Dixons. Ben 

and Victoria O’Neal are said to have rented the 

house in the 1910s, though between census years 

67. Ben Salter, interviewed January 10, 1978 by unspecified 

interviewer, and Duggan research. A copy of the receipt 

is in CALO files. Sydney’s 1918 death may account for the 

1917/1918 date reported in some histories for the sale.

68. Although Lida paid $45 in taxes in 1915, the amount 

suggests it was for a different property.

69. 1900 census and 1914 marriage certificate.

it is difficult to verify their location. Available 

records and family history show an Isaac Willis 

O’Neal serving as a Portsmouth surfman from 

1911 through 1914, but not Ben O’Neal. However, 

a Benjamin Gaskill O'Neal served in Ocracoke as a 

Coast Guard surfman in 1917.70

Lida and Harry Dixon

Whether following the Willis family or the O’Neals, 

the 1920 census shows Harry Dixon, his wife Lida, 

known as Lydie, and daughter Mildred living in 

the house. The census lists Harry Dixon as owner, 

although as indicated above, the payment receipt 

for the house is in Lida’s name, and no deed from 

that time is recorded. This situation apparently was 

recognized and corrected in 1930, when Milan 

Willis, brother of Sydney and Mahala, recorded a 

deed to Harry Dixon for $30.00. This deed finally 

gives the Dixons clear title to “the same lot or 

parcel of land owned by the father [David Willis].... 

70. Earl W. O’Neal, Jr. “Life Saving Service on Ocracoke 

Island,” cites records and a family memoir. http://files.

usgwarchives.net/nc/hyde/misc/lifesave.txt.

Figure 17. Harry Dixon at about age 18. (CALO 

Coll. a47)

Figure 18. Vertical-board siding of the exterior of 

the original main block, covered when the west 

wing was brought up and attached. Shown is a 

door cut into the siding to lead from attic of wing 

to attic of main block. (2014 photograph)
National Park Service 29

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

at the time of his death.” The reason for the afterthe-fact transaction is made clear: “The purpose 

and intent of this instrument is to vest in the 

grantee named full and indefeasible title to and in 

the dwelling house upon described premises ...”71 

By this time the Dixons had not only lived in the 

house for at least a decade, but had completed a 

major remodeling. 

Harry Needham Dixon (September 10, 

1889-September 27, 1931) was the second child 

of George and Patsy Dixon (Fig. 17). He, his 

brother and three sisters grew up in Portsmouth 

Village in their parents’ house, and all of their 

houses still stand in Portsmouth Village.72 Both 

Dixon sons grew up as fishermen, but both were 

also carpenters, Harry noted for his boat-building 

ability. A longtime resident remembered Harry as a 

child:

Harry...would take the barrel stays out of 

a flour barrel, take um and bend um and fix 

um .... Then he’d go round the island and 

bum a old clock from someone. He’d take 

71. Duggan research; deed of June 18, 1930. The nickname 

Lydie is from a 1985 interview with Elizabeth Howard and 

Harry’s niece Marian Babb.

72. Duggan research; Jones, George Dixon House HSR, 

2004; Community Cemetery gravestone.

the works out of um and put in the stern of 

that boat. That’s where he leaned to build 

um. People would come from near and far 

to watch em play and run up and down the 

ditch with his boats.73

As an adult Harry Dixon worked as a house 

carpenter. He helped build the Styron-Bragg 

House with owners Jodie Styron and Tom Bragg, 

one of the few two-story houses on the island, a 

consciously-designed house built in a Craftsmanlike style.74 That project may have inspired Dixon 

to update his own residence, for in 1928 he made 

major alterations to the former Willis family house 

to create a design new in appearance.

The photograph of the house before Dixon’s 

remodeling and several taken after completion 

help to determine the history of the house, but 

are most valuable when coupled with physical 

investigation of the building. We know from the 

early photograph (Fig. 15) that the west wing was 

in place before Dixon’s changes. Measurements 

and inspection of construction materials and 

techniques suggest that the wing is an early 

structure, brought up and attached after the initial 

main block was built. The method of attachment 

and the vertical-board siding of the main block’s 

original exterior are visible in the attic of the wing 

(Fig. 18). 

Though not visible in the early photograph, a 

second wing extending north from the back of 

the house is also an early structure, of a similar 

period as the west wing and maybe older. It retains 

Victorian trim on doors and windows typical of the 

late nineteenth or very early twentieth century (Fig. 

19). Structural evidence indicates that it too was 

attached after the initial main block was built and 

before Dixon’s project.

Harry Dixon’s changes gave the appearance that 

the interior of the house was expanded and a 

second story added, but in fact he added only two 

small spaces at the back. He retained the existing 

roofs, but above the main roof he built a new roof 

structure that extended out beyond the old on all 

sides. At the front he added a dormer, though it lit 

only an unfinished attic. He removed the attached 

73. Mattie Daly Gilgo, 1970s interview, in Ellen Fulcher 

Cloud, Portsmouth the Way it Was, Island History, Volume III 

(Havelock, NC: Print Shop, 1996), p. 151.

74. NPS Portsmouth brochure.

Figure 19. Doorway from north wing to added 

northeast entrance room, now a storage room. 

Originally an exterior doorway, it retains the 

Victorian trim found in the wing. (2013 photograph)
30 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

front porch and built in its place an engaged porch, 

formed by extending the south slope of the roof at 

the proper angle to cover the porch. 

To give the appearance of a symmetrical roof, 

he built a new, longer back slope above the old, 

extending it north several feet beyond the existing 

back wall of the main block. A photograph taken 

in 1979 during repairs shows the Willis roof visible 

beneath Dixon’s new rear roof (Fig. 20). The Willis 

roof ended at the former rear wall; Dixon’s higher 

roof extended to the back wall of the new lattice 

room (west) and the new entrance room (east, now 

the storage room). 

The new rear section of roofing created two 

new corner spaces, one an entrance area, today’s 

storage room, the other the lattice room. The 

former rear wall of the main block had a central 

door flanked by single windows. Dixon retained 

the windows, which no longer opened to the 

exterior, but overlooked the two new spaces. In the 

northeast entrance room he created a new outside 

entrance to the house. Access from that new room 

Figure 20. 1979 view showing the rear slope of the Willis roof beneath the higher, longer slope of Harry 

Dixon’s new roof, and the lattice room beneath. The sistered rafters are part of the 1979 repairs. (CALO 

Polaroid album)

Figure 21. A lattice vegetable house in western North 

Carolina with exterior door and no access to its 

associated building.
National Park Service 31

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

Harry Dixon’s changes would have been dramatic 

among the island vernacular of most Portsmouth 

buildings. The new engaged porch extension of 

the front roofline was supported by tapered box 

columns, one at each side of the steps and tripled 

at the corners, set on brick piers with cast-in-place 

concrete caps. He surrounded the porch with 

picket balustrades and built new concrete steps, 

flanked by stepped brick cheek walls, also with 

concrete caps (Figs. 22-23). 

In front of the recessed west wing, used as the 

kitchen, he built a large open deck, connecting to 

the porch and extending south to meet its front 

line (Figs. 22, 24). The piers, railings, steps, and 

cheek walls of the porch were repeated at the front 

of the deck, centered on the wing’s front door. At 

the doorway he built a one-bay gable-with-arch 

portico supported by full-height square posts. The 

deck is called the kitchen porch on the label of a 

Dixon photograph (Fig. 24).

to the rest of the house was through the existing 

exterior door to the north wing, which had been 

the back door to the house. 

At the northwest corner, Dixon left the 

corresponding window in place looking into 

the lattice room. There is no physical evidence 

of a doorway from the lattice room to the north 

wing; it was accessed only by an exterior door, 

also of lattice. This room may have been built 

as a vegetable or cooling house, its location in a 

northern corner shading it from harsh sunlight 

(Fig. 21).

The new eaves at front and rear were deep, in the 

Craftsman style. Dixon also extended the sides 

of the new roof to create deep eaves, and added 

false knee braces to ornament the gable ends. 

The new eave extension at the chimney is evident 

in comparison with the early Willis photograph 

(Fig. 15).

Figure 22. Undated photograph of Tom Bragg on the steps of the Dixon House, showing the 1928 changes 

to the front of the house, including the dormer, engaged porch roof, porch posts on piers, railings, paired 

windows, vertical-glazed doors and sash, west portico and deck, steps and cheek walls. This view of the exterior 

end chimney illustrates the depth of the newly extended eaves. (CALO f75, Linda Robertson Hudson Coll.)
32 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

Beneath the front porch, Dixon replaced the 

earlier single windows flanking the front door with 

paired windows typical of the Craftsman style, and 

installed sash of a three-vertical-pane-over-onelight configuration. He also installed a new door 

with vertical-pane glazing (Figs. 22-23). In the 

wider front windows of the west wing he installed 

similar sash, but with four vertical panes, and a 

similar front door. The Dixon photograph shows 

that the same sash were installed in the west-facing 

window of the main block (Fig. 24). Though 

undocumented, it is likely that he also replaced 

the sash of the east side windows of the house, 

consistent with the extent of his remodeling. 

Dixon applied new weatherboard siding directly 

over the existing vertical-board siding of the house. 

The sweeping changes made by Harry Dixon in 

1928 help explain later descriptions of the project. 

Lionel Gilgo remembered in the 1980s that Dixon 

built a new house “right over the [old house] and 

then tore the one out of the inside and finished the 

inside of this one.” Dixon did make changes almost 

all around the house, including roof extensions, 

windows, porch and ornamentation. Fifty years 

after the project, Dixon’s niece Marian Gray Babb, 

who was six years old in 1928 when the changes 

ere made, recalled that he added a second story 

and two more bedrooms, perhaps interpreting the 

dormer as an upper living space.75 

75. Lionel and Mrs. Gilgo interview, quoted in Duggan 

research. Marian Gray Babb, interviewed July 26, 1978 by 

Figure 23. Undated view showing details of the porch. 

(CALO Coll. b120)

Figure 24. Lida Dixon & Rita Woolard on "kitchen 

porch," showing the vertical-light sash in the west 

window of the main block, the new sash and door of 

the west wing, and the screen door opening to the 

interior, a distinctive Portsmouth feature. (undated, 

CALO f74, Linda Robertson Hudson Coll.)

Figure 25. Undated photograph of the property showing a cool house just west of the kitchen wing and a 

hipped-roof outbuilding to the east. (CALO Coll. b122)
National Park Service 33

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

Harry Dixon was remembered as "all the time 

fixing up,” but enjoyed his new house for only a 

short time. He died of heart disease on September 

25, 1931.76

Lida Dixon inherited the house after her husband’s 

death, and she and daughter Mildred continued to 

live there. In the mid-1930s the house was painted 

pink after another islander, Henry Pigott, ordered 

paint from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue only 

to have pink paint arrive. “He didn’t want to ship it 

back, so he painted his house pink.” Lida is said to 

have used the extra paint for her house.77

Mildred married Winford Lee Robertson, a Coast 

Guardsman stationed in Portsmouth in the late 

1930s and early 1940s.78 The couple moved to 

Morehead City. Because they both worked, their 

son Jakie, born in 1943, lived with his grandmother 

Lida at Portsmouth until about 1950 when he 

was seven. Several photographs of Jakie from 

Nancy Goodwin. 

76. Mattie Gilgo, 1970s interview, in Cloud, Portsmouth the 

Way it Was, Vol. III, pp. 156-58.

77. Frances A. Eubanks and Lynn S. Salsi, Portsmouth island, 

Outer Banks Treasure (Columbia, SC: Montville Press, 2004), 

p. 102.

78. Obituary of Jakie Douglas Robertson, http://www.

findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=59867204. 

Duggan research; Portsmouth online genealogy.

Figure 26. Young Jakie Robertson with his firetruck, 

ca. 1947. (CALO Coll. 119)

Figure 27. Young Jakie Robertson in front of the 

house, ca. 1947. (CALO Coll. 121)

this period show the house (Figs. 26-27). The 

Robertsons then moved to Missouri.79 Lida Dixon 

remained in the house until the late 1950s when 

she moved to a nursing home in Wilson. She died 

on July 26, 1961. 

In the CALO photograph collection is an image 

of the house perhaps taken in the early 1950s (Fig. 

28).

80 Although the photograph is black-andwhite, it is clear that the siding is painted a darker 

color than the white trim, presumably the pink 

that was used from the 1930s on and remained on 

the building in 1977. Sash are painted a dark color, 

and the trellis, foundation lattice, and low fence 

remain. 

The year after her mother’s death, Mildred, still 

living in Missouri, sold the property to attorney 

Charles D. Carrington and his wife Jeanne B. 

Carrington of Roanoke, Virginia for use as a 

vacation residence. The property sold on March 

30, 1962 for $10.00, probably a stand-in amount 

that does not reflect the actual sale price.81

79. Jakie Robertson, interviewed July 31, 1985 by Connie 

Mason, tells of the firetruck given him by his uncle Robert 

Woolard, Lida's brother, who was the fire chief in Norfolk.

80. The slide is mislabeled October 1984 in the CALO slide 

index.

81. Duggan research.
34 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

The Carringtons and Yorks

The Carringtons may have found the house in need 

of repair. Lida Dixon, living alone since 1950 and 

sick in the late 1950s, may have been unable to 

keep up with maintenance, and the house had been 

through its share of storms. It was vacant before 

the 1962 sale. 

It is likely the Carringtons who, as a part of their 

repairs, replaced almost all of the 1928 Craftsman 

windows with six-over-six sash (Figs. 29-30). 

The exceptions are the two pairs of vertical-sash 

windows at the front and the front door. Their 

location under cover of the front porch would 

have left them in better condition than exposed 

sash, probably explaining their retention. The 

unprotected front windows of the west wing, as 

well as its door, were replaced (Figs. 29, 31). Of 

note is the two-over-two window, perhaps original, 

remaining on the back of the west wing. This was 

retained both by Harry Dixon in the 1920s and by 

the Carringtons in the 1960s, and remains today, 

presumably because it was the back of the house.

In July 1966 the Carringtons sold the property to 

Harris W. York and her husband Marion Franklin 

“Frank” York (1932-2010), of Liberty, Randolph 

County, NC, who also used it as a vacation 

residence.82 The purchase price was $1,200.00. 

While the true price of the 1962 transaction is not 

known, it would seem that the 1966 value would 

be affected by knowledge that the state was buying 

properties to include in the recently authorized 

national seashore, and on January 29, 1969 the 

State of North Carolina bought the property from 

the Yorks for $10.00. Again, this is probably a 

stand-in amount. 

Under the state's leasing program, the property 

was then leased to a series of individuals for use as 

a summer or fishing/hunting house. Leaseholders 

listed in CALO files include Billy Ipoc (Beaufort), 

Van Landingham (Ocracoke), Elmer Dewey Willis 

(Williston) and Vaughn Yeoman (Morehead City).83

82. MFY obituary and brother’s obituary, Greensboro News 

and Record, March 18, 2010 and December 1, 2013.

83. Duggan research.

Figure 28. Undated photograph, perhaps early 1950s. (CALO acc. 05056)
National Park Service 35

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service

In 1976 when the National Seashore was 

established, the state transferred the acquired 

properties to the National Park Service, including 

this house and other buildings in the village. This 

house was selected to be the district ranger’s 

residence. 

