National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior
COMMENTS ON THE PAINTING “TALES”

BY JONATHAN GREEN

Painting: Tales, 1988 – Oil on Masonite, 24” x 36” © Jonathan Green

 

Cultural background influences of painting:

I was born in the home of my grandparents, Oscar and Eloise Stewart 

Johnson, which was a small shotgun type house located in the rural Gullah 

community of Gardens Corners, South Carolina. There was no running 

water in the home, telephone, or television, but the home was heated by 

a pot bellied stove and did have a few electrical wires that provided light 

when necessary. In back of the house there was a huge Live Oak tree. In 

the evening it was common for family, community members, and youths to 

sit around the tree to tell and listen to stories and histories of our ancestors, 

myths, and traditions. I was most fortunate to have had a special relationship 

with the elders of my community as they knew I was very interested in our 

history and culture, with specific interest in my great ancestors. Along with 

their stories they shared with me how they would use particular herbs, teas, 

and roots to help heal common health conditions.

The painting Tales reflects my recollections of the stories told around 

the Oak tree. Because this is a recollection stemming from my youth, I 

purposely did not put facial features on the figures. In Gullah tradition, it 

was an insult for a child to look an adult in the face until given permission to 

do so. Always, elders and adults were to be respected.

When I was approximately 11 years old I and other children from the 

community were climbing and playing in the tree. There was a giant knot 

hole in the tree and I was not aware someone had poured gasoline into 

the hole. To see what was in the hole, I lit a match and flames shot out and 

severely burned my face which resulted in searing pain and I was disfigured 

for many months. In addition to being burned, the oak tree was destroyed 

by the fire and I mourned the loss of such a magnificent and magical tree. 

My grandmother, Eloise, knew the use of herbal and natural medicine and 

applied ointments and medications on my face and fortunately I was healed, 

but the memory of the experience has always stayed with me.
Gullah Geechee 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Corridor 

Commission 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

Ronald Daise, Chairman (SC) 

Althea Natalga Sumpter, Vice-Chair (GA) 

Charles H. Hall, Secretary (GA) 

Ralph B. Johnson, Treasurer (FL) 

COMMISSION MEMBERS 

South Carolina 

Emory S. Campbell (former Chairman) 

Louise Miller Cohen 

Marquetta L. Goodwine 

Willie B. Heyward 

William Saunders 

Alternates 

J. Herman Blake 

Daniel Cromer 

Veronica D. Gerald 

Nichole Green 

Georgia 

Griffin Lotson 

Alternate 

Amir Jamal Touré 

North Carolina 

Lana Carter 

Eulis A. Willis (former Vice-Chairman) 

Alternates 

Sylvia J. Ezelonwu 

David B. Frank 

Florida 

Anthony E. Dixon 

Antoinette Jackson 

Alternates 

Sabrina Edwards 

Annette Kashif 

Former Commission Members 

Patricia Barefoot, Georgia 

Jeanne C. Cyriaque, Georgia 

John H. Haley, North Carolina 

William Jefferson, Florida 

Glenda Simmons Jenkins, Florida 

Deborah L. Mack, Georgia 

Shirlean Spicer, North Carolina 

NPS Community Partnership Specialist 

Michael A. Allen 

 
This document may be cited as: 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission 

2012 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Management Plan. Prepared and published 

by the National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 
i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

The Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (the Corridor) was designated by the 

Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act, passed by Congress on October 12, 2006 (Public Law 109-

338). The local coordinating entity legally responsible for management of the Corridor is a federal 

commission established by Congress and titled the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

Commission (the Commission). 

Please note that during the planning process, the Commission made a decision to remove the 

forward slash in reference to Gullah Geechee people, communities, history, and culture, as it was 

originally written in the special resource study and subsequent designating law. This change was 

made in order to represent one culture within the Corridor and to create a unique identity that is 

distinct from other Gullah Geechee cultural entities. This management plan includes a space 

between Gullah and Geechee wherever present in accordance with the decision. To legally 

accomplish this change, the Commission will include the change from “Gullah/Geechee” to “Gullah 

Geechee” in all instances as part of the legislation to reauthorize the Commission as the Corridor’s 

“local coordinating entity.” 

As a national heritage area, the Corridor is not part of the national park system; however, the act 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance for the 

development and implementation of the management plan. The Corridor focuses on a distinct 

African American population, a living group of people with a deeply rooted, yet evolving culture. 

CORRIDOR PURPOSE 

The Corridor was created to: 

 Recognize, sustain, and celebrate the important contributions made to American culture and 

history by African Americans, known as the Gullah Geechee, who settled in the coastal 

counties of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. 

 Assist state and local governments and public and private entities in South Carolina, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and Florida in interpreting the story of the Gullah Geechee and preserving 

Gullah Geechee folklore, arts, crafts, and music. 

 Assist in identifying and preserving sites, historical data, artifacts, and objects associated with 

Gullah Geechee people and culture for the benefit and education of the public. 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 

The Commission is to be composed of 15 voting members and 10 alternates, and is scheduled to 

terminate on October 12, 2016. As such, the Commission would seek the passage of legislation to 

reauthorize the Commission as the “local coordinating entity.” The Commission’s duties, terms of 

service, and bylaws could be adjusted in the reauthorizing law. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii 

To enhance its connection to local people and communities, the Commission would establish local 

advisory committees that would facilitate the flow of communication and information between the

public and the Commission. 

The National Park Service National Heritage Area program would continue to provide limited 

financial and technical assistance according to the requirements of Public Law 109-338, based on 

congressional appropriations and program stipulations. The Commission would seek a cooperative 

agreement with a fiscal agent to raise funds to support implementation efforts. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Commission has undertaken a comprehensive planning process to develop this management 

plan. It has continually engaged the public and potential partners in developing its approach for 

managing the Corridor over the next 10 years. The management approach outlined in this plan is 

based on the purpose, significance, and designating law of the Corridor. 

The management plan was developed by the Commission to guide future implementation efforts in 

cooperation and collaboration with partners. The plan reflects and addresses the extensive public 

and stakeholder involvement undertaken by the Commission and provides a blueprint for how to 

address the issues and concerns that were identified throughout the planning process. The vision, 

mission, goals, and primary interpretive themes in the plan create the foundation for future 

implementation. 

An evaluation of the potential for significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed 

strategies and actions in this plan concluded that the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

pathway was a categorical exclusion under 3.3R, which is for the “adoption or approval of surveys, 

studies, reports, plans and similar documents which will result in recommendations or proposed 

actions which would cause no or only minimal environmental impacts.” 

OVERVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The plan provides a description of Gullah Geechee people and culture and a brief historical 

overview. In addition the plan highlights examples of important cultural resources throughout the 

Corridor, summarizes the natural resources of the Corridor, discusses land ownership and land 

cover, and briefly touches on the socioeconomic conditions within the Corridor. This plan provides 

readers with a basic level of information about the Corridor in order to facilitate a better 

understanding of the direction for future implementation that is outlined in the management 

approach. 