A group of photographs taken in 1977 shows the 

house, still painted pink, before the Park Service 

began its repairs, a baseline for their future work 

(Figs. 29-31). Most features of the house are 

unchanged from the photographs taken during the 

Dixons’ time there. It retains its Craftsman form of 

roofline with deep eaves and front dormer, as well 

as the piers and posts of the porch and west deck. 

Railings front the outer bays of both the porch and 

deck, and a two-section stepped railing is at the 

west end of the deck, divided by a square capped 

wood post. The most notable changes from the 

Dixon photographs are the replacement west door 

and the six-over-six sash that replaced the vertical 

Figure 29. Condition of the house in 1977, also showing the 1960s replacement doors, the 1960s replacement 

six-over-six sash of the west wing, and the retained Craftsmen-style vertical-pane sash beneath the front porch. 

(CALO acc. 03355)

sash in the west wing, all probably installed by the 

Carringtons in the 1960s.

Work on the house began in 1979. An NPS album 

of Polaroid photographs shows the features and 

condition of the house at that time and some of 

the work underway. Like many in Portsmouth, the 

house suffered from severe termite damage (Figs. 

32-34). 

In June and July, an NPS crew replaced most wood 

features of the porch and deck, which suffered 

from the more extensive rot and termite damage 

(Figs. 32-36). The subframe of both was replaced 

and new floorboards installed. The rafters of Harry 

Dixon’s engaged roof extension were replaced, 

and a new ceiling installed. Also replaced were 

the two center box columns and all arches, which 

photographs show were severely damaged by 

termites. The 1928 tripled corner posts were able 

to be retained, and the posts and portions of the 

west portico were also replaced. Some railings 

were reused and most others replaced, and 
36 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

the two-part west railing was rebuilt as a single 

section. The railings apparently continued to cause 

problems, as they are seen down or removed in 

later photographs, including 1980 and 2002.

General repairs and replacement were necessary 

in other areas of the house, including rafters 

mainly at the rear of the house and deteriorated 

weatherboards, generally the lower boards 

damaged by splash from roof runoff. The 1928 sash 

beneath the porch, the two-over-two rear window, 

and the 1960s sash were all retained, as well as both 

front doors. The rear board door was replaced. 

Figure 30. Condition of roof and porch, missing fascia, 

1977. (CALO Coll. f79)

Figure 31. West wing and stepped railing in 1977. 

(CALO Coll. f80)

Figure 32. Termites in sill, 1979. (CALO Polaroid album)

Figure 33. Preparing to replace kitchen deck, 1979. 

(blurry in CALO Polaroid album) 

Figure 34. Damage in arches, 1979. (CALO Polaroid 

album)
National Park Service 37

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

In August 1979 the roof was replaced, and by 

December the house, which had remained pink 

since the mid-1930s, was painted yellow (Fig. 37). 

Interior work is less documented, but a kitchen was 

installed in the west wing, and bathroom facilities 

installed behind the east bedroom. 

During this time, architect John L. Thompson 

produced sketch plans and elevations of this house 

and others in the village. However, their use is 

limited as the proportions and several features are 

inaccurate.

Two outbuildings remained on the site in 1979, 

when the National Register nomination refers to 

a “privy and collapsed shed” behind the house 

(Figs. 38-40).84 In July 1980 the board-and-batten 

gable shed was disassembled and a new structural 

frame and roof built. Usable early siding was 

reinstalled, supplemented by new. A louvered vent 

was introduced into the upper gable end to add 

ventilation to the building (Figs. 41-43).

In 1981 the house was fully wrapped and fumigated 

to combat infestation of insects (Fig. 44). 

84. National Register nomination, p. 7-2.

Figure 35. Replacing porch roof framing, 1979. (CALO 

Polaroid album)

Figure 36. Replacing porch roof, arches, posts, 1979. (CALO Polaroid album)
38 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

Figure 37. Aerial view of house (circled at upper right) taken August 1979 while reroofing was underway. House 

retains the Dixons' pink paint. (CALO acc. 00242)

Figure 38. Privy photographed in 1980, no longer 

extant.

Figure 39. Front and west side of shed before work, 

1979. (CALO coll. f289)

Figure 40. East side of shed before work, 1979. (CALO 

Coll. f290)
National Park Service 39

PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

Figure 42. East side rebuilt shed, 1983. (CALO Coll. 

f294)

Figure 41. Reconstructed frame for rebuilt shed, 1980. 

(CALO Polaroid album)

Repairs were made over the years as the house 

continued as the ranger’s residence and station. An 

NPS “Historic Building Survey” of Portsmouth’s 

buildings was made in 1984, with an NPS 

crew taking notes on the condition of building 

components. The form for this house identifies 

its utilities: propane tanks for heat and cooking, 

a grounded 12-circuit electric panel, septic tank, 

shallow well and surface water (cistern), and a 

park radio phone. The survey also identified 

deterioration to the wood pilings due to dampness, 

and insects in the foundation sill, though the 

building was said to benefit from regular use. 

Most recommendations centered on the need for 

improved drainage of the site. The porch and deck 

were replaced in July & August 1987. 

In the 1990s the house was used as housing for the 

Volunteer In Park (VIP) program, taking advantage 

of its kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. This 

practice stopped in 1996 due to problems with the 

septic system at the house, and volunteers were 

moved to the LSS. Many other Portsmouth houses 

benefited from the NPS lease program, which 

was designed in part as a means to maintain the 

buildings and to continue the life of the village. 

The ranger quarters was not offered for lease, and 

Figure 43. Rebuilt shed with louvered vent in gable 

end, photographed 1983. (CALO Coll. f295)

Figure 44. West wing and deck piers wrapped for 

fumigation project, July 1981. Ranger station sign in 

front of house. (CALO acc. 05537)
40 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

in 1996 was reported to be “in serious need of a 

friend.”85 

In 2005 a NPS crew spent two years of 

concentrated work repairing the buildings of 

Portsmouth. The next year an NPS survey assessed 

the house in good condition. Photographs allow 

a comparison of the condition in 1977 and thirty 

years later (Figs. 45-46). In contrast, by 2007 the 

shed was noted in the 2007 Cultural Landscape 

Report as being dilapidated and in need of repair, 

with large portions of the siding missing.86 Later 

that year the shed was rebuilt. Ricky Daniels 

of Cedar Island signed the interior west wall, 

documenting that he “rebuilt this old shack.”

85. Cloud, Portsmouth the Way it Was, Vol. III, preface.

86. Survey for List of Classified Structures (LCS).

Figure 45. Front and east elevations in 1977. Privy is 

visible in the background. (CALO Coll. f83)

Figure 46. Front and east elevations in 2007. (NPS List 

of Classified Structures [LCS])

Figure 47. The house in use as the ranger station and 

ranger’s residence with identifying sign in front. It 

would later serve as housing for the Volunteer in 

Park (VIP) program. Undated. (CALO Coll. f109)

Figure 48. Ricky Daniels documented his work on the 

shed as he "rebuilt this old shack," August 2007.
TIMELINE

National Park Service 41

Timeline

1753 Portsmouth established by bill “appointing and laying out a Town on Core Banks, near 

Ocacock [sic] Inlet, in Carteret County” passes in the North Carolina colonial assembly. 

1756 First lots in Portsmouth Village are sold.

1770s 1770, Collet map of North Carolina shows Portsmouth and winding channel of inlet.

 1775, Mouzon map depicts Portsmouth. 

1800 White population 165, slaves 98.

1806 Customs Office established. Coles and Price map shows windmill and two-story 

“academy” at Portsmouth.

1810 White population 226, slaves 121.

1820s 1827, Marine Hospital authorized.

 1828, Currituck Inlet closes, sending more shipping to Portsmouth.

1836-37 1,400 vessels pass through Ocracoke Inlet.

1842 U.S. House Committee on Commerce states “Ocracoke Inlet is the outlet for all commerce 

of the state of North Carolina, from the ports of Newbern [sic], Washington, Plymouth, 

Edenton, and Elizabeth City...more than two thirds of the exports of the State of North 

Carolina pass out to sea at this point.”

1842 Congress appropriates funds for new Marine Hospital.

1846 Storms create an inlet at Hatteras. The new, deeper inlet draws trade from Ocracoke Inlet 

and Portsmouth.

1850 Portsmouth population is 463; Hatteras has grown to 661.

1852 Coast Survey of Ocracoke Inlet shows two churches at Portsmouth.

1860 Population is over 600 residents with 109 dwellings.

1870 Census records 59 dwellings.

1880 Census records 44 dwellings.

1883 Ocracoke Inlet no longer navigable for lightering.

1894 Portsmouth Life-Saving Station (LSS) is established.

1894 Dennis Mason and Joseph W. Robinson purchase the land “with all improvements.” 

1897 Feb Keeper Ferdinand G. Terrell purchases from crewmember Mason.
42 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

1897 Sept Missouri Rollinson Willis purchases the property.

1899 Great Hurricane of August 1899, the San Ciriacio Hurricane, submerges Portsmouth and 

destroys many buildings.

1900 Missouri Willis lives in the house with her son and her daughter and son-in-law, who is 

renting from Missouri. 

1901 New Methodist church is built.

1905 Emma Willis, David Willis’s wife, dies.

1910 Census shows David Willis and two daughters living in the house; he is shown as owner.

1910 David Willis dies.

1910s O’Neal family possibly rents the house.

1913 Hurricane destroys the island’s two churches.

1914 Harry and Lida Dixon are married.

1915-16 Current Methodist church is built.

1914-18 Lida Dixon purchases the property from Sydney Willis, daughter of David Willis. Undated 

receipt.

1920 Census shows Harry Dixon and family living in the house.

1928 Harry Dixon, wife of Lida, “rebuilds” the house in a popular style.

1930 Deed made to Harry Dixon from Milan Willis, son of David Willis. Stated purpose is to 

document clear title to the property.

1931 Harry Dixon dies, leaving house to wife Lida Dixon.

1933 Damage from major hurricane causes many families to relocate to the mainland. New inlet 

opens through Core Banks south of Portsmouth, creating Portsmouth Island. 

1937-38 Coast Guard Station is deactivated.

1940 Census lists 42 residents.

1943 School closes.

1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane brings major flooding and damage to Portsmouth; many 

residents leave for the mainland. 

1946 Coast Guard Station closes.

1956 Regular church services are discontinued; 56 permanent residents at Portsmouth, the 

youngest is 59. 

1959 Post Office closes. 

1960 Census lists 14 residents on Portsmouth; only 4 permanent residents reported in 1962. 

Many buildings now used as vacation houses or hunting and fishing clubs. 
TIMELINE

National Park Service 43

1961 Lida Dixon dies, leaving house to daughter Mildred R. Robertson.

1962 Four permanent residents reported on Portsmouth. Many buildings now used as vacation 

houses or hunting and fishing clubs. Roanoke attorney Charles D. Carrington and wife 

Jeanne B. Carrington purchase and repair the Dixon house as vacation residence; likely 

replace most Craftsman-style sash with 6/6 sash. 

1966 Cape Lookout National Seashore authorized. State of NC begins purchases.

1966 Carringtons sell to Harris W. York and husband M. Franklin York of Liberty, NC for use as 

vacation residence. 

1968 Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore is prepared.

1969 Yorks sell to State of North Carolina for future national seashore. State begins leasing this 

and other Portsmouth properties to individuals for vacation residences.

1970 Draft Historic Resource Study of Portsmouth.

1971 One of the three remaining residents dies; the others leave. Portsmouth now houses only 

seasonal visitors.

1971 Master Plan focuses on the natural environment, suggests “restor[ing] the historical scene” 

at Portsmouth.

1970s NPS begins clearing overgrowth.

1976 Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) is established; state transfers properties 

including those on Portsmouth.

1979 NPS begins renovations of the house for use as district ranger’s residence, finding 

significant termite damage. June-July, NPS crew replaces most wooden elements of porch 

and deck.

1979 August, roof replaced. By December, house painted yellow.

1979 Portsmouth Village Historic District listed in National Register of Historic Places. 

1979-80 Architect John L. Thompson produces sketch plans and elevations of the house, though 

with inaccuracies.

1980 Privy deteriorated but still standing. Shed is rebuilt, reusing sections of early siding.

1981 July, house wrapped and fumigated. 

1982 Historic Resource Study of Portsmouth is finalized.

1982-83 General Management Plan states intent to preserve exterior of all buildings.

1983-84 Portsmouth buildings inspected and past work assessed by NPS team. 

1987 Porch and deck replaced.

1989 Friends of Portsmouth Island is organized.

1990s House serves as lodging for volunteers with the Volunteer In Park (VIP) program.
44 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

1990 Management plan repeats the “sea” theme of the 1982 plan. Emphasizes the need for indepth historical study of Portsmouth buildings.

1992 First Homecoming, sponsored by Friends of Portsmouth Island. Seven people born in 

Portsmouth are present. Homecoming celebrations continue biennially.

1996 Failure of the septic system for the house ends VIP housing there; volunteers are instead 

housed at the Life-Saving Station complex. House remains vacant to the present.

1999 Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd flood and damage buildings.

2003 & 04 Hurricane Isabel puts water in all buildings; Alex floods island. 

2005 CALO crew spends two years repairing Portsmouth buildings.

2004-06 Historic Structure Reports completed for Life-Saving Station and three Portsmouth 

houses.

2006 NPS survey assesses the house in good condition. 

2007 Cultural Landscape Report suggests extension of National Register period of significance 

to 1971; reports shed in dilapidated condition.

2010 Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource Study and recommendations is 

prepared in draft form for the Organization of American Historians under a cooperative 

agreement with NPS.

2011 CALO Long-Range Interpretive Plan.

2012 CALO Foundation Document.

2014 Over 400 attend eleventh Homecoming celebration.

2015 House included in new Portsmouth brochure.

2015 Portsmouth Documentation Project documents 28 buildings, including 15 outbuildings, 

in an effort to create thorough recordation in the face of rising sea levels.

2015 Historic Structure Reports completed for Mason-Willis-Dixon House, Portsmouth 

Methodist Church, Henry Pigott House, and Tom and Lucy Gilgo House.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 45

General Description 

Locale

Portsmouth Village is located on the north end of 

Portsmouth Island. Once separate from the North 

Core Banks to its south, the island is now attached 

by sand banks except during times of very high 

tide. Though its boundaries depend on the tide 

and currents, the total area is only about 250 acres. 

Portsmouth Island and North Core Banks are part 

of the long chain of narrow sand reefs that fringe 

the southern Atlantic coast of the United States. 

Most are close to the mainland; in contrast, North 

Carolina's "Outer Banks" jut out into the Atlantic 

as much as thirty miles to form an eastern barrier to 

a series of bays and sounds.

Portsmouth Village is on the south shore of 

Ocracoke Inlet, a two-mile-wide passage 

connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the broad and 

shallow Pamlico Sound. Across the inlet to the 

north is Ocracoke Island with the small community 

of Ocracoke at its south end.

I.C Physical Description

Figure 49. Looking east across Doctors Creek of the sand road, wooden bridges, Methodist Church and houses 

near center of Portsmouth Village. Unless otherwise noted, all images in this section are by JKOA, 2013-2014.
46 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Climate

The climate is temperate and seasonal. Summers 

are hot and humid with cooler evenings. The 

warmest month is July with an average high 

temperature of 85°F and average monthly 

nighttime lows of 74°F. The hottest temperature 

on record is 97°F recorded in 1988. The coldest 

month is January with an average high of 53°F and 

low of 40°F. The coldest temperature on record is 

6°F recorded in 1985.