The management approach developed for the Corridor is the heart of the plan. It provides the basic 

building blocks for implementation. The management approach focuses on the following three 

interdependent pillars: 

 education 

 economic development 

 documentation and preservation 

By implementing the management approach, the Commission aims to increase understanding and 

awareness of Gullah Geechee people, culture, and history; support heritage-related economic 

development, primarily for the economic sustainability of Gullah Geechee people and communities; 
Executive Summary 

iii 

promote preservation of land and natural resources related to the culture; and preserve Gullah 

Geechee resources, primarily through documentation. 

To effectively implement the management approach, the Commission developed primary 

interpretive themes and an interpretation framework to assist in “Tellin We Story.” The following six 

primary interpretive themes would be the focus of future interpretation efforts by the Commission 

and partners: 

I. Origins and Early Development 

II. The Quest for Freedom, Equality, Education, and Recognition 

III. Global Connections 

IV. Connection with the Land 

V. Cultural and Spiritual Expression 

VI. Gullah Geechee Language 

In addition, the Commission developed a signage plan and a process to formally identify partners. 

This management plan has been distributed to other agencies and interested organizations and 

individuals for their review and comment. Readers are encouraged to send written comments on this 

management plan. Please see the “How to Comment on this Plan” discussion for further 

information. 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this management plan are welcome and will be accepted for 30 days from the date of a 

press release in local newspapers announcing the plan’s release. Copies of the document will be 

available on the Corridor Web site (www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org) and on the Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site (address below), as well as through hard copies 

and/or electronic files at libraries throughout the Corridor (see “Agencies, Organizations, and 

Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document” in chapter 5). 

To respond to the material in this plan, written comments may be submitted by any one of several 

methods below. Comments provided via the PEPC Web site are preferred. Please submit only one set 

of comments. 

PEPC Web site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/guge 

Mail: 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission 

c/o Commission Chairman 

1214 Middle Street 

Sullivan’s Island, SC 29482 

Note: Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including 

your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 

ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

v 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

Introduction i

Corridor Purpose i

Organizational Structure i

Development of the Management Plan ii

Overview of the Management Plan ii

How to Comment on this Plan iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS XIII

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 3

BACKGROUND 5

Who are Gullah Geechee People? 5

What is a National Heritage Area? 6

Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study 7

What is the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor? 8

Purpose and Need for the Plan 8

Why A Management Plan? 10

What is the Value or Usefulness of Management Planning? 10

PLANNING PROCESS 13

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 16

Public Scoping Meetings 16

Planning Issues 17

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 19

Overview 19

Corridor Purpose 19

Corridor Significance 19

Corridor Vision, Mission, Goals, and Primary Interpretive Themes 21

THE CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 24

Boundary Adjustments 24

History of Corridor Counties 25

APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND INITIATIVES 32

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 32

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 32

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 33

National Park Service Management Policies 2006 33

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 33

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Act of 2006 33
CONTENTS

vi 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative of 2010 34

National Park Service A Call to Action Strategic Action Plan of 2011 34

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 12-01 35

NEXT STEPS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 37

Next Steps 37

Implementation of the Plan 37

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 39

OVERVIEW 41

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND CONTEMPORARY EVENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 42

First Contact—Native American, European, and African 42

Historical Overview of Gullah Geechee People and Culture 43

Contemporary Events of Significance 54

CULTURAL RESOURCES 58

Ethnographic Resources 58

Archeological Resources 66

Structures and Districts 68

Cultural Landscapes 71

Museum Collections 73

NATURAL RESOURCES 75

Overview 75

Soils 76

Water Resources and Quality 76

Vegetation 77

Wildlife 78

Climate Change 78

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 80

Overview 80

Demographics 80

Economy 92

Conclusion 97

LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND COVER 98

Historic Land Ownership and Heirs’ Property 98

Current Land Ownership 100

Land Cover by State 101

CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 111

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 113

Introduction 113

The Management Approach 113

Organizational Structure 117
Contents 

vii 

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 124

Building Relationships with Partners 124

Implementation Framework Overview 124

Partnership Programs 124

Principles for Implementation 126

Project Selection Criteria 126

Best Management Practices 126

Implementation Matrix 129

Coastal Heritage Centers 129

Potential Partners and Related Plans 130

FUNDING AND EARLY IMPLEMENTATION 139

Past Funding 139

Early Implementation Activities 139

Estimated Start-up Costs 142

Implementation Costs 143

Potential Sources of Funding 144

ONGOING AND FUTURE ACTIONS 152

Ongoing Public Outreach and Engagement 152

Future Plans, Studies, and Research 154

Monitoring Progress 155

OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 160

Requirements for Recipients of Federal Funding 160

Allowable Costs 161

Matching Funds Requirements 161

CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY”: AN INTERPRETATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE GULLAH GEECHEE 

CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 163

PURPOSE OF THE INTERPRETATION FRAMEWORK 165

Part 1: Introduction 165

Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 165

Part 3: Heritage Tourism and Visitor Experience 165

Part 4: Signage Framework 165

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 166

Use of the Interpretation Framework 166

What is Interpretation? 166

Role of Interpretation in the Corridor 167

Graphic Identity 169

PART 2: GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 170

Primary Interpretive Themes 170

Identifying Audiences within the Corridor 182

Connecting Strategies to Audiences 185

Reaching All Audiences 185
CONTENTS

viii 

Implementation Strategies for Primary Interpretive Themes 185

Linking Strategies to Audiences 187

Building Relationships with Interpretation Partners 187

PART 3: HERITAGE TOURISM AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE 189

Introduction 189

Culture, Tourism, and Development 190

Tourism and Education 190

Tourism Best Management Practices 191

Visitor Experience 193

PART 4: SIGNAGE FRAMEWORK 195

Requirement 195

Orientation 195

Sign Identity 195

Categories of Signs 196

Coordination with Existing Sign Plans and Programs 201

Cost Breakdown 201

Signage Plan 201

Conclusion 202

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 203

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 205

Public Meetings and Newsletters 205

Consultation with Tribes, Agencies, and Organizations 208

Future Compliance Requirements 211

Other Outreach Efforts 211

Other Commission Activities 216

Letters of Support 217

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 228

COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES 233

GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMISSION COMMITTEES, 2008–2012 235

Standing Committees 235

Ad-Hoc Committees 236

Issue-specific Committees and Subcommittees 237

TIME LINE OF GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND 

MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS 239

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 245

Preparers 245

Consultants 246

Other Administrative Services 247

APPENDICES 248

SELECTED REFERENCES 251
Contents 

ix 

Photograph List with Credits 269

Figure List with Credits 272

APPENDICES 

(contained on CD) 

Appendix A: Designating Law 

Appendix B: Commission Bylaws

Appendix C: Resource Inventory

Appendix D: Boundary

Appendix E: Partner Applications 

Appendix F: Early Implementation 

Appendix G: Consultation Letters

Appendix H: Major River Basins and Threatened & Endangered Species

Appendix I: Economic Impact of Tourism

Appendix J: List of Islands and Festivals

Appendix K: Potential Partners and Related Plans 

Appendix L: Recreational and Scenic Resources 

Appendix M: Bibliography Including Selected References and Additional Sources of Information about Gullah 