The wettest seasons are spring and summer, though 

the annual rainfall of almost 53 inches is fairly 

evenly divided throughout the year. The maximum 

average monthly rainfall is 5.43 inches in August. 

The minimum average monthly rainfall is 3.19 

inches in April. The humidity of the salt-laden air is 

high through the year, typically staying between 80 

and 85 percent RH.

Daily breezes range from 10 to 12 mph but wind gusts 

can reach two or three times that strength. Winter 

breezes typically come from the north; summer 

breezes typically are from slightly west of south. 

Rising Sea Levels

The land of Portsmouth Village is but two feet 

above sea level, making the village especially 

vulnerable to damage from storms. The soil is 

sandy. The water table is just a few feet below 

grade. There are no freshwater wells.

From early summer through fall, tropical 

disturbances are typical, with hurricanes the most 

powerful, causing damage from both wind and 

flood. Strong winter storms called Nor’easters are 

also common. The location of the Outer Banks so 

far from the mainland makes it the most hurricaneprone area north of Florida. The buildings of the 

Outer Banks have suffered repeated devastation 

from these storms, which with climate change and 

resultant sea level rise are projected to be more 

severe and more frequent.

Estimates of sea level rise have been published by 

a variety of sources. Global estimates from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, used 

by several parks in their Foundation Documents, 

make estimates for 2100; however, projections 

for the next several decades are more pertinent 

for current planning and decision making. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) has published sea level rise scenarios for 

the United States, but these are not readily useful 

for localized decisions.87 

The NPS has developed the Climate Change 

Response Program (CCRP), a cross-disciplinary 

program to preserve the natural and cultural 

resources and values under NPS stewardship.88

The CCRP has collaborated with the University 

of Colorado at Boulder to develop scenarios of 

sea level rise based on local tide gauges and nearterm timeframes. UC Boulder scientists used the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Sea-Level 

Change Curve Calculator to develop high, 

intermediate, and low scenarios for 2030, 2050, 

and 2100. 

In general, a “high” scenario reflects current rate 

of increase of greenhouse gases, or “no change.” 

87. Part of NOAH’S National Climate Assessment.

88. http://www.nps.gov/orgs/ccrp/index.htm

Figure 50. Conducting interviews with the local 

citizenry of nearby Ocracoke in mosquito net suits.

Figure 51. Record of high water marks from storm 

surge flooding on Theo Salter House shed (NPS 519).
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 47

“Intermediate” scenarios reflect a reduction in 

greenhouse gases through changes in human 

behavior and choices. “Low” scenarios reflect 

historic rates of sea level rise, achieved by dramatic 

changes in human behavior and choices. This level 

of change is not anticipated in the near future; 

therefore, the NPS Southeast Region does not 

recommend the use of “low” scenario predictions 

for current planning or decision-making. More 

details about the scenarios can be found at http://

www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm.

The Ocracoke Light Station is vulnerable to sea 

level rise and storm surge.  Scenarios based on the 

Beaufort NC tide gauge predict, under current 

rates of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, that 

Ocracoke will experience a little less than a foot of 

sea level rise by 2030, approximately 11⁄2 ft. sea level 

rise by 2050, and about 51⁄4 ft. of sea level rise by 

2100. 

If the rate of greenhouse gas emission increase 

slows, and renewable energy technologies are 

embraced, it is projected that an intermediate 

scenario of sea level rise could unfold at the 

Beaufort tide gauge, the closest point of reference 

for Ocracoke.  With the intermediate scenario 

applied for all projections, results show about 1⁄2 ft. 

of sea level rise by 2030, approximately 3⁄4 ft. of sea 

level rise by 2050, and almost 2 ft. sea level rise by 

2100.  A high, or no-change, scenario shows a rise 

of 0.86 feet by 2030.

Storm surge is also expected to increase with sea 

level rise. The CCRP and UC Boulder scientists 

have modeled storm surge under a low and high 

tide scenario. In general, tomorrow’s low tide 

scenario of surge will be similar to today’s high tide 

scenario. 

Their research indicates that the current no-change 

trajectory or “high” scenario and the high tide 

scenarios of storm surge are the most realistic for 

near-term planning, because dramatic changes 

in global behavior are unlikely in 15 years. In 

contrast, the intermediate scenario is suggested for 

2050 planning. 

These figures are projections and the future may 

or may not unfold according to these estimates, 

additionally, the science surrounding the 

projection of climate change and sea level rise 

is rapidly advancing, and the Climate Change 

Response Program is already working to revise and 

update these figures.

Seismic Zone

The site is close to an active seismic zone located 

near Charleston, South Carolina. The last major 

quake, recorded by the light keeper at the Cape 

Hatteras Lighthouse, was in 1886. Sporadic seismic 

activity may again affect the coast.

Flora and Fauna

Much of Portsmouth Island is characterized by salt 

marshes, shrub savannahs, and shrub thickets, with 

characteristic low, wind-swept stands of loblolly 

pine, eastern red cedar, wax myrtle, yaupon, other 

small trees and shrubs. Large open areas of saltresilient grasses dominate much of the historic 

district and is the setting for the Mason-WillisDixon House.

Raccoons live on the island but there are no deer 

or ponies as found on some of the other barrier 

islands. A variety of sea and shore birds also 

frequent Portsmouth, but the most renowned 

inhabitants are the mosquitos. They are present 

most months of the year and can be so thick at 

times that the tour boats cease operation. Some 

visitors and work crews typically don hooded net 

suits while on the island.

The Village

The extant buildings of Portsmouth Village are 

grouped at the northwest end of the island. Some 

21 historic buildings are fairly evenly scattered on 

both sides of the main road, Village Road, a sand 

road running roughly east-west. Two of the village’s 

largest buildings are close to the two ends of this 

road, forming visual termini. At the east terminus 

is the two-story Jody Styron (Tom Bragg) House 

(NPS 523); at the west terminus is the U.S. LifeSaving Station. The Portsmouth Methodist Church 

is a focal point near the center of the Village.

Doctor’s Creek extends from Ocracoke Inlet 

southwestward near the center of the Village, 

bisecting the settlement into east and west 

sections, with small wooden bridges connecting 

the two.

Another unpaved road, Haulover Point Road, 

extends from the ferry dock at the northwest tip 

of the island southeastward to Portsmouth School, 

the southernmost building in the Village.
48 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

The Architecture

The Mason-Willis-Dixon House faces in a 

southwesterly direction but for clarity in this 

report, the house is assumed to face south. 

The present house is the result of the complete 

remodeling of an existing building, reportedly 

around 1928, according to oral histories, a date that 

is supported by the character of the design and the 

materials used.

Situated some 85' off the north side of the road to 

the Portsmouth Life-Saving Station, the building is 

a one-story, wood-framed structure that combines 

a three-room main block (Rooms 101, 102, and 

103, and an engaged front porch) with one-room 

wings (Rooms 105 and 106) on the north and west 

sides that were extant buildings apparently moved 

and attached to the main block by 1920.

The house is set on wooden posts and 

encompasses a footprint measuring about 38'-8" 

north to south and 39' east to west. The ridge of 

the main roof is 15'-8" above grade, that of the 

north wing about 15'-4" above grade, and that 

of the west wing 12'-11" above grade. The main 

block, the lattice room, Room 104, and the fullwidth front porch are all under a side-gabled roof 

with a gabled dormer centered on the front shed 

of the roof.

A few feet behind the west wing is an end-gabled 

outbuilding around 9' by 14' in plan, which is 

described at the end of this section. It is largely a 

2007 reconstruction of the historic building and 

very little historic fabric remains intact.

Architectural Style

Prior to 1928, the house was, like many of 

Portsmouth's buildings, a utilitarian structure 

devoid of design details. Harry Dixon completely 

remodeled the exterior of the earlier house to 

create a stylish Craftsman bungalow, which was 

one of the most popular styles nationally for 

middle-class houses throughout the 1920s. The 

low-pitched roof over the main block, the deep 

eaves and exposed rafter tails, the box columns on 

brick piers, the false knee braces in the gables are 

all characteristic of the style and were all added by 

Harry Dixon in 1928.

Figure 52. Front elevation.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 49

The House Site

Located about 780' east of the bridge over Doctors 

Creek, the house sits less than 700' from Ocracoke 

Inlet and barely a mile from the shoreline of the 

Atlantic Ocean. Deeds reference a one-acre tract 

of land but the associated site is ill defined, which 

is typical of the houses at Portsmouth. The site is 

almost uniformly level and poorly drained, with 

areas prone to standing water, including under 

the house and along the south and west sides. The 

site is covered with native grasses, which are kept 

mown, and a scattering of cedar, pine, and myrtle. 

The only outbuilding, which is described at the end 

of this section, is a reconstruction of the historic 

shed located a few feet behind the house. Adjacent 

to the west side of the shed is a series of wooden 

posts that apparently supported the water box or 

cistern identified by Thompson in 1980. A septic 

tank is located just east of the house, but it is no 

longer in use. A privy photographed in 1980 is 

no longer present, and no driveways or paths are 

visible on the site.

Problems of Repair

Poor drainage is characteristic of most of 

Portsmouth, but the natural process of decay 

of vegetation and generation of new humus 

has created a bowl-like depression beneath the 

house, trapping water and keeping the area damp 

for extended periods of time. This not only 

contributes to rotting of wood posts but also 

creates ideal conditions for termite infestation.

Figure 53. View in an easterly direction from the rear 

of the house.

Figure 54. Typical site conditions on the west side of the house.
50 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Construction Characteristics

The house occupies a footprint measuring about 

38'-8" north to south and 39' east to west. The 

ridge of the main roof is 15'-8" above grade; that of 

the north wing about 15'-4" above grade, and that 

of the west wing 12'-11" above grade. In addition 

to nails and other hardware, wood, brick, and 

concrete are the primary building materials.

Structural Systems

Foundation Posts

Except for the porch and deck, the foundation of 

the house is formed by a series of wooden posts set 

directly into the ground and raising the building 

barely two feet above grade. Posts are typically 

present at all corners with one or two posts for the 

intermediate spans, which generally range between 

5' and 7'.

The majority of posts are sawn, 6" to 8" square, 

but log posts are present in a few locations. Posts 

supporting the main block and west wing of the 

house are typically 8" by 8". In the rear wing what 

appear to be the oldest (but perhaps not original) 

posts are 61⁄2" by 61⁄2" with the newer posts slightly 

smaller at 51⁄2" by 51⁄2".

The original framing has been augmented by the 

addition of "shake sills," using nominally 4" by 4" 

lumber run perpendicularly to the joists and resting 

on 4" by 4" posts set on concrete pads. The flooring 

and floor framing for the front porch and the deck 

were replaced in the late twentieth century.

Figure 55. Looking north under west side of front porch and main block, showing historic wood posts at left.

Figure 56. Example foundation post created from 

salvaged lumber, showing damage characteristic of 

Teredo navalis, or shipworm. The damage must have 

occurred prior to the lumber's reuse as a foundation 

post.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 51

Problems of Repair

Standing water has precipitated rot in most of 

the wood posts, which are set into the ground, 

a problem typical of most of the structures at 

Portsmouth. There are no shields to protect the 

structure from termite infestation and damage.

Masonry Features

A brick kitchen chimney along with piers and cheek 

walls at the front of the house are constructed 

with similar materials. Bricks are medium-red to 

orange-red in color, typically 23⁄8" by 8" to 81⁄8" by 

35⁄8", and laid in running bond. Mortar is a warm 

gray with joints 1⁄2" to 3⁄4" thick and raked to a depth 

of about 1⁄2". Paint residue in the mortar suggests 

that they were painted tan at one time.

Across the front of the house is a series of brick 

piers that support the front edges of the front 

porch and the deck. The piers on the front porch 

are around 60" high, those on the deck about 48". 

At the corners of the front porch and at the outside 

corner of the deck, piers are L-shaped, generally 

1'-9" by 1'-9" in plan. Square piers on each side of 

the two sets of front steps are 1'-5" by 1'-4" in plan.

Each pier is capped with a concrete slab about 

2" thick, poured in place with a shallow overlap 

Figure 59. L-shaped pier at southeast corner of 

front porch.

Figure 58. Steps to front porch.

Figure 57. Added supports on west side of main 

block.

Figure 60. Chimney at west gable end of main block. 

Roof of west wing visible at the left.
52 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Figure 61. Typical materials in brick piers.

projecting about 2" beyond the face of the brick 

pier.

There are two flights of front steps, each with three 

poured-concrete steps, the lowest in each flight set 

directly on the ground. As noted earlier, natural 

processes have raised the grade so that the top of 

the bottom step is nearly at grade. One flight, 4'-7" 

wide, is centered on the front door of the main 

block; the other flight, 4'-3" wide, is centered on 

the door on the south side of the west wing.

Flanking the steps are stepped brick cheek walls 

around 8" thick, capped with concrete like 

the piers. Brick, mortar, and concrete appear 

contemporaneous.

The house's single chimney rises just behind the 

ridge of the roof over the main block of the house. 

Built to serve a wood- or coal-fired kitchen stove 

and using materials similar to those in the brick 

piers and cheek walls, the chimney is between 

163⁄4" and 17" square in plan and rises about 27" 

above the ridge line. Two courses just below the 

top course are corbled out from the face of the 

chimney stack. There is a variety of tooling of 

the mortar joints, which have been repointed on 

several occasions. 

Problems of Repair

Much of the mortar in the front porch piers dates 

to their construction but remains in fair condition. 

The mortar in the exposed piers on the deck is 

badly eroded. All but three of the concrete caps on 

the piers and cheek walls are cracked and broken, 

with significant material loss in some.

Figure 62. Steps to deck.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 53

Wood Framing

The house is wood-framed using dimensional 

lumber, at least some of which must have been 

salvaged from shipwrecks or elsewhere. The main 

block, west wing, and north wing are framed in a 

similar fashion but with variations in dimensions 

of materials. A variety of cut and wire nails were 

used for framing, but the particulars of most 

connections could not be observed directly.

Wall plates, or sills, are generally rectilinear in 

section and are set on edge directly on the wooden 

foundation posts or, at the front of the house, set 

into the brick piers. Those on the main block are 

61⁄2" by 91⁄2", and those on the rear wing 81⁄2" by 9". 

On the west wing, the sills are 6" by 6".

Dimensions of floor joists vary between the three 

sections of the house, but all are lapped over the 

sill without a rim joist. In the main block, joists 

are nominally 2" by 6" set on 24" centers, running 

north to south. In the west wing, joists are 4" by 4" 

on 28" centers. In the rear wing, joists are salvaged 

3" by 10" and 2" by 8" set on centers 28" to 30" 

apart. Joists in the main block and north wing run 

east-west; those in the west wing run north-south.

Figure 64. Looking north showing floor framing for the front porch in the foreground.

Figure 63. Typical joist/stud/sill/post connections.
54 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Studs are nominally 2" by 4" in the main block and 

Room 104, but are likely 2" by 6" in the north and 

west wings. Window and door openings are framed 

with 4" by 4" posts. The nature of corner posts 

could not be observed nor could the connection of 

studs to sills but, given the period of construction, 

studs and posts are probably simply toe-nailed to 

the sills. In any one area, they generally share the 

same spacing as the joists.

Roofs on the main block and west wing are framed 

with nominally 2" by 4" rafters with exposed, 

vertically cut rafter tails. There are no ridge boards 

or collar ties. Although the rafters of the front 

porch appear to have been set on centers about 24" 

apart, rafters on the main block of the house are 

around 28" on centers. In the rear wing, rafters are 

slightly larger at 2" by 41⁄2 or 5" and are set on 36" 

centers.

The exterior of the main block of the house is 

sheathed with random-width boards, nominally 

an inch thick and installed vertically beneath the 

existing weatherboard. The two wings have no 

sheathing under the siding on the exterior walls.

Problems of Repair

The wood framing appears to be in generally fair 

condition, and ridge lines remain straight and 

floors level. Insect damage can be observed in 

some of the sills, and there is likely to be hidden 

damage elsewhere in the building. The house is, 

like many others of the period, under-structured by 

modern standards, especially in terms of spacing 

Figure 65. Looking west in attic of kitchen wing.

Figure 66. Typical sill and bottom ends of vertical 

sheathing on the main block of the house.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 55

between the various framing members, but there 

is no apparent systemic failure. However, the nails 

used in framing have inevitably corroded in the 

damp, salty environment, making the building 

more subject to wind damage and other stresses.

Utilities

Waste and supply lines for a bathroom and kitchen 

remain in place, along with a modern fiberglass 

shower, a toilet, and a wall-hung lavatory which is 

detached from the wall. None of the system is in 

operation since there is no water supply and no 

septic system.

Wiring for a simple 60-amp electrical system is 

more or less intact. It consists almost exclusively 

of branches to wall-mounted receptacles. Most 

wiring is in armored cable, but there is no electrical 

service so the system is inoperative. No firedetection or security systems are present.

Problems of Repair

The electrical and plumbing systems are 

inoperative and could not be evaluated. Most of 

the component of these systems were installed 

in the early 1980s. There are no smoke, fire, or 

security systems in place, and it appears that the 

house was always heated with stoves.

Exterior Features

Most of the house's historic exterior finishes 

remain in place or else have been replaced in kind. 

Figure 67. Looking from attic over kitchen wing 

through door to attic over main block. The white 

batten on the door has painted lettering from a 

packing crate that may date to the nineteenth 

century.

Figure 68. Looking east, showing roof framing and ceiling joists above the main block of the house.
56 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Figure 69. Front door, opening into Room 101.

Figure 70. Front door to kitchen (west) wing.

Doors

The house has four exterior doors: two on the 

front (south) side opening into Rooms 101 and 

106, one on the north side opening into Room 104, 

and one that opens into the lattice room at the rear 

of the house but which provides no access to the 

remainder of the interior.

The front door is 13⁄4" by 2'-7" by 6'-7" and 

probably contemporaneous with the 1920s 

remodeling. It features a single flat panel below 

three vertical lights glazed with beveled glass. The 

door is hung with two, 31⁄2", ball-pin hinges. The 

bottom hinge is brass, the other steel. There is an 

empty mortise for a missing middle hinge. There is 

a mortise lock with a pair of brown mineral knobs. 

Interior and exterior escutcheons are Art Nouveau 

inspired with the exterior one measuring 3" by 12" 

and the interior one 21⁄2" by 71⁄2". A 6" galvanizedsteel hasp for a padlock is mounted high on the left 

casing. Exterior jamb casing is 11⁄4" by 33⁄4", header 

casing is about an inch wider, and there is a plain, 

1⁄2"-thick drip cap. The door sill is nominally 2" by 

6".

The front doorway into the kitchen in the west 

wing has a mid-twentieth-century replacement of 

the 1920s door. It is 13⁄8" by 2'-5" by 5'-11" and has 

three, horizontal, flat panels below three horizontal 

Figure 71. Back door, opening to Room 104.

lights glazed with plain glass. The door is hung with 

a pair of 31⁄2" ball-pin hinges and has a 6" padlock 

hasp. Exterior jamb casing is similar to that at the 

front door, 11⁄4" by 33⁄4", with header casing about 

an inch wider, a plain, 1⁄2"-thick drip cap, and door 

sill nominally 2" by 6".
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 57

The back doorway, located on the north side of 

Room 104, is closed with a new but inoperable 

board door, 3⁄4" by 1'-10" by 5'-8". The boards are 

V-joint tongue-and-groove, 7⁄8" by 51⁄4". The door is 

hung with a pair of five-knuckle, 3" hinges. There is 

no other exterior hardware present.

Problems of Repair

The front door to Room 101 remains in generally 

good condition. The door to Room 106 is 

deteriorated with severe damage to the bottom rail. 

The door to Room 104 is new but has no exterior 

hardware and no steps to the ground.

Windows 

The house has 19 window openings that can be 

sorted into three groups: one with two-over-two 

vertical-light sash, which may have been the 

original sash in the house; one with threeover-one sash, along with the three-light casement 

windows that light the attic, all of which were 

part of the ca. 1928 remodeling; and the third 

group with six-over-six sash, which were probably 

installed in the third quarter of the twentieth 

century.

As a part of the ca. 1928 remodeling, Craftsmanstyle sash with three vertical lights became 

a primary feature on the front of the house, 

and perhaps on the east side as well. The only 

Craftsman-style windows that remain are the 

paired three-over-one windows under the front 

porch; the double, three-light, casement sash in 

the dormer and on the east gable; and the single 

three-light casement sash in the west gable. Each of 

the three-over-one windows on the front porch is 

1'-81⁄2" by 3'-10"; each of the casement sash is 2'-0" 

by 2'-2". 

Two-over-two sash remain in the 2'-7" by 3'-9" 

single-hung window on the north side of the 

kitchen. Two vertical-light sash are also present as 

the lower sash in the 2'-2" by 3'-10" window now 

covered by the lattice room and in the 2'-4" by 

3'-9" window at the north end of the north wing. 

Both of the upper sash in those windows have been 

Figure 72. Lock set at front door. replaced with six-light sash.

Figure 73. Paired three-over-one windows on the 

front porch.

Figure 74. Casement windows in east gable. Those in 

the dormer are similar.
58 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Figure 75. Two-over-two window on the north side 

of the kitchen wing, the earliest intact window in 

the house.

Figure 76. Typical six-over-six window installed in the 

1960s.

The windows on the south side of the kitchen 

and on the east and west sides of the main block, 

and on the west side of the north wing are all 

six-over-six, single-hung windows, 2'-4" by 3'-10" 

in the kitchen and main block and 2'-4" by 3'-9" in 

the north wing.

Windows are cased in a fashion similar to the 

doors. Jamb casing is typically 11⁄4" by 33⁄4" on the 

main block and 3⁄4" by 33⁄4" on the wings. Windows 

are finished with a 1⁄2" drip cap similar to that used 

at the doors.

Shutter pintles survive at the windows on the north 

and west sides of the north wing and on the north 

side of the kitchen wing. There is no evidence that 

the house in its current configuration had shutters, 

which were not typically used on Craftsman-style 

houses.

All of the windows appear to have been fitted with 

wood-framed screens. All of those on the east side 

and on the north end of the north wing are missing 

along with one of those on the south side of the 

kitchen.

Problems of Repair

Sash are missing from the windows on the east 

and north sides of the north wing but most of the 

rest are in fair condition. Painted finishes are in 

poor condition with peeling paint and staining 

from rusting nails. Glazing of windows is in poor 

condition. Many of the wood-framed screens 

are missing and those that remain are in poor 

condition.

Figure 77. Casing and drip cap typical of all windows, 

and shutter pintle similar to those found at some 

older window openings. 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 59

Roofing

The roofs have open decks, typical for woodshingled roofs. Decking is comprised of nominally 

1" by 4" boards spaced 6" or 7" apart. That the 

decking continues across the rear of the main block 

is the main indication that the main block was 

originally built without a north wing.

Roofing is sawn cedar shingles, 3⁄8" by 18" in 

random widths, with the lowest course doubled. 

Ridges are finished with a conventional lapped 

course of short shingles. The chimney and the 

dormer are flashed with lead, probably installed 

when the roof was last replaced. There are no 

gutters.

Problem of Repair

The roofing is in fair condition and there are 

no apparent leaks. A few shingles are missing 

or loose. As with most of the historic structures 

at Portsmouth, no gutters or french drains are 

present.

Siding and Trim

The house is finished with a conventional lap 

siding around 5⁄8" by 61⁄2" installed with a reveal 

between 41⁄2" and 5". Most fasteners are cut nails, 

except where there have been modern repairs.

Skirt boards of varying widths are installed without 

a drip cap, the first course of siding simply lapping 

over the skirt. The skirt boards on the house are 

Figure 80. Typical roofing. Figure 81. Typical exposed rafter tails.

Figure 79. Typical detail showing poor condition of 

many of the windows.

Figure 78. Typical casing and sill.
60 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Figure 82. East side and north end of the house.

generally 3⁄4" by 101⁄2" wide, except in the northeast 

ell at the rear where the skirt is 4" to 5" wide and 

on the north end of that wing where a 12" board 

is used. Skirt boards on the front porch, deck, 

and lattice room are nominally 8" wide and were 

installed in the 1980s, replacing narrower skirt 

boards that had been installed when the porch was 

built.

Corner boards are 11⁄4" by 31⁄4" and wrap each 

outside corner. Siding is butted to these boards.

Eaves are not boxed, leaving exposed vertically cut 

rafter tails. Plain boards nominally 1" by 3" cover 

the joint between siding and soffit. Rake boards 

in the east and west gables are 11⁄4" by 21⁄2" and 

contemporaneous with the Craftsman-style knee 

braces, which were constructed from the same 

stock. A 13⁄4" bed molding, similar to that used as a 

base cap on the interior, joins the rake board to the 

roofing.

Doors and windows are cased with 11⁄4" by 33⁄4" 

boards and have a 1⁄2" drip cap. Door and window 

sills are typically 11⁄2" to 2" thick. 

Problems of Repair

Most of the house's exterior woodwork is in fair 

condition. Painted finishes are peeling and bare 

wood is being exposed at various locations all 

around the house. Some siding and most of the 

crown molding in the gables should be renailed.

Figure 83. Typical vertical corner boards and the two 

widths of skirt board found on the house.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 61

Front Porch

Running across the front of the main block is a 

Craftsman-style porch, 6'-8" deep, that was part 

of the ca. 1928 design Floor framing, flooring, 

columns, and header were reconstructed in 1987. 

The four brick piers described above support 

tapered box columns under a series of shallow 

segmental arches finished with short lengths of 4" 

double-beaded tongue-and-groove boards.

Double-beaded boards running east-west are 

used for the ceiling. At the wall, ceiling height 

is 7'-4" above the floor, which was built with a 

typical slope away from the house. Flooring, blind 

nailed and running north-south, is 7⁄8" by 21⁄2", 

tongue-and-groove. 

Balustrades are generally 34" high. Bottom rails are 

11⁄2" by 4", set vertically; top rails are 11⁄2" by 3", set 

horizontally. Pickets are 1" by 1" on 3" centers.

Problems of Repair

The porch is in mostly good condition, since all but 

the tripled columns at the corners was completely 

rebuilt in 1987. The lower parts of the box columns 

are now deteriorating along with the wooden 

plinths.

Figure 85. Front (south) elevation.

Figure 84. Typical knee brace, rake board, siding and 

other trim.
62 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Deck and Portico

Extending across the front of the west wing, the 

deck was designed and built to be a continuation of 

the front porch. The brick piers, cheek walls, and 

concrete pier caps match those on the front porch 

and also date to the 1920s. All of the wood framing 

and flooring for the deck were replaced as part of 

the work on the front porch in 1987. The present 

flooring is the same 7⁄8" by 21⁄2", tongue-and-groove 

flooring found on the front porch. Historically 

balustrades matching those on the front porch 

were installed along the south and west (but not 

the east) sides of the deck, but those are now stored 

inside the house.

The portico is 2'-6" north-south, 3'-7" eastwest, and has a roof ridge 9'-0" above the deck 

floor. Simple 6" by 6" posts supporting the roof 

are set on 8" by 8" wooden plinths with broadly 

chamfered edges. Plinths and columns are 1987 

replacements of the ca. 1928 features.

The short header beams between the house and 

the posts appear to be assemblies salvaged from 

elsewhere and perhaps installed upside down.

Figure 86. Deck and piers added by Harry Dixon along with the front porch ca. 1928.

Figure 87. View of portico added to west wing as 

part of the ca. 1928 remodeling.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 63

Problem of Repair

The painted finish on the deck flooring is badly 

worn as is the paint on the plinths and lower half of 

the posts. 

Lattice Room

This space, which appears to never have had 

access to the interior of the main house, is 6'-7" 

east-west and 4'-6" north-south. Four 2" by 4" 

rafters supported by a boxed header rest on four 

nominally 2" by 4" posts with a fifth post at the 

house supporting the side header. Flooring is 1" by 

10" and 1" by 12" planks.

A door opens outward on the north side, but the 

wooden steps that existed historically are missing. 

The doorway is 2'-0" by 6'-0" and finished with 1⁄2" 

by 21⁄2" lintel-cut casing. 

The south and east walls are formed by the 

weather-boarded walls of the house itself. The 

west and north walls and the door are wooden 

lattice, comprised of 1⁄8" by 13⁄4" strips installed 

Figure 88. Lattice room at northwest corner. horizontally and vertically on 31⁄2" centers.

Figure 89. Northwest oblique.
64 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Problems of Repair

The lattice on the lower portion of the north wall is 

badly damaged as is the painted finish on the entire 

porch. The door steps are missing entirely.

Interior Features

The house has five rooms: a living room (Room 

101), two bedrooms (Rooms 102 and 105), a 

kitchen (Room 106), a bathroom (Room 103), and 

a storage room (Room 104). Floor space is around 

632 square feet.

Flooring throughout the house is 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" 

tongue-and-groove pine, much of it face nailed. 

Board ceilings in Rooms 101-105 are nominally 

1" by 4", double-V-joint, tongue-and-groove set 

at 7'-1". The ceiling in Room 106 is finished with 

nominally 1" by 4" double-beaded, tongue-andgroove boards set at 6'-3" above the floor.

Walls are also finished with tongue-and-groove 

boards, some with a double bead and some with a 

double V-joint. On some walls, boards are installed 

horizontally; on others, often in the same room, 

boards are installed vertically.

Figure 90. Southwest oblique, Room 101.

Figure 91. Floor plan of existing building. A larger 

version of this drawing is in the Appendix.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 65

Interior Features Room-by-Room

Room 101 (Living Room)

Measuring 12'-2" east to west and 15'-4" north to 

south, this room occupies the west side of the main 

block of the house and is the largest room in the 

house. 

Floor

Typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove flooring is 

installed running east to west. The perimeter of 

the floor is varnished, but in the center is a large 

rectangle where the wood is unfinished, probably 

because it was covered with a linoleum "rug."

Walls

The north, south, and west walls are finished with 

horizontally installed, double-V-joint, tongue-andgroove boards over a wood frame. The boards on 

the north wall are 4" wide; those on the south and 

west walls are 3" wide.

The east wall is comprised of 3⁄4" by 41⁄2" doublebeaded, tongue-and-groove boards installed 

vertically over a narrow wood frame that is only 3" 

wide. Its construction is similar to that used in the 

wall between Rooms 102 and 103. 

Figure 93. Northwest oblique, Room 101.

Figure 92. Mantel and stove flue in Room 101.
66 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 3"-wide, double-Vjoint boards running east to west. 