Geechee History, Culture, and People 

Appendix N: Public Comment Reports 

MAPS 

1. Vicinity Map 12

2. Historic Counties as of April 12, 1811 28

3. Historic Counties as of April 12, 1861 29

4. Historic Counties as of April 12, 1911 30

5. Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Proposed Boundary 31

6. Gullah Geechee Housing Density 2010 Map 90

7. Gullah Geechee Housing Density 2030 Map 91

8. Public Lands in North Carolina 102

9. Public Lands in South Carolina 103

10. Public Lands in Georgia 104

11. Public Lands in Florida 105

12. Corridor Land Cover Map 109

 
CONTENTS

x 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study, July 2005 8

Public Engagement Meeting Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 16

Old Slave Mart Museum Charleston, Charleston County, SC 21

Navassa Dock, Navassa, Brunswick County, NC 37

Land’s End Live Oak Tree St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 42

“Rice Culture on the Ogeechee” near Savannah, Georgia Harper’s Weekly, January 5, 1867 44

Rice Trunk and Canal, Mansfield Plantation Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC 47

Slave Quarters, Fort King George Darien, McIntosh County, GA 48

U.S. Colored Troops, NC Highway Historical Marker Wilmington National Cemetery, Wilmington, New 

Hanover County, NC 49

Bateau Boat 51

Alex and Luther Jones and a Mule Old Georgetown Road, Charleston County, SC 54

Gullah Geechee Seafood Meal: red rice, crab, green beans, whiting fish, coleslaw, bread pudding 60

Doing the Ring Shout in Georgia, ca. 1930s 61

Sapelo Island Cultural Day 2003 McIntosh County, GA 62

Sweetgrass Baskets by Vera Manigault 63

“Gullah O’oman Quilt” by Bunny Rodrigues 63

Coffin Point Praise House St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 64

Three Tabby Cabins Ossabaw Island, Chatham County, GA 66

Mitchelville Historical Marker Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, SC 67

Behavior Cemetery Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA 67

Overview of Archeological Investigation Kingsley Plantation, National Historic District, Timucuan Ecological 

and Historic Preserve, Duval County, FL 68

Sad Iron (heated and used to press clothing) recovered during excavation Kingsley Plantation, National 

Historic District, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Duval County, FL 68

Penn Center School St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 69

Penn School Historical Marker St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 70

Dorchester Academy Boys’ Dormitory Midway, Liberty County, GA 70

Lincolnville Historic District, FL Historical Marker St. Augustine, St. Johns County, FL 71

Needwood Baptist Church Brunswick, Glynn County, GA 72

Tabby Cabin Row, Kingsley Plantation National Historic District Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 

Jacksonville, Duval County, FL 73

Beach Institute Savannah, Chatham County, GA 74

Gullah Geechee Sweetgrass Basket Stand, Highway 17 Near Mount Pleasant, Charleston County, SC 80

NPS Youth Educational Field Trip Morris Island, Charleston County, SC 86

Homes in the Harrington Community St. Simons Island, Glynn County, GA 89

Fresh Conch 95

Turnip Greens for Sale 96

Robert Smalls Home Beaufort, Beaufort County, SC 98

Sign on St. Simons Island Glynn County, GA 100

Quarterly Business Meeting Burgaw, Pender County, NC, August 2011 119

Quarterly Business Meeting Charleston, Charleston County, SC, May 2010 119

Quarterly Business Meeting Brunswick, Glynn County, GA, November 2010 119
Contents 

xi 

Quarterly Business Meeting Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 119

Commission Planning Workshop Denver, CO, September 2009 125

Commission Planning Workshop Charleston, Charleston County, SC May 2010 126

McLeod Plantation James Island, Charleston County, SC 140

Quarterly Business Meeting Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 152

Stono Rebellion Historical Marker Charleston County, SC 173

Benjamin Bennett Headstone Parker Island Cemetery Charleston County, SC 174

Robert Smalls National Historic Landmark Beaufort, Beaufort County, SC 174

St. Luke’s Rosenwald School Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA 175

Traditional Gullah Geechee Home Hog Hammock Community Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA 178

Framed Image in Gullah Grub Restaurant St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 179

Sewing Hands, Vera Manigault 180

Mary Jenkins Praise House St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC 181

Friendfield Plantation National Historic Landmark Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC 189

Sugar Cane Syrup Sale at the Riceboro Ricefest 2011 Riceboro, Liberty County, GA 194

Quarterly Business Meeting Charleston, Charleston County, SC, May 2010 211

North Carolina Partners Meeting Raleigh, Wade County, NC, April 2010 213

Public Engagement Meeting Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC, May 2009 214

TABLES 

Table 1. County Names and Number of Acres in the Corridor 26

Table 2. Management Plan Requirements 35

Table 3. National Register of Historic Places: Listings Related to Gullah Geechee History and Culture within 

the Corridor 58

Table 4. Total Population of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor by State, 1990, 2000, American 

Community Survey 81

Table 5. Total Population of Counties Entirely within the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, 1990, 

2000, 2010* 82

Table 6. Racial Composition by State, 1990, 2000, 2010 83

Table 7. Racial Composition by County, 1990, 2000, 2010 83

Table 8. Racial Composition by City 1990, 2000, 2010 84

Table 9. Black or African Americans Enrolled as Percentage of Total 86

Table 10. Total Statewide Economic Impact of Tourism 94

Table 11. Percentage of Land Ownership by State 106

Table 12. Land Cover as a Percentage of Total Corridor by State (highest to lowest by total land cover) 107

Table 13. Prime Farmlands in the Corridor for all Corridor Counties as of 2010 108

Table 14. Linking Planning Issues to the Management Approach 116

Table 15. Organizational Development 122

Table 16. Partnership Programs 125

Table 17. Principles for Implementation 126

Table 18. Project Selection Criteria 127

Table 19. Best Management Practices 128

Table 20. Implementation Matrix 131
CONTENTS

xii 

Table 21. Coastal Heritage Centers General Decision Criteria 137

Table 22. Past Corridor Funding 139

Table 23. Estimated Administrative, Nonprogrammatic Expenses 143

Table 24. Potential Sources of Funding and Technical Assistance 145

Table 25. Tracking Progress Throughout Implementation 158

Table 26. Partnerships and Partner Sites 188

Table 27. Public Meetings Held 206

Table 28. Quarterly Public Business Meetings (2008–2012) 211

Table 29. Initial Meetings with Potential Partners 212

Table 30. Other Commission Activities 216

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Time Line Leading to Corridor Designation 9

Figure 2. Planning Process 15

Figure 3. Fort Mose 1783, St. Johns County, FL 25

Figure 4. Map of Ethnic Groups Transported from West and Central Africa to the Americas 45

Figure 5. Page from De Nyew Testament, also known as the Gullah Bible 55

Figure 6. Racial Composition of the Corridor 85

Figure 7. School Enrollment in the Corridor 87

Figure 8. Educational Attainment in the Corridor 87

Figure 9. Household Income in the Corridor 88

Figure 10. Employment in the Corridor by Industry 93

Figure 11. Gross Domestic Product of the Corridor 96

Figure 12. The Management Approach 115

Figure 13. Organizational Chart 121

Figure 14. Implementation is a Flexible, Adaptable Process 156

Figure 15. Official Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Logo 169

Figure 16. Map of The Transatlantic Slave Trade 177

Figure 17. Concept Design for Gateway Sign 196

Figure 18. Concept Design for Identification Sign 198

Figure 19. Newsletter 1 205

Figure 20. Newsletter 2 208
xiii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACS American Community Survey 

AGO America's Great Outdoors 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COG Council of Governments 

CR County Road 

CRGIS Cultural Resources GIS Facility 

FY Fiscal Year 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GIS Geographic Information System 

I Interstate 

NCPTT National Center of Preservation, Technology, and Training 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

NHA National Heritage Area 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

NPS National Park Service 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PEPC Planning, Environment, and Public Comment 

RTCA Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

SR State Route 

US 17 U.S. Highway 17 

USC United States Code 

USCT United States Colored Troops 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 

1

Chapter 1

Introduction
Chapter 1 divider photos (top to bottom) 

 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Announced, Avery Research Center for 

African American History and Culture, Charleston, Charleston County, SC – October 29, 2007 (Photo 

Credit: NPS) 

Seated, L to R: Lana Carter, Louise Miller Cohen, Willie B. Heyward, Marquetta L. Goodwine, 

Nichole Green, Ralph B. Johnson, Jeanne C. Cyriaque, Shirlean Spicer, Antoinette Jackson, 

Veronica D. Gerald 

Standing, L to R: Michael A. Allen (NPS Coordinator), J. Herman Blake, Amir Jamal Touré, 

William Saunders, Eulis A. Willis, Althea Natalga Sumpter, John H. Haley, Charles H. Hall, 

David B. Frank, Ronald Daise, Emory S. Campbell 

Not pictured: Patricia Barefoot, Danny Cromer, Anthony Dixon, William Jefferson, 

Deborah L. Mack, Glenda Simmons Jenkins 

 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Members, Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, 

GA – September 18, 2008 (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Quarterly Business Meeting, Southport, 

Brunswick County, NC – August 13, 2010 (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Members, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL – 

February 11, 2011 (Photo Credit: Jerry Immel) 
3 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This management plan is organized in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

and Director’s Order 12 and Handbook, Conservation Planning, Environmental Analysis, and 

Decision-making. It is organized into five chapters plus appendices. The basic contents of each 

chapter are described briefly below. 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

The introductory chapter sets the framework for the entire document. It discusses the history of the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (the Corridor), legal requirements to which the Gullah 

Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission (the Commission) must adhere, and the purpose 

and need for the plan. It outlines the foundation for planning and management, which includes the 

vision, mission, goals, and primary interpretive themes. It describes why the plan has been prepared 

and the planning opportunities and issues that were raised during public scoping meetings and 

outreach to potential partners. 

CHAPTER 2: CORRIDOR CONTEXT 

This chapter describes the Corridor through the lens of various resource topics. It primarily focuses 

on existing conditions and is organized according to the following topics: cultural resources, natural 

resources, socioeconomic conditions, land cover and ownership, visitor use and experience, 

recreational resources, and scenic resources. 

CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

This chapter describes the blueprint for management and implementation over the life of the plan. It 

covers, among other things, the organizational structure of the Corridor, an implementation and 

decision-making framework, implementation strategies and actions, potential partners and funding 

opportunities, early implementation activities, and start-up costs. 

CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION FRAMEWORK 

This chapter outlines the basic interpretation framework for developing comprehensive 

interpretation across the Corridor. The chapter includes primary interpretive themes, audiences, and 

strategies for reaching out to and engaging audiences. In addition, it discusses the types of signage to 

be installed and preliminary signage cost estimates. It also outlines a process for building 

relationships with partners and partner sites. 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

This chapter outlines the history of public and agency coordination during the planning effort, 

including Native American consultation, and any future requirements for compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations. It also includes letters of support from government agencies and 

other organizations, and lists those that will be receiving copies of the document. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

4 

COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES 

This chapter includes Commission committees, a summary time line of Committee activities and a 

list of preparers and consultants. A list of appendices and selected references are also included. The 

appendices are accessible on the CD. 
5 

BACKGROUND 

WHO ARE GULLAH GEECHEE PEOPLE? 

Gullah Geechee ( \ˈgə-lə\ \ˈgē-chē \ ) people are direct descendants of Africans who were brought 

to the United States and enslaved for generations. Their diverse roots in particular parts of Africa, 

primarily West Africa, and the nature of their enslavement on isolated islands created a unique 

culture that survives to the present day. Evidence of the culture is clearly visible in the distinctive 

arts, crafts, cuisine, and music, as well as Gullah Geechee language. The culture is embodied in 

diverse patterns of social organization reflecting the intimate and private ways communities and 

families meet the challenges of life. 

The culture is manifested in a system of practices/principles that emerge from: (1) the diverse African 

origins of Gullah Geechee peoples, (2) intense interaction among people from different language 

groups, and (3) generations of isolation in settings where enslaved Africans and their descendants 

were the majority population. 

The isolation continued after the Civil War ended in 1865. A hostile society led Gullah Geechee 

communities to remain unto themselves for almost another century. Customs, traditions, and beliefs 

continued to develop, often in opposition to segregation and oppression from the dominant society. 

When rapid social changes after World War II led to encroachment from the dominant society, 

Gullah Geechee families and communities maintained insular patterns of values and social 

organization. Contact, interaction, conflict, as well as cooperation between different racial and 

ethnic groups created awareness and change. However, efforts of outsiders to penetrate, analyze, 

and co-opt the culture were often met by renewed determination of Gullah Geechee people to 

remain private and maintain their culture in besieged communities. 

It is widely accepted that Gullah Geechee culture is unique and distinctive among all the descendants 

of enslaved Africans in the United States. As a result, this management plan identifies partnership 

programs that will explore and document cultural values and social patterns for preservation and 

perpetuation. 

The historical development of Gullah Geechee communities and the dynamic nature of 

contemporary patterns preclude a singular or definitive articulation of Gullah Geechee society and 

culture. Nine distinctive features emerge from community specifications as well as scholarly 

analyses: 

 Gullah Geechee Language: A Creole language containing distinctive features of the African 

languages spoken by their enslaved ancestors. 

 Family/Community/Society: Deep sentiments of kinship—ancestral and assumed—and 

cooperation that unites social groups for protection and perpetuation. 

 Spirituality/Religiosity: Belief in divine guidance and involvement in the daily lives of 

individuals, families, and communities. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

6 

 Education: Literacy and learning as foundational to family and community strength. 

 Political Involvement/Resistance: Unremitting refusal to acquiesce to social dominance 

and/or lowered status. 

 Gender Equity: Equitable recognition of and respect for the independence, leadership, and 

vision of women and men. 

 Independence/Entrepreneurialism: Confidence in the belief that economic independence 

and entrepreneurial efforts will result in success. 

 Land and Waters: The earth and sea as sources of life and the sacred resting places of the 

departed. 

 Community-based Conflict Resolution/Reconciliation: A belief that problems should be 

settled within small and intimate groups rather than by civil authorities. 

This specification of Gullah Geechee culture is neither exhaustive nor conclusive. Multidimensional 

and dynamic, the culture varies from community to community. It will continue to change and 

develop as work within the Corridor engages more communities and social groups. When 

partnerships develop and many communities, organizations, and individuals are acknowledged, the 

culture will exhibit its extraordinary diversity and complexity. The aggregate Gullah Geechee culture 

will continually emerge from the lives and experiences of exemplars of the community, many whose 

contributions—however modest—must be acknowledged and celebrated. 