Doors

The room has five doorways. The front doorway, 

which was described earlier, is located on the south 

wall only a few inches from the southeast corner 

of the room. It has a screen door that opens to the 

interior of the house in the distinctive Portsmouth 

fashion. In addition, a doorway near the north end 

of the west wall opens to the kitchen. The door 

itself is missing, but the jamb half of three hinges 

remains on the north jamb. The opening measures 

2'-6" by 6'-2". 

Doorways on the east wall open into Rooms 102 

and 103. Both doors are missing but parts of the 

hinges remain on the jamb to Room 103. The 

doorway into Room 102 is 2'-6" by 6'-6"; the one 

into Room 103 is 2'6" by 6"-8".

On the north wall is a doorway into Room 105, 

which is the north wing. The opening is 2'-8" by 

6'-2" and is hung with a 13⁄8" thick door with five 

horizontal raised panels.

Windows

The room has four windows. A pair of threeover-one windows is located on the south wall. 

Each of those windows is 1'-9" by 3'-10". A 

six-over-six window, 2'-2" by 3'-10", is located on 

the north wall and another of the same size is on 

the west wall. All of these windows have brass sash 

locks but no lifts.

Wood Trim

Windows have 3⁄4" by 3" lintel-cut casing and 

apron, the apron with a 1" bevel along the lower 

edge. The front doorway has 7⁄8" by 4" lintel-cut 

casing. The doorways to Rooms 103, 105, and 106 

are cased with 3⁄4" by 3" lintel-cut casing similar to 

that used on the windows. The doorway to Room 

102 is cased with 3" double-V-joint tongue-andgroove planks.

Figure 94. Wall between Rooms 101 and 102.

Figure 95. Northeast oblique, Room 101.

Figure 96. Typical woodwork in Room 101.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 67

Baseboards are 7⁄8" by 5" planks. A 11⁄2" base cap is 

used on the south and east walls. The joint between 

the walls and ceiling is finished with 11⁄2" bed 

molding.

Electrical System

Near the center of the ceiling is a 41⁄2" metal 

junction box, surface mounted with a keyless 

porcelain light fixture. Wiring is concealed above 

the ceiling. A single duplex receptacle is mounted 

on the north wall at the baseboard.

Mantel

There is no fireplace but there is a 4"-diameter 

metal flue for a wood- or coal-burning stove 

near the center of the west wall. A mantel is 

installed around it with reeded legs set atop 

the baseboard. The mantel shelf is 3⁄4" by 81⁄2" 

by 4'-9" and supported by a pair of scrolled 

brackets 21⁄2" by 5" by 111⁄2". The shelf is 4'-9" 

above the floor.

Room 102 (Southeast Bedroom)

This room measures 9-0" east to west and 9'-9" 

north to south. It might have been a single space 

with Room 103 at one time.

Floor

Flooring is typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove, 

installed running east to west, and is a continuation 

of the flooring in Room 101.

Walls

The south and east walls are finished with 

horizontally installed, double-V-joint, tongue-andgroove, 1⁄2" by 3" boards. The north wall is finished 

with horizontally installed, double-V-joint, tongueand-groove 4" wide.

The west wall is comprised of 3⁄4" by 41⁄2" doublebeaded, tongue-and-groove boards installed 

vertically over a narrow wood frame that is only 

3" thick. The north wall is built in a similar way 

but with the tongue-and-groove material installed 

horizontally.

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 1⁄2" by 3", double-Vjoint boards running east to west.

Doors

The doorway from Room 101 is 2'-6" by 6'-6", but 

no door is present. The door that opened to Room 

103 was closed to create a small closet and to allow 

Figure 97. Southeast oblique, Room 102.
68 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

for installation of the present shower in Room 103. 

The doorway is 1'-8" by 6'-7", but the door itself is 

missing. The jamb portions of two 3" butt hinges 

remain in place.

Windows

The room has three windows. A pair of threeover-one windows is located on the south wall. 

Each of those windows is 1'-9" by 3'-10". A 

six-over-six window, 2'-2" by 3'-10", is located on 

the east wall. All of these windows have brass sash 

locks but no lifts.

Wood Trim

Windows have 3⁄4" by 3" lintel-cut casing and 

apron, the apron with a 1" bevel along the lower 

edge. The door to Room 103 is cased with 3⁄4" by 

3" lintel-cut casing similar to that used on the 

windows. The doorway to Room 101 is cased with 

3" double-V-joint tongue-and-groove boards.

Baseboards are 7⁄8" by 5" planks, except on the 

north wall where the baseboard is 3⁄4" by 51⁄2". The 

joint between the walls and ceiling is finished with 

11⁄2" bed molding, similar to that used in Room 101.

Electrical System

Near the center of the ceiling is a 41⁄2" metal 

junction box, surface mounted with a keyless 

Figure 98. Doorway between Rooms 102 and 103, 

now blocked by the shower in Room 103.

Figure 99. Looking east in Room 103.

porcelain light fixture. Wiring is concealed above 

the ceiling. A single duplex receptacle is located on 

the north wall.

Room 103 (Bathroom)

Located in the northeast corner of the main block 

of the house, this room measures 9'-0" east to west 

and 6'-0" north to south. 

Floor

Flooring is typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove, 

installed running east to west, and is a continuation 

of the flooring in Room 101.

Walls

The north and east walls are finished with 

horizontally installed, double-V-joint, tongue-andgroove, 1⁄2" by 3" boards. The south wall is finished 

with horizontally installed, double-V-joint, tongueand-groove 4" wide.

The west wall is comprised of 3⁄4" by 41⁄2" doublebeaded, tongue-and-groove boards installed 

vertically over a narrow wood frame that is only 3" 

thick.

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 1⁄2" by 3", double-Vjoint boards running east to west.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 69

Doors

The doorway from Room 101 is 2'-6" by 6'-8", 

but no door is present, although half of the hinge 

remains mounted to the jamb.

Windows

The room has two windows, one on the east wall 

and one on the north wall, both six-over-six, 2'-2" 

by 3'-10". All of these windows have brass sash 

locks but no lifts.

Wood Trim

Window and door casing and the window apron 

use 3⁄4" by 3" lintel-cut planks, the apron with a 1" 

bevel along the lower edge. There is no baseboard, 

but the joint between the walls and ceiling is 

finished with 11⁄2" bed molding, similar to that used 

elsewhere in the house.

Electrical System

Near the center of the ceiling is a 41⁄2" metal 

junction box, surface mounted with a keyless 

porcelain light fixture. Wiring is concealed above 

the ceiling. 

Fixtures

There is a medicine cabinet, 2'-0" by 2'-0" by 

51⁄2", installed near the east end of the north wall. 

The wall-hung lavatory beneath it is now missing. 

A Standard "Compton" toilet is located in the 

southeast corner of the room. In the northeast 

corner is a 30" molded fiberglass shower.

Room 104 (Storage Room)

Located on the east side of the house in the ell 

between the main block and the north wing, 

this room was noted by Thompson as being a 

porch that had been enclosed, but there is no 

physical evidence that it ever existed as a porch. 

It measures 5'-9" east to west and 6'-6" north to 

south. 

Floor

Flooring is typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove, 

installed running north to south.

Walls

The north wall is finished with vertically installed, 

double-V-joint, tongue-and-groove boards, 31⁄2" 

wide. The same material is used on the east and 

south walls but it is installed horizontally to a 

height of about 30" and vertically above that with 

a 1" by 3" with an eased edge separating the two as 

a chair rail. The west wall is formed by the original 

exterior wood siding of the north wing.

Figure 100. Looking west from Room 103 to Room 101. Figure 101. View looking east in Room 104.
70 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 1⁄2" by 3", double-Vjoint boards running east to west.

Doors

The doorway from Room 105 is 1'-10" by 5'-10" 

with a door with five horizontal panels hung with 

a pair of 3", five-knuckle butt hinges. The exterior 

doorway on the north wall is 1'-10" by 5'-8" and 

is now closed by a fixed panel of vertical boards. 

The screen door remains in place and opens to the 

interior of the house in the distinctive Portsmouth 

fashion.

Windows

The room has two windows, one on the east wall 

and one on the south wall. Both are six-over-six 

windows, 2'-2" by 3'-10".

Wood Trim

Windows have 3⁄4" by 3" lintel-cut casing and 

apron, the apron with a 1" bevel along the lower 

edge. The doors are cased with similar material. 

Baseboards are 7⁄8" by 5" planks. The joint between 

the walls and ceiling is finished with 11⁄2" bed 

molding, similar to that used elsewhere in the 

house. Modern, floor-to-ceiling, wooden shelving 

has been installed on the north wall.

Figure 102. View from Room 104 into Room 105.

Figure 103. View of north wall of Room 104.

Figure 104. View of interior screen door in Room 104.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 71

Room 105 (Back Bedroom)

This room forms the north wing and is probably 

the oldest part of the house. The character of 

its materials suggests that was built late in the 

nineteenth century or very early in the twentieth. 

The room measures 8'-8" east to west and 14'-11" 

north to south.

Floor

Flooring is typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove, 

installed running north to south.

Walls

The north wall is finished with 3" V-joint, tongueand-groove boards. The south, east, and west walls 

are finished with 3" V-joint and 31⁄2" double-Vjoint, tongue-and-groove boards. There are a few 

double-beaded boards above the door to Room 

101.

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 3" and 4"-wide, 

double-beaded boards running north to south.

Doors

In addition to the door from Room 104 on the 

east wall, described above, a door on the north 

Figure 105. North window showing typical casing 

and corner blocks used at windows and doors in 

Room 105.

Figure 106. Looking south in Room 105.
72 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

wall opens to Room 101. It has two vertical panels 

above and two vertical raised panels below a 

single horizontal raised panel. The door measures 

13⁄8" by 2''-8" by 6'-1". The door has a rim lock, 

43⁄8" by 43⁄8", mounted to the inside face and a 

keep mounted to the door casing. Both knobs are 

missing. A 2'-6" by 6'-1" door with four vertical 

panels is being stored in this room. Its original 

location in the house is uncertain.

Windows

The room has windows on the east, north, and 

west walls. All appear to have been six-over-six, 

but the lower sash in the east and north windows 

is missing. Windows are typical 2'-2" by 3'-9", an 

inch shorter than those in the rest of the house. All 

of the north window and the lower half of the east 

window are covered with plywood.

Wood Trim

Window and door casing is deeply molded in a 

design popular in the late nineteenth and early 

twentieth centuries. Casing measures 3⁄4" by 43⁄4" 

and is installed against plain 1" by 43⁄4" by 43⁄4" 

corner blocks. Window stools are 11⁄4" by 4" with 

eased edges. Aprons use the same material used as 

a base cap.

Figure 107. Looking north in Room 105.

Figure 108. Modern shelving in southeast corner of 

Room 105.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 73

Baseboards are 7⁄8" by 4" planks with a 7⁄8" by 17⁄8" 

molded cap. Crown molding is typical 11⁄2" bed 

molding.

Wardrobe

A wardrobe measuring 1'-10" east to west and 

4'-11⁄2" north to south has been built into the 

southwest corner of the room. Set on 3" by 3" 

tapered legs that raise the wardrobe nearly 6" 

above the floor, the wardrobe is plank built and has 

two large doors above a pair of deep drawers. The 

front consists of two nominally 1" by 3" vertical 

planks and one 1" by 5" vertical plank to frame the 

sides of the door and drawer openings and four 1" 

by 5" rails. A 1" by 5" board has been scroll-cut and 

applied as a decorative element on the face of the 

wardrobe above the doors. The north end of the 

wardrobe is built with the same 4"-wide, doubleV-joint, tongue-and-groove boards on the ceiling, 

vertically installed. The crown molding used in this 

room is continued around the top of the wardrobe, 

and the base cap finishes the lower edge of the 

piece.

The wardrobe has two doors, each 1'-71⁄2" by 4'-0" 

and constructed with 1" by 3"-wide molded stiles 

and top rail, 1" by 4"-wide molded bottom rail, and 

Figure 109. View into Room 101 from Room 105.

Figure 110. Five-panel door between Rooms 101 and 

105.

Figure 111. Rim lock on door between Rooms 105 

and 101.

Figure 112. Wardrobe in southwest corner of Room 

105.
74 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

Room 106 (Kitchen)

Measuring 8'-6" north to south and 16'-1" east to 

west, this room forms the west wing of the house.

Floor

Flooring is typical 3⁄4" by 31⁄2" tongue-and-groove, 

installed running north to south.

Walls

The east wall is finished with 7⁄8" by 51⁄2" doublebeaded, tongue-and-groove boards, installed 

vertically. The north and west walls are finished 

with 3" double-beaded tongue-and-groove boards, 

installed vertically. The south wall has 3" doublebeaded boards, too, but 4" center-groove boards 

are also present.

Ceiling

The ceiling is comprised of 3"-wide, doublebeaded, tongue-and-groove boards running east to 

west.

Doors

The exterior doorway (described earlier) on the 

south wall includes a wood-framed screen door, 3⁄4" 

by 2'-2" by 5'-8", mounted on the interior casing. 

The room can also be entered by the doorway on 

the east wall from Room 101. The opening is 2'-6" 

by 6'-2" but no door is hung in the opening. The 

jamb halves of two hinges remain on the north 

jamb.

Windows

The room has two six-over-six windows, 2'-2" by 

3'-10" on the south wall and one two-over-two 

window, 2'-4" by 3'-9" on the north wall. 

flat plywood panels. Each door is hung with a pair 

of 3" three-knuckle hinges and is fitted with a small 

mortised lock set that includes a round knob on 

the outside and a lever on the inside, but no locking 

mechanism. A wooden clothes-hanging rod and 

a 12"-wide shelf run across the upper part of the 

interior.

The two drawers are also plank built, using 1" by 

10" planks for the fronts and 1" by 8" planks for the 

sides and back. The front of each drawer is 9" by 

1'-8" and features a pair of metal clamshell pulls. 

The drawers slide on 1" by 4" planks laid flat along 

each side of the opening.

Corner Shelving

Four triangular shelves have been installed in 

the southeast corner of the room. Constructed 

of 3⁄8" plywood supported by 11⁄2" by 11⁄2" rails, 

the shelves measure 1'-4" on each side and about 

1'-11" along the front edge. These shelves are 

probably contemporaneous with the shelving 

installed in Room 104.

Electrical System

Near the center of the ceiling is a 41⁄2" metal 

junction box, surface mounted with a keyless 

porcelain light fixture. Wiring is concealed above 

the ceiling. Duplex receptacles are located on the 

north, south, and west walls.

Figure 113. Looking east in Room 106, showing floorto-ceiling pantry closet. Figure 114. Attic hatch in northeast corner of Room 

106.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 75

of 4" strap hinges and has a 11⁄8" porcelain knob. 

Two-inch wooden pivot latches close each door.

In the northwest corner of the room is a built-in 

cupboard, 1'-7" by 1'-7" and 3'-2" high with its top 

against the ceiling. The cupboard is built with 7⁄8" 

by 21⁄2" planks and has a wood-framed glass door 

1'-4" wide. The two shelves on the interior are also 

built with 7⁄8"-thick boards. A piece of base cap 

similar to that used in Room 105 finishes the face 

of the cupboard to the ceiling.

Wood Trim

The doorway to Room 101 is not cased on the 

Room 106 side of the opening. The exterior 

doorway on the south wall is cased with lintel-cut 

planks, 3⁄4" by 31⁄2".