WHAT IS A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA? 

A national heritage area (NHA) is a nationally distinctive landscape shaped by natural, cultural, 

historic, and recreational resources recognized by the U.S. Congress. A heritage area tells a nationally 

important story through its geography, its natural and cultural resources, and the traditions that have 

evolved within the landscape. 

National heritage areas are managed by a local entity in partnership with various stakeholders and 

partners. These stakeholders and partners include individual citizens; local, state, and federal 

governments; and nonprofit and private sector groups. Together, these entities work to preserve the 

integrity of their distinct landscape and local stories so that current and future generations 

understand their relationship to the land. This collaborative approach does not compromise 

traditional local control over, or use of, the land. 

Using this approach, national heritage areas are based on their constituents’ pride in their history 

and traditions, as well as their interest and involvement in retaining and interpreting their special 

landscapes. The local coordinating entity of heritage areas works across political boundaries in order 

to collaboratively shape a management plan and implementation strategies that preserve the area’s 

unique and distinct qualities. 

A national heritage area is not a unit of the national park system, nor is any of its land owned or 

managed by the National Park Service (NPS), unless such land was previously set aside as a unit of 

the national park system. If land within the established boundaries of a national heritage area is 

owned by the federal government, it is as a result of prior legislation establishing a national park, 
Background 

7 

national forest, military installation, etc. The designation of the Corridor does not, however, 

preclude the creation of new national park system units within the Corridor boundaries. 

The federal government does not acquire land, manage land, or impose land-use controls through a 

national heritage area. Rather, national heritage areas accomplish their goals through partnerships 

with governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals. The National Park Service provides 

technical, planning, and limited financial assistance to national heritage areas as a partner and 

advisor; decision-making authority is retained by the local people and communities. 

Typically, national heritage area designation begins with a grassroots, community-centered process 

called a “feasibility study,” rather than with an application or a questionnaire. This is an exciting 

process that examines a region’s history and resources in depth and provides a strong foundation for 

eventual success as a national heritage area. The National Park Service, as the federal body charged 

with managing the national heritage area program, is frequently involved with such studies to 

document whether an area has the resources, such as the local financial and organizational capacity, 

to carry out the responsibilities that come with designation. The ultimate determination of 

designation is made by the U.S. Congress. The Corridor, however, was not born out of a feasibility 

study, but rather a special resource study (see below). 

For more information on national heritage areas, visit: http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/ 

LOW COUNTRY GULLAH CULTURE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY 

Although a large body of research had been undertaken on Gullah and Geechee culture (which is 

identified as Gullah Geechee culture throughout this management plan) and many preservation 

efforts had been completed prior to 2000, it was in 2000 that the current journey began with 

Congress authorizing the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study on Gullah 

culture. The NPS Southeast Regional Office, as directed by enabling legislation introduced by 

Congressman James E. Clyburn, conducted the study. The purpose of the study was to determine the 

national significance of Gullah culture and the suitability and feasibility of adding various elements 

of Gullah Geechee culture to the national park system. The Low Country Gullah Culture Special 

Resource Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement documented the national significance of 

Gullah Geechee people and their culture and served to honor a distinct group of Americans who are 

descendants of enslaved Africans from the west and central agricultural regions of Africa, and to 

commemorate Gullah Geechee culture that has survived on the southeastern U.S. coast since 

colonial times. The study recommended the establishment of a national heritage area to protect the 

endangered resources associated with Gullah Geechee culture and to provide Gullah Geechee 

people with the greatest amount of control over their story. The full text of the study can be found 

on the Corridor’s Web site (www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org). 

As a result of the study findings, the U.S. Congress established the Corridor in 2006 (Subtitle I of 

Public Law 109-338). The legislation designated the barrier islands and coastal regions along the 

Atlantic Ocean as the Corridor. The Corridor spans a geographical area encompassing over 12,818 

square miles along the coasts of four states. The legislation established the Commission as the local 

coordinating entity and assigned it the duty of preparing and submitting a management plan to the 

Secretary of the Interior (appendix A). 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

8 

The Commission has worked hard to provide many 

opportunities for the public and potential partners 

to provide input throughout the planning process. 

This input has directly influenced the content of 

this management plan. 

Excerpts of individual public comments are 

featured throughout the document in blue text 

boxes. They note the person who made the 

comment as well as the public meeting at which the 

comment was received. 

WHAT IS THE GULLAH GEECHEE 

CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR? 

The Corridor represents a significant story of local, 

regional, national, and even global importance. The 

Corridor encompasses a cultural and linguistic area 

along the southeastern coast of the United States 

from the northern border of Pender County, North 

Carolina, to the southern border of St. Johns 

County, Florida, and 30 miles inland. This area is 

home to one of the country’s most unique cultures, 

a tradition first shaped by enslaved Africans 

brought to the southeastern United States from the primarily rice-producing regions of West and 

Central Africa. That culture is continued today by their descendants known as Gullah Geechee 

people. Gullah Geechee people are direct descendants of Africans who were brought to the United 

States and enslaved for generations. Their diverse roots in particular parts of Africa, primarily West 

Africa, and the nature of their enslavement on isolated islands created a unique culture that survives 

to the present day. See “Who Are Gullah Geechee People?” above for more information. 

The 2006 designation of the Corridor recognizes 

Gullah Geechee people for maintaining their 

cultural traditions, an outstanding reflection of 

American values of ingenuity, pride, and 

perseverance. The intent of this designation is to 

help preserve and interpret the traditional cultural 

practices, sites, and resources associated with 

Gullah Geechee people. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this plan is to develop an integrated and cooperative approach to protect, interpret, 

and enhance the natural, scenic, cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the Corridor and to 

provide management direction for the Commission or the future management entity. 

 

LOW COUNTRY GULLAH CULTURE

SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, JULY 2005 

“The most popular bill I ever sponsored was the 2006 

law creating the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor.” 

Congressman James E. Clyburn 

Southern Legislative Conference in 

Charleston, SC – August 2010 
2000

	 The Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study was authorized by Congress.

	 The National Park Service held six initial public scoping meetings.

2001

	 The National Park Service reviewed and analyzed the public comments.

	 The National Park Service developed preliminary alternatives.

2003

	 The National Park Service conducted peer and scholarly reviews of the study document.

	 The National Park Service released the draft special resource study for public review.

2004

	 Congressman James E. Clyburn introduced a bill to establish the Corridor.

	 The National Trust for Historic Preservation placed the Gullah Geechee Coast on the 

2004 list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.

	 The National Park Service continued development of the special resource study.

2002

	 The National Park Service held seven public meetings to discuss the preliminary 

alternatives.

2005

	 The bill to establish the Corridor was reintroduced in Congress.

	 The National Park Service completed the Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource 

Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

2006

	 The NPS director announced the creation of the Corridor following congressional 

designation.

Figure 1. Time Line Leading to Corridor Designation

Please refer to the Planning Process section for a description of steps taken after Corridor designation.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

10 

This management plan is needed to meet the legal requirement of an approved plan, to remain 

eligible for national heritage area program funds, and because there is no existing plan in place to 

carry out the purpose for which the Corridor was designated. This plan is also needed to provide a 

guiding management framework to realize the vision and mission of the Corridor. 

WHY A MANAGEMENT PLAN? 

Through the National Heritage Act of 2006, the Commission was created to oversee development of 

a management plan and to coordinate the implementation of its recommendations. See appendix A 

to review the designating law. By completing this management plan, the Commission would continue 

to be eligible to receive federal funds through the national heritage area program. 

A primary duty of the Commission is to assist 

federal, state, and local authorities in the 

development and implementation of a 

management plan that would carry out the 

purpose for which the Corridor was designated. 

The Commission is composed of 15 members 

appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Ten 

members are nominated by state historic preservation officers (SHPO) from each state and the other 

five are recognized experts in historic preservation, anthropology, and folklore and appointed by the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Planning for the Corridor was organized around three primary questions: 

 WHY was the Corridor established, and what is its overall mission? 

 WHAT is the vision for the future (what kind of place should the Corridor be in the next 10 

years)? 

 HOW can the vision be accomplished? 

Statements of the Corridor’s purpose and significance provide answers to the WHY questions and 

form the foundation for the management plan. 

Developing a vision for the area’s future (answering the WHAT question) is the primary function of 

the management plan. 

The HOW question is initially answered in this management plan and would be refined in more 

detail throughout implementation of the plan. 

WHAT IS THE VALUE OR USEFULNESS OF MANAGEMENT PLANNING? 

The value of a management plan is in the development of a clearly defined direction for resource 

preservation and visitor use to best achieve its vision, mission, purpose, and goals. Management 

planning makes the Commission more effective, collaborative, and accountable by providing a 

balance between continuity and adaptability in decision making. The management plan provides a 

blueprint for the Commission and partners to follow throughout implementation. 

“The Gullah Geechee Corridor, this is the frontier. 

Our forefathers was the pioneers. . . It is a great day 

when truth comes to the forefront.” 

Marvin R. Graham 

Wilmington, NC – May 2010 Meeting 
Background 

11 

Analyzing the national heritage area in relation to its surrounding ecosystems, cultural settings, and 

communities helps the Commission and partners understand how the Corridor can interrelate with 

neighbors and others in ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions 

made within such a large context are more likely to be successful over time, affording everyone who 

has a stake in decisions affecting the national heritage area an opportunity to be involved in the 

planning process and to understand the decisions that are made. 

National heritage areas are often the focus of much public interest. Public involvement throughout 

the planning process provides focused opportunities for the Commission to interact with the public 

and learn about public concerns, expectations, and values. Public involvement also provides 

opportunities for the Commission to share information about the purpose and significance of the 

NPS National Heritage Area program, as well as opportunities and constraints for management of 

the Corridor. 

The ultimate outcome of management planning 

for national heritage areas is an agreement among 

the Commission (or future coordinating entity); 

the National Park Service; other government, 

nonprofit, and private partners; and the public 

about the approach and direction for future 

implementation that meets the vision, mission, and 

goals of the Corridor. 

“. . .I hope that this Gullah Corridor will be like a pot of 

gumbo stew. “ 

Bunny Rodrigues 

Wilmington, NC – May 2009 Meeting 
95

Sumter 

National Forest

Fort Sumter National Monument

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

40

95

10

20

40

Blue Ridge Parkway

Canaveral National Seashore

Cumberland Island National Seashore

Congaree National Park

Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park

Timucaun Ecological and Historical Preserve

Fort Pulaski National Monument

Kings Mountain 

National Military Park

Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park

Nantahala National Forest

Pisgah National Forest

Cherokee National Forest

Chattahoochee National Forest

Ocala 

National Forest

Sumter 

National Forest

Francis Marion 

National Forest

Croatan 

National Forest

Uwharrie 

National Forest

Oconee 

National Forest

Osceola 

National Forest

Carolina Sandhills

National Wildlife Refuge

Lower Suwannee 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge

Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge

Savannah 

National Wildlife Refuge

Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge

Roanoke River 

National Wildlife Refuge

ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge

Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge

Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge

Bond Swamp 

National Wildlife Refuge

Chassahowitzka 

National Wildlife Refuge

Saint Johns 

National Wildlife Refuge

Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge

Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge

Pinellas National 

Wildlife Refuge

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site

Cowpens 

National Battlefield

Fort Frederica National Monument

Ninety Six 

National Historic Site

Moores Creek 

National Battlefield

Myrtle Beach

Raleigh

Columbia

Deltona

Savannah

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Charlotte

Jacksonville

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 25 50 100 Miles

Map 1: Vicinity

Atlantic Ocean

Legend

Capital

Major City

Major Highway

National Park Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Denver Service Center Planning Division - April 2012
13 

PLANNING PROCESS 

The basic planning process the Commission used to develop this plan is described in the following 

nine steps. A time line describing committee development and management plan process is also 

included in the section titled “Commission Committees, References, and Appendices” at the end of 

the document. 

STEP 1: COMMISSION FORMED 

The Commission was officially announced in 2007 following designation of the Corridor. 

Commissioners were recommended by the SHPO in each of the four states, the National Park 

Service, and the public. Fifteen commissioners and 10 alternates were appointed by the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

STEP 2: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WORKSHOPS 

The National Park Service assisted the Commission by conducting three technical assistance 

workshops in 2008 to prepare for the management planning process. 

STEP 3: DISTRIBUTE NEWSLETTER 1 (21 PUBLIC MEETINGS) 

Approximately 6,000 newsletters were mailed to the public, agencies, and potential stakeholders and 

partners in all four states of the Corridor in February 2009. The newsletter introduced the Corridor 

and the Commission and invited the public to a series of 21 public meetings throughout the four 

states. The public was invited to share ideas, concerns, and their visions for what the Corridor should 

become. Comments and feedback were recorded during the public meetings, gathered through a 

response form included in Newsletter 1, handwritten letters, and via the Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) Web site of the National Park Service. Transcripts of all public meetings are 

available on the Corridor’s Web site (www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org). 

STEP 4: DEVELOP FOUNDATION (VISION, MISSION, PURPOSE, GOALS, 

AND THEMATIC TOPICS) 

Following the public meetings, the Commission developed the vision, mission, purpose, goals, and 

thematic topics, all of which comprise the foundation of this plan. The Commission developed these 

components after gleaning information from the comments submitted by the public and potential 

partners at the public meetings and in the response forms included in Newsletter 1. The foundational 

elements were, in part, a response to the issues identified during public scoping and the needs 

associated with the preliminary resource inventory that had been compiled early in the planning 

process. 

STEP 5: POTENTIAL PARTNER MEETINGS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, 

NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA 

In the spring of 2010, the Commission distributed information to each state congressional delegation 

representing the Corridor, government agencies, and other potential partners. This outreach was 

followed by in-person meetings in each of the four states. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

14 

STEP 6: DEVELOP PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS 

In compliance with NEPA and the NPS planning process, the Commission developed a range of 

different futures or alternative approaches for managing the Corridor in 2010. Three preliminary 

management concepts were developed. Potential implementation ideas were also identified that 

would work to not only address the issues identified as part of public scoping, but were also aligned 

with the vision, mission, and goals for the Corridor. 