Windows are cased with lintel-cut boards, 3⁄4" by 

31⁄2"; stools 1" by 5"; and aprons 3⁄4" by 3".

Baseboards are 3⁄4" by 3" plank with no cap. Crown 

molding is typical 11⁄2" bed molding.

Chimney Flue

The house's only chimney, which also serves the 

living room stove flue, rises on the east side of 

this room. It has been boxed in and finished with 

the same tongue-and-groove boards used at the 

east end of the room. The flue is terra cotta, 9" in 

diameter.

Cabinets and Shelving

The paneling of the chimney stack is continued to 

the south wall in order to create a floor-to-ceiling 

pantry between the chimney and the south wall. 

It has two board-and-batten doors that use 3" 

double-beaded tongue-and-groove boards and 

3⁄4" by 21⁄2" battens. Each door is hung with a pair 

Figure 115. Southwest oblique, Room 106.

Figure 116. Shelf on north wall of Room 106.

Figure 117. Shelf on west wall.
76 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

To the right of the cupboard, mounted on the north 

wall, is a wooden shelf, 7⁄8" by 10" by 3'-6". A length 

of inverted base cap serves as a rail against the 

wall, and two 1" by 3" angle braces with chamfered 

edges support the outside edge. On the west wall is 

a second shelf, 7⁄8" by 10" by 3'-0". It is supported 

by a pair of 8" by 12" metal brackets.

Electrical System

There is a 41⁄2" diameter galvanized-metal junction 

box with a keyless porcelain bulb holder on 

the west wall and two galvanized-metal duplex 

receptacles on the north wall. The 60-amp circuitbreaker box for the house's electrical system 

is located on the bottom shelf of the corner 

cupboard.

Attic Hatch

At the east end of the ceiling, a hatch provides 

access to the west wing's attic. From that attic, a 

wall hatch, which was cut through the original 

vertical sheathing on the main block of the house, 

provides access to the attic in that area. The ceiling 

hatch is plywood, 1'-5" by 1'-7", and not hinged. It 

is trimmed with 1⁄2" by 21⁄2" wooden strips. 

Problems of Repair

The interior of the house is in fair condition, but 

most surfaces are soiled and stained and need 

repainting. There is some deterioration of the 

ceiling boards at isolated locations where the roof 

has leaked. Three window sash are missing, and 

as noted earlier, the exterior glazing is in poor 

condition, which has allowed damage to some 

interior surfaces.

The flooring is in poor condition, primarily from 

multiple floods, including the terrible hurricane 

that washed over the Outer Banks in 1933. These 

events have left much of the the flooring cupped 

and most of the fasteners showing evidence of 

oxidation.

Figure 118. Stove flue and upper door of pantry 

closet.

Figure 119. Northwest corner cupboard. The electrical 

circuit breaker is on the bottom shelf of this cabinet.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 77

Shed

Located just a few yards off the north side of 

the house's west wing, the shed is the only 

outbuilding left on the site. It was heavily repaired 

in 2007, when a substantial amount of the historic 

materials was replaced and a louvered vent was 

installed in the gables. Wood-framed with boardand-batten siding, the building is 14'-4" north to 

south and 9'-0" east to west. The building rises 

5'-11" from the flooring to the top of the wall 

plates.

Wood Frame

Any piers that were present have now disappeared 

so that the sill and several of the joists are now 

resting on the ground. All framing material is 

nominally 2" by 4" except for the sills which are 

4" by 4". Three 2" by 4" joists, more or less evenly 

spaced, run east to west.

Corner posts consist of doubled 2" by 4" lumber 

and 2" by 4" braces and there are three 2" by 4" 

studs on each side. A horizontal 2" by 4" member 

runs between the studs and posts and across the 

rear (north) end of the structure about midway up 

the walls. The top plate consists of a single 2" by 

4" board.

The building has five rafters, each 2" by 4", 

including the two end rafters and on centers 

about 3'-7" apart. Rafters are joined at the top 

without a ridge board and toe-nailed to the top 

plate at each stud and corner post. Collar ties are 

also 2" by 4".

Flooring

The flooring, which is only a few inches above 

grade, is generally 11⁄4" by 8" to 81⁄2". A large oil 

spill coats much of the floor.

Siding and Trim

The building is finished with board-and-batten 

siding, all of it installed in 2007 except for some of 

the boards at the north end. Boards are a random 

mix of widths of 91⁄2", 10", and 11". Battens are 1' 

by 21⁄2". 

Openings

The building has a single door, located at the 

south end. It is also board-and-batten and 

measures 2-81⁄2" by 5'-9". It has two vertical 

boards 3⁄4" by 93⁄4", one 3⁄4" by 81⁄2", and one 3⁄4" by 

Figure 120. Wood flooring typical of that found 

throughout the house.

Figure 121. South elevation of shed.

Figure 122. Gable vent.
78 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

4" The door has Z battens, with the top batten 1" 

by 6", the bottom batten 1" by 61⁄2", and the cross 

batten 1" by 3". The door is hung with a pair of 

3", five-knuckle butt hinges and is closed with a 

wooden pivot latch.

There is a single window, located in the north 

end. It is 1'-8" by 2'-4" and has one-over-one 

sash. Louvered vents are placed at the top of each 

gable.

Roofing

The rafters have an open deck comprised of 

nominally 1" by 4" boards. Roofing is randomwidth 3⁄8" by 18" wood shingles similar to those 

used on the house.

Problems of Repair

The parts of the shed that are visible are in good 

condition. Considering the building's proximity 

to the ground, deterioration of the sills and floor 

joists is probably ongoing.

Figure 123. Southeast oblique.

Figure 124. Window at north shed wall.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 79

Character-Defining Features

Important character-defining features of the 

Mason-Willis-Dixon House include:

Distinctive Characteristics of the Site

• The setting at the heart of the historic village 

of Portsmouth.

• The open grassy site only a few yards from 

the water.

• Tall grasses and low shrubs surrounding the 

grassy site with interspersed clumps of windbent trees.

• Location of buildings and site features.

• Long vistas across Doctor’s Creek of the 

Church and other buildings on the east bank.

• View of the other buildings on the east side 

of Doctors Creek, including the Methodist 

Church, the Washington Roberts House, the 

Ed Styron House and others.

Distinctive Characteristics of the 

Building Exterior

• The log posts that form the house's 

foundation.

• The house’s wood-frame construction.

• The Craftsman-style front porch, with its 

segmentally arched headers, brick piers, box 

columns, and balustrades. 

• The open deck on the south side of the west 

wing, including the brick piers and cheek 

walls and their concrete caps.

Figure 125. Looking south inside shed.

Figure 126. Looking north inside shed.

Figure 127. Pivot latch on shed door.
80 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

• The beaded and V-joint walls and ceilings, 

baseboards, crown molding, and door and 

window casings.

• The molded casing and corner blocks in 

Room 105.

• The wood mantel in Room 101.

• The wardrobe in Room 105.

• The corner cupboard, pantry, and shelving in 

Room 106.

• The wood-framed interior screen doors and 

exterior window screens. 

• Flue openings in Rooms 101 and 106

Distinctive Characteristics of the Shed

• The location and proximity to the house.

• The end-gabled form of the building, with a 

window in the north end and a door in the 

south end.

• The wood frame.

• The board-and-batten siding and woodshingled roof.

• The wooden pivot latch on the door.

• The portico at the front door to the west 

wing.

• The gable roofs, dormer, and Craftsmanstyle knee braces.

• The wood-shingle roofing.

• The lapped siding and unboxed eaves.

• The brick chimney.

• The wooden front door with its single panel, 

three vertical lights, and its hinges, mortise 

lock, and mineral knobs.

• The three-over-one wooden windows at the 

front of the main block of the house.

• The wood sash with three vertical lights in 

the dormer and gable windows.

• The two-over-two wooden window on the 

north side of the kitchen.

Distinctive Characteristics of the 

Interior

• The floor plan and existing room 

arrangement.

• The tongue-and-groove flooring.

Figure 128. Northwest oblique.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 81

Summary of Physical Conditions

Repairs conducted by NPS in the late 1970s, 

throughout the 1980s, and in the mid-2000s were 

extensive and addressed major concerns. General 

upkeep provided by the Friends of Portsmouth 

Island group over the last several years has 

addressed many of the building’s aesthetic issues. 

Overall, the house is in good shape, and the 

outbuildings in good to fair condition.

While most current concerns are aesthetic in 

nature and represent no threat to the safety of the 

general public or NPS staff or to the building, a 

handful of concerns do require attention.

Highest Concern: Immediate Threat to 

Life/Safety of Occupants or Immediate 

and Serious Threat to Building

• There are no immediate threats to the 

building.

• There are no immediate threats to the safety 

of occupants. The change in floor level from 

Room 101 to 106 is a distinctive feature of 

the house, and should be recognized as a 

potential trip hazard.

High Concern: High Potential for 

Becoming a Threat to Occupants or 

Building

• Poor drainage is characteristic of most of 

Portsmouth, but the natural process of decay 

of vegetation and generation of new humus 

has created a bowl-like depression beneath 

the house. This traps water and keeps the 

area damp for extended periods of time, 

which not only exacerbates rotting of wood 

posts, but also creates conditions conducive 

to termites, all conditions that are typical of 

most of the structures at Portsmouth. 

• Much of the mortar in the front porch piers 

dates to their construction but remains in 

fair condition. The mortar in the exposed 

piers on the deck is badly eroded. All but 

three of the concrete caps on the piers and 

cheek walls are cracked and broken, with 

significant material loss in some. The east 

cheek wall at the steps to the deck leans 

significantly to the east.

• The door to Room 106 is deteriorated with 

severe damage to the bottom rail. The door 

to Room 104 is new but has no exterior 

hardware and no steps to the ground.

• Sash are missing from the windows on the 

east and north sides of the north wing but 

most of the rest are in fair condition.

• Glazing of windows is in poor condition. 

Many of the wood-framed screens are 

missing and those that remain are in poor 

condition.

• The lattice on the lower portion of the north 

wall of the lattice room is badly damaged as 

is the painted finish on the entire room. The 

door steps are missing entirely.

• Most of the house's exterior woodwork is in 

fair condition. Painted finishes are peeling 

and bare wood is being exposed at various 

locations all around the house.

• Some siding and most of the crown molding 

in the gables should be renailed.

• The painted finish on the deck flooring is 

badly worn as is the paint on the plinths and 

lower half of the posts. 

Medium Concern: Delayed Threat to 

Occupants or Building

• The interior of the house is in fair condition, 

but most surfaces are soiled or stained and 

need repainting. There is some deterioration 

of the ceiling boards at isolated locations 

where the roof has leaked. Three window 

sash are missing, and as noted earlier, 

the exterior glazing is in poor condition, 

which has allowed damage to some interior 

surfaces.

• The flooring is in poor condition, primarily 

from multiple floods, including the terrible 

hurricane that washed over the Outer Banks 

in 1933. These events have left much of 

the the flooring cupped and most of the 

fasteners showing evidence of oxidation.

• The wood framing appears to be in generally 

fair condition, and ridge lines remain 

straight and floors level. Insect damage can 

be observed in some of the sills, and there 

is likely to be hidden damage elsewhere 

in the building. The house is, like many 

others of the period, under-structured 

by modern standards, especially in terms 

of spacing between the various framing 

members, but there is no apparent systemic 

failure. However, the nails used in framing 
82 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

have inevitably corroded in the damp, salty 

environment, making the building more 

subject to wind damage and other stresses.

• The roofing is in fair condition and there 

are no apparent leaks. A few shingles are 

missing or loose. The house has no working 

electrical, plumbing, or HVAC systems.

• The parts of the shed that are visible are in 

good condition. Considering the building's 

proximity to the ground, deterioration of the 

sills and floor joists is probably ongoing.

Low Concern: Aesthetic Concerns 

Posing No Threat to Occupants or 

Building

• The finishes of the porch floor decks and 

exterior woodwork are failing.

• Glazing and painting of window sash are 

failing.
National Park Service 83

PART II.A ULTIMATE TREATMENT AND USE

II.A Ultimate Treatment 

and Use

The house and its reconstructed shed are part of 

a group of historic structures that provide what is 

perhaps the iconic image of Portsmouth. Anchored 

by the Methodist church, this concentration of 

residences, outbuildings, community buildings 

and cemeteries provides visitors a sense of the 

village in the early twentieth century when it was 

still a thriving community. Treatment and use of 

the Mason-Willis-Dixon House and shed should 

be predicated on preserving their place in that 

ensemble of buildings.

The house is historically significant for its 

associations with the Mason, Willis, and especially 

the Dixon families, all with roots in Portsmouth 

that stretch back more than two centuries. The 

house is also architecturally significant as an 

excellent local interpretation of the Craftsman 

bungalow, which was wildly popular in the first 

decades of the twentieth century. Harry Dixon’s 

stylish and extensive remodeling of an earlier 

house, even as Portsmouth was in decline, 

illustrates the resilience of Portsmouth and its 

residents.

In the 1970s NPS began a successful leasing 

program for several Portsmouth houses. The longterm agreements, generally twenty years, required 

leaseholders to maintain and improve the buildings 

following the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards 

for Rehabilitation” and specific conditions of the 

lease, including a requirement for a compost toilet 

if a flush toilet were not installed.89 

The leasing program at Portsmouth Village, like 

that at Cape Lookout Village, came to a close as 

the initial lease period ended. A plan for reuse 

was developed for the historic buildings at Cape 

Lookout Village after an unsuccessful challenge to 

89. Ellen Fulcher Cloud interview, April 26, 2014 

Homecoming.

the NPS decision not to renew. No similar plan has 

been developed for Portsmouth. 

Reestablishment of the leasing program at 

Portsmouth seems unlikely given the more 

stringent code requirements for sanitary facilities 

now in place. Installing and maintaining sanitary 

facilities during the initial phase of the leasing 

program was a constant challenge due to the 

shallow water table.90 In addition, the Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan notes that leasing may not be 

“desirable or feasible.” 

A plan for reuse was developed for the historic 

buildings at Cape Lookout Village after those 

90. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation 

Document, 2012, p. 29.

Figure 129. Mason-Willis-Dixon House seen from 

Village Road.
84 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR

leases expired, and there was an unsuccessful 

challenge to the NPS decision not to simply renew 

them. There is not yet a similar plan for those at 

Portsmouth. 

Continuing the use for which an historic structure 

was built is almost always the best option for 

historic preservation, and so it is for this residence. 

With its central location and high visibility, the 

house was a logical location for a ranger station at 

one time and a popular residence for volunteers 

after that, all while several nearby houses were 

leased. The house has two bedrooms, a full 

bathroom, and kitchen, but there is currently no 

water, sewer, or electrical service and all utility 

systems need to be updated. The house remains 

a sound and viable residence and could probably 

be readily leased. Unfortunately, as noted in 

the park’s recent Long-Range Interpretive Plan 

(LRIP), there are obstacles to leased residential 

use, beginning with major changes to the NPS legal 

authority for leasing that make the process more 

cumbersome.

In addition, the LRIP points out that 

“development of adequate sanitary facilities is not 

only challenging in the district but is also further 

complicated by sea level rise . . . .”91 Maintaining 

a potable water supply has always been an issue 

at Portsmouth, and with a rising and increasingly 

saline water table, wells may no longer be 

practical.

91. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan, pp. 38-39.