STEP 7: DISTRIBUTE NEWSLETTER 2 

In the fall of 2010, a second newsletter was mailed to the public and potential partners, including 

government agencies in all four states of the Corridor. The second newsletter presented the three 

preliminary management concepts and described potential implementation ideas for each concept. 

The newsletter invited the public to provide feedback on these concepts using a comment form 

attached to the newsletter, via a handwritten letter, or on the PEPC Web site. 

STEP 8: FINALIZE MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

(IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION) 

The management approach was identified in the spring of 2011 with the assistance of feedback 

provided by the public and potential partners about preliminary management concepts. An 

implementation and interpretation framework was developed to guide implementation over the next 

10 years (see chapters 3 and 4). 

STEP 9: MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLETED 

The management plan was distributed for public review and comment in the summer of 2012. The 

plan will be finalized with the signature of the Secretary of the Interior. 
Commission Formed Technical Assistance 

Workshops

Distribute Newsletter #1 

(21 Public Meetings)

Develop Foundation 

(Vision, Mission, Purpose, 

Goals, and Thematic 

Topics)

Potential Partner Meetings 

in NC, SC, GA, FL

Develop Preliminary 

Management Concepts

Distribute Newsletter #2 Finalize Management 

Approach

Management Plan 

Completed

Step 1. Step 2. Step 3.

Step 4. Step 5. Step 6.

Step 7. Step 8. Step 9.

Figure 2. Planning Process
16 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS 

The official public scoping comment period for the Corridor’s management plan opened on 

February 5, 2009, and closed on August 21, 2009. During the official comment period, 125 individual 

correspondences were received via letter, e-mail, electronic entries into the PEPC Web site, or via 

hardcopy comment forms. Many people spoke at each of the 21 public meetings. Together, the 

public input process yielded 1,553 total comments. In addition, innumerable comments were 

received outside the formal public comment periods at Commission business meetings, in meetings 

with potential partners, and through informal conversations with community members over a period 

of five years. This section summarizes the issues and concerns expressed by respondents. 

The majority of the comments received identified 

specific places, people, or features that contribute 

to the uniqueness of the Corridor; shared stories 

of direct experiences of growing up in the 

Corridor, and of things that had been passed down 

through generations; and provided significant 

insight into Gullah Geechee cultural traditions, 

language, and people. Comments also provided 

many ideas for primary interpretive themes and 

suggested various ways for achieving the 

educational and interpretive goals of the Corridor. 

Most of the comments expressed support for the 

preservation, conservation, and restoration of 

resources and traditional practices; stated the need 

to obtain oral histories and document historical 

information; and identified numerous important cultural resources. Many comments identified 

potential partners to assist in implementing the management plan. 

All public meetings were transcribed and can be viewed in full on the Corridor Web site 

(www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org). 

The Commission and the National Park Service greatly appreciated the participation of the many 

individuals and organizations during the public scoping period of the management planning process. 

The scoping comments guided the Commission throughout the planning process. Not only did they 

frame the development of the vision, mission, and goals, they also directly contributed to the 

creation of the management approach and primary interpretive themes. The management approach 

was developed by seeking and combining the most effective strategies and actions to address the 

issues identified during public scoping. The planning issues are included here and are linked to the 

management approach in chapter 3. 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEETING

JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL, FEBRUARY 2009 
Planning Issues and Concerns 

17 

PLANNING ISSUES 

Planning issues define opportunities, conflicts, or problems within the Corridor. Issues were 

identified through public input during scoping and in cooperation with the Commission. The issues 

generally fall within eight topics. The eight topics are listed here with a summary description of the 

major issues identified under each. 

Cultural Resources 

There is a lack of understanding about the cultural 

resources associated with Gullah Geechee history 

and traditions; therefore, myths and historical 

inaccuracies about resources are prevalent. The 

fact that there is no coordinating entity to 

inventory, collect, document, and archive cultural 

and historic resources exacerbates the issue. 

There is a need for assistance in restoring, rehabilitating, and maintaining structures, sites, historic 

districts, and cultural landscapes. 

Natural Resources 

An overarching issue is the lack of awareness and understanding by those outside Gullah Geechee 

communities of the negative impacts of broad-scale development on the natural resources that 

support Gullah Geechee culture. 

Land Issues 

Issues regarding land include lack of access to traditional areas, recreation sites, seafood harvesting 

access areas, burial grounds, and religious sites. There is a lack of legal support to assist in resolving 

property issues, particularly with regard to heirs’ property and the inability to sustain traditional 

property ownership due to increasing property taxes, inappropriate development patterns, and 

destruction of traditional Gullah Geechee communities by development. Finally, as the Corridor 

continues to urbanize, land use restrictions negatively impact traditional practices and can negatively 

impact locally owned businesses. 

Economic Development 

Economic development issues include the need for additional employment opportunities. Currently, 

Gullah Geechee people often leave the area to find work. In addition, there is a lack of appropriate 

economic development, adequate job training programs, and educational opportunities in the 

Corridor. 

Education to Build Awareness 

Issues related to education are based on the premise that education is the key to building 

understanding and awareness of the contribution of Gullah Geechee people in the creation and 

continued evolution of the United States. In addition, as a result of inadequate education about 

Gullah Geechee history and culture, young people in the Corridor are unaware of their roots. A 

related issue is the lack of business education opportunities that hinder the ability of local people to 

start and run successful businesses within the Corridor. 

“So there’s a race against time to preserve these things 

because of the human elements that are holding the 

authenticity of who we are. And language is critical to 

our identification.” 

Rosalyn Browne 

St. Helena Island, SC – June 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

18 

Visitor Experience/Facilities 

Visitors to the Corridor are often unaware of the presence or significance of Gullah Geechee people 

to the area. There is no coordinated effort to link interpretive exhibits and programs throughout the 

Corridor. This is due to a lack of coordinated marketing to inform heritage travelers, inadequate 

wayfinding and signage, and a lack of a comprehensive interpretation/education plan to inform 

residents and visitors. 

Development and Urbanization 

Urbanization and development pose a threat to cultural, historic, and natural resources within the 

heritage area. Based on past trends, the Corridor is expected to experience population growth over 

the next decade. The increasing number of people would demand housing, transportation 

infrastructure, and urban services, which require commercial, retail, and industrial land uses. The 

proposed locations, extent, and rate of development and urbanization over the next 10 to 15 years 

goes beyond the scope of this document. The transition of natural areas to urbanized or developed 

areas poses a number of threats to Corridor resources, only some of which are included here: 

 loss of wetlands and the ecological services they provide 

 habitat fragmentation, conversion from agricultural to urban land uses, and loss of arable 

land for locally grown food 

 loss of traditional cultural landscapes 

 increases in impervious surfaces and increased urban stormwater problems that negatively 

impact water quality 

 deteriorating air quality as a result of increased automobile traffic 

Management Structure and Oversight 

Issues about management structure and oversight center on the fact that the federally appointed 

Commission will terminate in 2016 and continued assistance from the Secretary of the Interior is not 

guaranteed. Short-term issues pertain to organizational structure, development of organizational 

capacity (such as staffing), short-term funding needs, and how to formalize relationships with 

partners. Long-term organizational sustainability and financial self-sufficiency of the Corridor was 

also identified as an issue. 