The rising water table was a factor in failure of the 

septic tank and drain field at the house.

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan also notes 

that leasing may not be “desirable or feasible,” 

and though that may be true, other daytime or 

administrative uses might be found, since sanitary 

facilities for non-residential uses may be feasible. A 

free-standing toilet would be unacceptable within 

the cultural landscape at the center of Portsmouth, 

but one might be housed in the reconstructed shed 

with a minimal impact on historic fabric.

At the very least, the house could be included 

among the buildings that are routinely opened 

to the public. Any threat of vandalism would 

be outweighed by the benefits of “eyes on the 

building,” which can help forestall the inevitable 

neglect that results when a building is not being 

used. It is noteworthy that long-time park 

personnel cannot recall an instance of vandalism, a 

problem at some parks.

The park’s GMP is outdated, and when it is 

updated, NPS will decide how to manage the 

residences in the Portsmouth historic district. 

In the meantime, and in keeping with the park’s 

approach to Portsmouth’s other historic structures,

the Recommended Ultimate Treatment for 

the house is Preservation of the exterior of 

the house as a major feature in the district’s 

cultural landscape and Rehabilitation of 

the interior to accommodate modern use, if 

possible.
PART II.B REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 85

II.B Requirements for 

Treatment

Treatment and use of all historic properties 

maintained by the National Park Service are guided 

by a number of Federal laws and regulations, as 

well as to NPS policy, directives, and functional 

requirements. In addition to protecting cultural 

resources, these requirements also address issues 

of life safety, fire protection, energy conservation, 

abatement of hazardous materials, and 

handicapped accessibility.

Some of these requirements may contradict or 

be at cross purposes with one another if they 

are rigidly interpreted. Any treatment must be 

carefully considered with a goal of maximizing the 

preservation of historic features and materials.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended (NHPA) mandates Federal protection 

of significant cultural resources, including 

buildings, landscapes, and archeological sites. 

In implementing the act, a number of laws and 

authorities have been established that are binding 

on the NPS.

Section 106

A routine step in the park’s planning process for 

the treatment of cultural resources is compliance 

with Section 106 of NHPA. This requires that, 

prior to any undertaking involving National 

Register or National Register-eligible historic 

properties, Federal agencies “take into account the 

effect” of the undertaking on the property and give 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “a 

reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to 

such undertaking.”

To satisfy the requirements of Section 106, 

regulations have been published (36 CFR Part 

800, “Protection of Historic Properties”) that 

require, among other things, consultation with 

local governments, State Historic Preservation 

Officers, and Indian tribal representatives. They 

also establish criteria under which the Advisory 

Council may comment, but as a practical matter, 

the vast majority of Federal undertakings do not 

involve review by the Advisory Council. The 

purpose of Section 106 review is to ensure that all 

interested parties have a voice in the preservation 

of our nation’s cultural heritage, and that historic 

properties are protected.

To expedite the review process, a programmatic 

agreement (PMOA) has been developed among 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 

National Council of State Historic Preservation 

Officers and the NPS to allow for a streamlined 

Section 106 review process. With certain 

conditions, routine repairs and maintenance that 

do not alter the appearance of the historic structure 

or involve widespread or total replacement of 

historic features or materials are reviewed by 

cultural resource specialists within the NPS. 

The Secretary’s Standards

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties are the Secretary’s 

best advice to everyone on how to protect a 

wide range of historic properties. They provide 

a philosophy to underpin historic preservation 

that is widely understood and almost universally 

accepted in the United States. They are intended 

to be applied to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

and districts. The Standards, revised in 1992, are 

codified as 36 CFR Part 68.

The Standards describe four broad approaches to 

the treatment and use of historic properties. These 

are, in hierarchical order:

• Preservation, which places a high premium 

on the retention of all historic fabric through 

conservation, maintenance and repair. It 

reflects a building’s continuum over time, 
86 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

through successive occupancies, and the 

respectful changes and alterations that are 

made.

• Rehabilitation, which emphasizes the 

retention and repair of historic materials, 

but provides more latitude for replacement 

because it is assumed the property is 

more deteriorated prior to work. (Both 

Preservation and Rehabilitation standards 

focus attention on the preservation of those 

materials, features, finishes, spaces, and 

spatial relationships that, together, give a 

property its historic character.)

• Restoration, which focuses on the retention 

of materials from the most significant time 

in a property’s history, while permitting the 

removal of materials from other periods.

• Reconstruction, which establishes limited 

opportunities to recreate a non-surviving 

site, landscape, building, structure, or object 

in all new materials.

Regardless of treatment approach, the Standards 

put a high priority on preservation of existing 

historic materials and features and not just the 

architectural form and style. The Standards also 

require that any alterations, additions, or other 

modifications be reversible, i.e., be designed and 

constructed in such a way that they can be removed 

or reversed in the future without the loss of 

existing historic materials, features, or character.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 

1990

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 

establishes comprehensive civil rights protection 

for disabled Americans, both in employment 

and in their right to free, unaided access to 

public buildings. While people with restricted 

mobility have most frequently benefited from 

ADA, protection also extends to those with other 

disabilities, including those with impaired vision or 

hearing.

Requirements for full compliance with ADA 

regulations are extensive and easiest to apply to 

new construction. Full compliance for historic 

buildings is more difficult and sometimes would 

require significant alterations to the historic 

character of the property. Where that is the 

case, ADA authorizes a process for arriving at 

alternatives to full compliance that can preserve 

historic character while maximizing a disabled 

visitor’s access to the historic building.

International Building Code

As a matter of policy, the NPS is guided by the 

International Building Code, which includes this 

statement regarding code compliance in historic 

buildings:

3406.1 Historic Buildings. The provisions 

of this code related 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 

[emphasis added].

Threats to public health and safety should always 

be eliminated, but because this applies to historic 

buildings, alternatives to full code compliance are 

always sought where compliance would needlessly 

compromise the integrity of historic buildings.

NFPA Code 914

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

has promulgated codes for historic buildings, 

most notably NFPA 909, “Code for the Protection 

of Cultural Resources Properties - Museums, 

Libraries, and Places of Worship,” and NFPA 914, 

“Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures.” 

As a matter of policy, NPS recommends installation 

of fire-suppression systems in every historic 

building.

NPS Management Policies

The NPS General Management Policies (2006) 

guide overall management of historic properties, 

especially Chapter 5 “Cultural Resource 

Management.” Based upon the authority of 

some nineteen Acts of Congress and many more 

Executive orders and regulations, these policies 

require planning to ensure that management 

processes for making decisions and setting 
PART II.B REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 87

priorities integrate information about cultural 

resources, and provide for consultation and 

collaboration with outside entities. These policies 

also support good stewardship to ensure that 

cultural resources are preserved and protected, 

receive appropriate treatments (including 

maintenance), and are made available for public 

understanding and enjoyment.

Section 5.3.5, “Treatment of Cultural 

Resources”

This section of the management policies 

provides specific directives, including a directive 

that “the preservation of cultural resources 

in their existing states will always receive first 

consideration.” 

The section also states that “treatments entailing 

greater intervention will not proceed without 

the consideration of interpretive alternatives.... 

Pending treatment decisions reached through the 

planning process, all resources will be protected 

and preserved in their existing states. Except for 

emergencies that threaten irreparable loss without 

immediate action, no treatment project will be 

undertaken unless supported by an approved 

planning document appropriate to the proposed 

action.”92 The present HSR is that approved 

planning document.

92. NPS General Management Policies (2006), p. 50.

Park Planning

The 1982 General Management Plan (GMP) 

divided the park into management zones, with 

a 250-acre “historic zone” identified around 

Portsmouth where preservation and adaptive use 

of the historic structures was envisioned. Beyond 

that, the GMP recommended restoration of 

Portsmouth “to the turn-of-the-century period, 

but without the replacement of now-missing 

buildings” and removal of “later buildings of 

non-historic character.” Those recommendations 

were based on a narrow understanding of the 

history and significance of Portsmouth that has 

since been broadened by additional research and 

the numerous studies that have been completed 

since the turn of the present century. We concur 

with the recommendations of the recently 

completed Cultural Landscape Report, which 

suggests the period of significance be extended to 

1971, when the island’s last year-round residents 

decamped for the mainland.

The GMP envisioned some building interiors 

used for interpretation, and others “adapted for 

contemporary administrative functions.”93

Subsequent park planning documents provide no 

additional direction applicable to the treatment 

and use of the Mason-Willis-Dixon House beyond 

maintaining its presence in the village.

93. NPS, Cape Lookout National Seashore General 

Management Plan, 1982, p. 43.
88 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
PART II.C ALTERNATIVES FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 89

II.C Alternatives for Treatment 

and Use

In accordance with NPS policy, other alternatives 

for treatment and use have also been considered 

in addition to the Ultimate Treatment and Use 

described above. While perhaps not recommended 

under the present circumstances, these alternative 

approaches nevertheless fulfill the basic park 

mandate to preserve the historic resources at 

Portsmouth.

Alternative #1: Mothballing

Having completed basic exterior repairs 

recommended elsewhere, park management could 

elect to simply mothball the house, following 

standards established procedures for that action.94

Window and door openings would be secured 

with wood louvers and no visitor access would be 

allowed.

This approach would have the following 

advantages:

• retains maximum flexibility for future 

decisions by park management regarding 

treatment and interpretation of Portsmouth;

• minimizes cost to preserve the house.

While this approach might be necessary for a short 

period of time, it becomes increasingly hard to 

justify as time goes by. As a result, this approach 

would have the following disadvantages:

• diminishes the public’s educational 

experience, since mothballing would of 

necessity severely diminish the house’s 

historic character and prevent public access;

• risks long-term neglect if not carefully 

monitored;

• violates NPS policy in support of adaptive 

use of historic buildings;

94. See Sharon C. Parks, Preservation Brief 31: Mothballing 

Historic Buildings (National Park Service Technical 

Preservation Services, 1993).

• leaves the NPS open to public criticism for 

its failure to use and properly preserve and 

interpret the resources in the village.

Alternative #2: Restoration ca. 

1920

An interesting alternative might be restoration of 

the house to its appearance prior to Harry Dixon’s 

remodeling in the 1928. Such an approach could 

enhance visitors’ understanding of the early 

community and the nature of its built environment 

in the early twentieth century.

Figure 130. Undated photograph showing the house 

before the changes of the 1920s. An attached porch 

fronts the main block, and the west wing is in place. 

Land to the west is vacant where houses would be 

added in the 1930s. (Dorothy Byrum Bedwell Coll.)
90 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

This approach would include removal of the 

low-pitched roof over the main block and 

restoration of the original roof, the rafters of 

which remain in place, and replacement of nearly 

all of the window sash with simple two-over-two 

sash. The front porch would be removed and the 

simple shed-roofed porch that existed before 1928 

would be reconstructed. The deck, too, would be 

removed, with a simple flight of steps providing 

access to the front door to the kitchen.

This approach would have the following 

advantages: 

• enhance visitors’ understanding of the 

early community and the nature of its built 

environment;

• the simplified design would also make longterm maintenance less costly.

It would have the following disadvantages:

• destruction of so much historic fabric would 

likely be judged an “adverse effect” and 

trigger protracted Section 106 consultation;

• the proposed restoration would be based on 

very limited archival documentation;

• additional building archaeology might date 

construction of the three components of the 

building, but would likely not show when 

they were brought together to form a a single 

house, which was before 1928;

• would likely anger the local community by 

destroying a part of the cultural landscape 

they have always known.

Alternative #3: House Museum

A third alternative that might be considered is that 

of house museum, with the interior and exterior 

restored to their appearance at the end of the 

period of significance. With appropriate furnishing 

and decoration, the house could exhibit something 

of the lifestyle of the Dixons and other residents 

of the community. Without furnishing and 

decoration, the house could still be a useful exhibit 

of itself which, if properly interpreted, could help 

visitors understand how Portsmouth’s architecture 

differed from that on the mainland and how it did 

not.

This approach would have the following 

advantages:

• maximizes public benefit and interpretive 

opportunity by preserving the house and 

restoring lost features; 

• expands visitor understanding of the role 

that the Mason, Willis, and Dixon families 

played in the community.

This approach would have the following 

disadvantages:

• requires a significant outlay of funds 

to pursue the necessary research and 

investigations to accurately recreate the 

historic interiors;

• increases cost of long-term maintenance ;

• cannot be justified as a realistic goal given 

present budget and staffing level restraints.
National Park Service 91

PART IID. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

II.D Recommendations for 

Treatment and Use

The following recommendations are intended to 

achieve the Ultimate Treatment and Use described 

above for the Mason-Willis-Dixon House: 

exterior preservation and possible adaptive use 

of the interior. Most of what is described below is 

compatible with a variety of uses and is intended to 

incorporate routine maintenance of the house as it 

exists today, repairing and, if necessary, replacing 

in-kind, as well as conducting routine inspections 

to minimize and prevent damage to the historic 

fabric of the building.

HSR recommendations are not intended to provide 

the specific guidance that architectural/engineering 

plans and specifications or other specialized 

professional documents would provide. However, 

A/E plans and specifications or other professional 

documents may not be needed for many of the 

recommended actions. Some of the in-kind repairs 

and maintenance tasks can be performed by skilled 

craftsmen, if properly guided by cultural resource 

specialists.

Portsmouth Village - General

Barrier islands, such as Portsmouth, will be 

especially vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change and sea-level rise, which may negatively 

affect cultural resources on these islands.

General Recommendations for Portsmouth Village

• Consult with Janet Cakir PhD, NPS 

SER Climate Change, Socioeconomics, 

and Adaptation Coordinator to guide 

management policies.

• Use results from the climate change study 

“Identify Cultural Resources Sites Affected 

by Sea-Level Rise at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore” to guide management policies. This 

study is also applicable to Portsmouth Island.

• Prepare or update a Topographic Survey for 

the site.

• Prepare a Log of Flood Occurrences. Record 

at a minimum the dates of occurrences and 

approximate extent and severity (e.g. depth at 

specific locations). Correlate recordings with 

Topographic Survey. Maintain data so that 

they can be correlated with conditions such 

as tide, moon phase, etc.

• Evaluate site for flood avoidance potential 

including the introduction of dams and/or 

swales to divert or direct flooding waters.

• Evaluate each building, structure, and 

significant site feature for flood avoidance 

potential and/or enhancement potential for 

better withstanding the projected threatening 

events.

• Identify critical services (fresh water supply, 

waste disposal, energy sources, etc.), evaluate 

options, and develop contingency plan for 

each. 

• Strive to maintain for all buildings a sound 

structural system and a weather-tight exterior 

envelope, especially the roof.

• Use maintenance activities as opportunities 

to enhance the resistive capacities of the 

buildings and structures whenever feasible.

• Prepare minimum level of record 

documentation (overall view photographs 

and text descriptions) for all undocumented 

cultural resources in the community 

that are at risk; prepare more extensive 

documentation (including scaled record 

drawings with descriptions) for the more 

significant resources at risk.

The House Site

Portsmouth’s coastal climate with its regularly 

strong winds, high humidity levels and high 
92 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

salt content of the air, is especially damaging to 

many construction materials, especially ferrousbased metals. Left unprotected, such materials 

deteriorate quickly. 

Poor drainage is also characteristic of Portsmouth, 

but the natural process of decay of vegetation and 

generation of new humus has created a bowl-like 

depression under the house. This traps water and 

keeps the area damp for extended periods of time, 

which not only exacerbates rotting of wood posts, 

but also creates conditions conducive to termites.

Typically, the use of gutters and a drainage system 

to direct water rapidly away from the building 

would be part of the solution to this problem, but 

the topography of the site would probably make 

such an approach of little utility. The depression 

might be filled with sand, gravel, or shell, but the 

low elevation of the building’s wood frame would 

make that difficult.

Raising the house, including the masonry 

features on the south side, and regrading the site 

to eliminate the depression might eliminate this 

problem but would likely require replacement of 

all of the foundation posts, which are characterdefining features. The house could be raised less 

than a foot before the brick and concrete piers, 

cheek walls, and steps would have to be rebuilt. 

With rising tides, it might be more efficient to 

manage the effects with more frequent inspection 

for termites and other hazards to the building.

General Recommendations

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for House Site 

• Investigate feasibility of partial or complete 

filling of the depression beneath the house.

• Conduct rigorous annual inspections for 

termite infestation and treat accordingly.

• Secure clearance from an archaeologist 

before commencing work that might require 

ground disturbance.

Structural Systems

Except for the front porch, which is supported by 

brick piers, the house is set on wood posts. The 

house is one story and has a conventional wood 

frame.

Foundation Posts

Standing water has precipitated rot in most of the 

wood posts, which are set directly into the ground, 

a problem typical of the structures at Portsmouth. 

No metal shields separate the posts from the 

house’s wood frame to protect the structure from 

termite infestation and damage.

Posts will have to be replaced eventually, and 

where that is necessary, posts should be replaced 

in-kind. Distinctive posts, such as the one using 

salvaged lumber previously eaten by ship worms, 

should be preserved.

Recommendations for Foundation Posts

• Replace posts in-kind as they fail.

• Preserve distinctive posts and those dating 

to the house’s original construction.

• Install termite shields wherever possible.

Masonry Features

Much of the mortar in the front porch piers dates 

to 1928 and remains in fair condition. In contrast, 

the mortar in the exposed piers on the deck is 

badly eroded. All but three of the concrete caps 

on the piers and cheek walls are cracked and 

broken, with significant material loss in some. 

The east cheek wall at the steps to the deck leans 

significantly to the east.

Figure 131. Tilted brick cheek wall at steps to front 

deck.
National Park Service 93

PART IID. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

All masonry requires routine repair and repointing. 

The piers, cheek walls, and chimney should all be 

inspected and repointed as necessary, matching the 

historic mortar in composition, appearance, and 

tooling.

The cheek wall on the east side of the steps to 

the deck has been undermined and developed a 

significant outward tilt. The feature is small enough 

that it might be possible to lift it into a morevertical position.

The concrete caps play a critical role in preserving 

the brick masonry by protecting the interior and 

tops of the pier walls from water penetration. 

Clean cracks might be repaired in situ with grout; 

others might require temporary removal of the 

cap so that a more permanent repair can be made. 

Missing pieces could be recast and integrated into 

any surviving pieces.

The chimney may never have been capped, but a 

cap to prevent water from penetrating its interior 

should be considered.

Recommendations for Masonry

• Investigate feasibility of righting the sinking 

cheek wall at the deck.

• Repoint all brickwork.

• Repair concrete caps to a sound condition.

• Consider installing a chimney cap.

Wood Framing

The wood framing appears to be in generally fair 

condition; ridge lines remain straight and floors 

level. Insect damage can be observed in some of 

the sills, and hidden damage is likely to be found 

elsewhere in the building. The house, like many 

others of the period, is under-structured by 

modern standards, especially in terms of spacing 

between the various framing members, but there 

is no apparent systemic failure. However, the 

ferrous nails used in framing have inevitably 

corroded in the damp, salty environment, making 

the building more subject to wind damage and to 

other stresses.

Recommendations for Wood Framing

• Conduct regular inspection for the presence 

of wood-damaging plants and insects; treat 

accordingly.

• Conduct routine inspections, some during 

rainstorms, to inspect for evidence of water 

intrusion and instances of damage. 

• Periodically review for evidence of 

deflection across planes of framing, 

framing members out of square or plumb, 

or heightened vibration in framing 

members. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• If the interior is opened to visitors, provide 

additional post-and-beam supports for the 

floor joists if necessary.

Exterior Features

The house is finished with materials typical of the 

early twentieth century. The NPS has replaced 

a significant amount of the material, including 

virtually all of the wooden elements of the front 

porch and deck.

Doors

The front door to Room 101 remains in generally 

good condition. The door to Room 106 is 

deteriorated with severe damage to the bottom rail. 

The door at the rear of Room 104 is new but has no 

exterior hardware and no steps to the ground.

Recommendations for Doors

• Ensure all hardware remains operable. 

Apply lubricant on a regular basis.

• Maintain sound paint finish at all exposed 

surfaces.

• Reconstruct steps to ground at Room 104.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Windows

Sash are missing from the windows on the east 

and north sides of the north wing, but most of 

the rest are in fair condition. Painted finishes are 

in poor condition with peeling paint and staining 

from rusting nails. Glazing of windows is in poor 

condition. Many of the wood-framed screens 

are missing and those that remain are in poor 

condition.

Recommendations for Windows

• Replace missing sash in Room 105.

• Return all sash to working order, repair 

glazing, and repaint

• Repair/replace wood-framed screens.
94 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

• .Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Roofing

The roofing is in fair condition with no apparent 

leaks. A few shingles are missing or loose. As with 

most of the historic structures at Portsmouth, no 

gutters or french drains are present.

Recommendations for Roofing

• Routinely inspect for missing or loose 

shingles and repair or replace as needed.

Siding and Trim

Most of the house’s exterior woodwork is in fair 

condition. Painted finishes are peeling and bare 

wood is being exposed at various locations all 

around the house. Some siding and most of the 

crown molding in the gables should be renailed.

Recommendations for Siding and Trim

• Repair trim, renailing loose pieces as 

needed.

• Monitor regularly for open joints, displaced 

or loose elements, or other evidence of 

movement; renail loose pieces.

• Monitor checking, splitting, and instances 

of rot, and plan remedial actions 

accordingly. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork to 

keep a sound exterior surface.

Front Porch

The porch is in mostly good condition, since the 

entire porch, except for the tripled columns at the 

corners, was completely rebuilt in 1987. The lower 

parts of the box columns are now deteriorating 

along with the wooden plinths.

Recommendations for Front Porch

• Prepare and repaint woodwork.

Deck and Portico

The painted finish on the deck flooring is badly 

worn as is the paint on the plinths and lower half of 

the posts. 

Recommendations for Deck and Portico

• Repair trim, renailing loose pieces as needed.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork.

Lattice Room

The lattice on the lower portion of the north (back) 

wall is badly damaged as is the painted finish on 

the entire room. The steps at the door are missing 

entirely.

Recommendations for Lattice Room

• Remove shower from interior.

• Repair lattice and other trim, renailing loose 

pieces, and replacing if necessary.

• Prepare and repaint exterior woodwork.

• Ensure door is in working order.

• Reconstruct steps to ground.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Interior Features

The interior of the house is in fair condition, but 

most surfaces are soiled and stained and need 

repainting. There is some deterioration of the 

ceiling boards at isolated locations where the roof 

has leaked in the past. Three window sash are 

missing, and as noted earlier, the exterior glazing 

on those that remain is in poor condition, which 

has allowed weather to damage some interior 

surfaces.

The collection of furnishings, decorative objects, 

and other items should be evaluated for historical 

significance or utility in maintaining the house. 

All items identified for preservation should be 

removed to storage until a plan for use of the house 

is developed.

Flooring

The flooring is in poor condition, primarily from 

multiple floods, including the terrible hurricane 

that washed over the Outer Banks in 1933. These 

events have left much of the flooring cupped 

and most of the fasteners showing evidence of 

oxidation. Heavy sanding to remove the cupping 

is not recommended, since that would require 

removal of an unacceptable amount of surface 

wood.

Recommendations for Flooring

• Avoid aggressive sanding of flooring.

• Do not renew painted or varnished 

finishes until interior use of the house is 

determined. 
National Park Service 95

PART IID. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

Mechanical and Electrical 

Systems

The electrical and plumbing systems are 

inoperative and could not be evaluated. Most of 

the components of these systems were installed 

in the early 1980s. There are no smoke, fire, or 

security systems in place, and it appears that the 

house was always heated with stoves.

Recommendations for Mechanical and Electrical 

Systems

• Rehabilitate mechanical and electrical 

systems to accommodate identified use. 

• Maintain present bathroom and kitchen 

locations.

• Reinstall bathroom lavatory and kitchen 

sink.

• Continue heating with stoves.

The Shed

The parts of the shed that are visible are in good 

condition. Considering the building’s proximity 

to the ground, deterioration of the sills and floor 

joists is probably ongoing.

Recommendations for Shed

• Consider adaptive use as an enclosure for a 

composting toilet.

• Consider elevating the structure if it is 

necessary to replace the floor.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in 

all construction and repairs.

Priorities

The highest priorities are the routine 

actions necessary for the house’s continued 

preservation, which above all means regular 

inspection, keeping the roofing in good 

repair, and maintaining all exterior painted 

finishes.

The park should take the necessary steps 

to assess the collection of furnishings and 

decorative objects inside the house for 

any historical significance, and to consider 

removal of these items to safe storage. The 

large wardrobe built into the southwest corner 

of Room 105 should be preserved in situ, as 

should the corner cupboard and shelving in 

the kitchen.

The park can do little to combat rising sea level 

and the consequential threat to cultural and 

natural resources. Raising the house should be 

considered, but as noted earlier, any significant 

change in elevation could alter the house’s 

character-defining features.
96 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Park Service 97

Bibliography

Atwell, Amy Elizabeth. “Portsmouth Village,” unpublished ms., 1991. 

Bemisderfer, Tim and Rene Cote. “Portsmouth Village Storm Damage Assessment Report,” November 27, 

2012.

Burke, Kenneth E. “The History of Portsmouth, North Carolina, From Its Founding in 1753 to Its 

Evacuation in the Face of Federal Forces in 1861.” Unpublished undergraduate thesis, 

University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, 1958. Revised 1974, 1976.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Master Plan, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Harkers Island NC: Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, 1971.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Final Environmental Impact Statement on General Management Plan / 

Development Concept Plan, December 1982.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation Document, October 2012.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range Interpretive Plan, June 2011

Cape Lookout National Seashore, “Portsmouth Village, Historic Structures Management 

Recommendations,” August 1984.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 1984.

Carteret County Deed Books.

Cecelski, David. The Waterman’s Song: Slavery and Freedom in Maritime North Carolina. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Cloud, Ellen Fulcher. Portsmouth, The Way It Was. Print Shop, 1996.

Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center, http://coresound.com/our-communities/sea-level/. 

Cote, Rene. “Narrative Report on the Findings of Historic Structures Examination; Preliminary Test of 

Historic Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 1984.

Davis, Pat Dula, and Kathleen Hill Hamilton, eds. The Heritage of Carteret County North Carolina, Vol. 1. 

Beaufort, NC: Carteret Historical Research Association, 1982.

Denver Service Center. General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. Finalized 1982, approved 1983.

Ehrenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources. 

SEAC, NPS, 1976.
98 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 

Eubanks, Frances A., and Lynn S. Salsi. Portsmouth Island: Outer Banks Treasure. Columbia, SC: Montville 

Press, 2004.

Friends of Portsmouth Island newsletters and website, http://friendsofportsmouthisland.org/fopi/.

Herrin, Angeli. “Deserted Island Comes Alive for Wedding Celebration,” The [Raleigh] News and Observer, 

October 1, 1978. found in survey files, State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. Department of History, Office of 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, NPS, 1968.

Howard, Philip. “1911 Wedding on Portsmouth Island,” Ocracoke Newsletter, February 21, 2011, www.

villagecraftsmen.com/news022111.htm

Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description of the Eight Villages adjoining Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. Final Technical Report, Vol. 2. 

Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, November 2005.

Interviews by the authors, 2013 and 2014.

Jones, Tommy. George Dixon House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2004. 

_______ Wash Roberts House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2003. 

_______ Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2006. 

_______ Ed Styron House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2004. 

Life-Saving Station Logs, excerpted by Tommy Jones, NPS.

Little, M. Ruth. A Comprehensive Architectural Survey of Carteret County; North Carolina’s Archipelago, 

2012. 

National Park Service. “List of Classified Structures Park/Region Report,” March 11, 1987.

National Park Service, Office of Policy. “NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management,” June 11, 1998. 

NPS files including drawings, maps, memos, images and administrative files.

NOAA, Storm Tide Frequency Analysis for the Coast of North Carolina, North of Cape Lookout, 1975, p. 6, 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/Technical_memoranda/TM27.pdf

Olson, Sarah. Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center, March, 1982.

Olszewski, George J. “Historic Resource Study for History of Portsmouth Village,” typewritten draft for 

NPS, September 1970.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Park Service 99

Powell, William S. North Carolina through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 

1989.

_______ Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, Vol. 5. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1994.

Ruffin, Edmund. Agricultural, Geological, and Descriptive Sketches of Lower North Carolina, and the 

Similar Adjacent Lands. Raleigh: Printed at the Institution for the Deaf & Dumb & the 

Blind, 1861.

Salsi, Lynn, and Frances Eubanks. The Crystal Coast. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000.

Salter, Ben B. Portsmouth Island: Short Stories & History. Portsmouth: Doris S. Willis, 1972.

Smith, Caroline. “Historic Portsmouth,” undated article in SHPO files.

Stick, David. The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958. Chapel Hill: The University of North 

Carolina Press, 1958.

VanBeck, Sara L. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Archives and Records Management Review. NPS, 

2000.

Whisnant, David E., and Anne Mitchell Whisnant. Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource 

Study, prepared for the Organization of American Historians under Cooperative 

Agreement with the National Park Service, Draft, January 14, 2010.

White, James E. Portsmouth Island: A Walk in the Past. Trent Woods, NC: Mount Truxton Publishing 

Company, 2010.

_______, ed. School Mom of Portsmouth: Memories of Lucy Beacham Gilgo. Trent Woods, NC: Mount 

Truxton Publishing Company, 2011.

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Portsmouth Village, Cultural Resources Report. Atlanta: National Park 

Service Southeast Regional Office, 2007. 

Selected Maps

A Compleat Map of North-Carolina from an actual Survey by Capt’n Collet, Governor of Fort Johnston. 

1770. Engraved by I. Bayly, London. 

Mouzon, Henry. An Accurate Map of North and South Carolina, 1775.

Thomas Coles and Jonathan Price, both civilian surveyors employed by the federal government. “A Chart 

of the Coast of North Carolina between Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear from a Survey taken 

in the Year 1806.” National Archives, Washington, D.C., Records of the Office of Chief of 

Engineers, RG 77, Map H22.

US Coast Survey. “Sketch of Ocracoke Inlet,” 1852. Chart 418, Record Group 23, Records of the Coast and 

Geodetic Survey, National Archives.
100 Mason-Willis-Dixon House HSR 
National Park Service 1

Part I.A - Historical Background and Context

Appendix A: Documentation 

Drawings

Sheet 1: Floor Plan

Sheet 2: North Elevation

Sheet 3: East Elevation

Sheet 4: South Elevation

Sheet 5: West Elevation

Sheet 6: Shed Plan

Sheet 7: Details
2 Ocracoke Light Station HSR - DRAFT