Addressing the Issues 

The management approach in chapter 3 provides strategies for addressing these issues within the 

contexts of the Corridor’s purpose, significance, and other aspects of the foundation for planning 

and management, which is outlined in the next section. 
19 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The foundation for planning and management includes the Corridor’s purpose and significance, as 

well as the vision, mission, goals, and primary interpretive themes. These foundational elements 

serve as a mechanism to ensure that future implementation is appropriately targeted. Implementation, however, is not intended to be unilateral in nature, but rather multilateral, and the Corridor is 

a unique vehicle for that. The Corridor was purposefully organized to support and facilitate 

collaboration, inclusion, and involvement of many interests throughout implementation, yet provide 

Gullah Geechee people with the most control over their story. The vision, mission, and goals will 

only be realized through the active participation of Gullah Geechee people, communities, partners, 

and stakeholders. 

CORRIDOR PURPOSE 

Purpose statements convey the reason(s) for which an area was designated a national heritage area. 

Grounded in an analysis of the designating law and legislative history, purpose statements also 

provide primary criteria against which the appropriateness of plan recommendations, operational 

decisions, and actions are tested—they provide the foundation for the Corridor’s management and 

use. 

The purpose statements of the Corridor include the following: 

 To recognize, sustain, and celebrate the important contributions made to American culture 

and history by African Americans known as Gullah Geechee who settled in the coastal 

counties of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. 

 To assist state and local governments and public and private entities in South Carolina, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida in interpreting the story of Gullah Geechee people and 

preserving Gullah Geechee folklore, arts, crafts, and music. 

 To assist in identifying and preserving sites, historical data, artifacts, and objects associated 

with Gullah Geechee people and culture for the benefit and education of the public. 

CORRIDOR SIGNIFICANCE 

Significance statements capture the essence of the importance of an area to the nation’s history 

and natural and cultural heritage. Significance statements do not inventory heritage area 

resources; rather, they describe the area’s distinctiveness and why the area is important within 

its regional, national, and international contexts. The significance statements focus on the 

attributes that make the area’s resources and values important enough to be designated as a 

national heritage area. Defining the Corridor’s significance helps the Commission make 

decisions that accomplish the purpose of the Corridor. Significance statements answer 

questions such as the following: Why are Corridor resources distinctive? What do they 

contribute to the natural or cultural heritage of the United States? 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

20 

The purpose and significance statements for the Corridor are used to guide planning and 

implementation decisions. This ensures that the resources and values that Congress and the 

president wanted preserved are understood and are the first priority. 

The significance statements for the Corridor are 

 The Corridor contains a unique and outstanding mosaic of tangible and intangible resources 

essential to understanding the heritage of a people settled far from their ancestral 

homeland—the connection with the African diaspora. 

 The Corridor provides opportunities to learn about the history and stories of the 

Transatlantic Slave Trade and the plantation economy; for many, these experiences evoke 

strong emotional responses to a long and tragic period of time in the nation’s history. 

 The Corridor provides opportunities for examination, research, and learning about 

nationally significant periods in time that had global influence, such as Colonialism, the 

Revolutionary War, the Antebellum period, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and 

the Civil Rights Movement. 

 The kidnapping, capture, and subsequent sale of African people as “human cargo” and the 

exploitation of their intellect, expertise, and technological knowledge during the 

Transatlantic Slave Trade created a major economic foundation for the United States of 

America. 

 The economic foundation of the English colonies in mainland North America was partially 

rooted in the agricultural expertise developed on the west coast of Africa and brought to 

North America by African people during the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The labor and 

ingenuity of enslaved Africans were major and essential contributors to building the 

foundations of the U.S. economy through a wide range of skills and applications in many 

industries, including but not limited to, coopers, mechanics, boat builders, sailors, trunk 

minders, blacksmiths, brickmakers, cooks, sawyers, and basket makers, as well as through 

planting, growing, harvesting, and selling crops such as rice, indigo, and cotton. 

 Historically, Gullah Geechee people are creators and speakers of one of the few African 

American Creole languages of the United States. 

 Of all African American cultures in the United States, the lifeways, folk customs, oral history, 

literature, crafts, arts, music, and foodways of Gullah Geechee people show the strongest 

continuities with indigenous cultures of Africa (primarily West Africa) and connections with 

other cultures of the African diaspora. 

 The Corridor identifies and preserves a unique Creole culture, retaining a great deal of 

African cultural heritage, but intermingled with some Native American folkways and 

traditions. That culture survives today, especially throughout the Corridor, and represents 

the only African American population of the United States with a unique, long-standing 

name identifying them as a distinct people. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

21 

 The Corridor includes the land area designated for settlement by freedmen by Special Field 

Order No. 15, issued by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman in the year 1865. 

 The Corridor contains unique, human-made ecosystems that are the product of vast sums of 

effort and energy that were used to clear forests and develop complex irrigation systems for 

agricultural use. 

 The Corridor seeks to improve the quality of life of Gullah Geechee people and provides 

excellent opportunities to encourage renewal of and gateways to a sense of pride, awareness, 

and respect for Gullah Geechee culture so that future generations can experience and 

celebrate this valuable thread of U.S. history. 

CORRIDOR VISION, MISSION, GOALS, 

AND PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

As part of grounding the development of the 

management approach and the contents of the 

implementation plan, the Commission 

developed vision and mission statements. These 

statements provide additional criteria against 

which future decisions and actions should be 

based. 

Additionally, goals and primary interpretive 

themes were developed to meet the mission of 

the Corridor and realize its vision. They are 

based on comments received from the public 

and potential partners during the public scoping 

process and refined throughout the planning 

process based on additional feedback from the 

public and potential partners at Commission 

business meetings and partner workshops, etc. 

The professional judgment of the Commission 

was used to develop the specific language. The 

goals and primary interpretive themes serve as 

guides when implementing future actions. All 

actions should be directly tied to or related to 

one or more of the goals described herein. 

Primary interpretive themes are ideas, concepts, or 

stories that are central to the Corridor’s purpose, 

significance, identity, and visitor experience. 

Primary interpretive themes provide the 

framework for interpretation and educational 

programs, influence visitor experience, and 

provide direction for planners and designers of 

exhibits, publications, audiovisual programs, and other interpretation materials. The themes are the 

stories visitors should know when they leave the area. 

 

OLD SLAVE MART MUSEUM

CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 

“Our children must know that they came from richness. 

They didn’t come from trifling. We must teach that.” 

Saundra Ward 

Atlantic Beach, SC – May 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

22 

CORRIDOR VISION 

An environment that celebrates the legacy and continuing contributions of Gullah 

Geechee people to our American heritage. 

CORRIDOR MISSION 

 To nurture pride and facilitate an understanding and awareness of the significance 

of Gullah Geechee history and culture within Gullah Geechee communities. 

 To sustain and preserve land, language, and cultural assets within the coastal 

communities of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. 

 To promote economic development among Gullah Geechee people. 

 To educate the public on the value and importance of Gullah Geechee culture. 

CORRIDOR GOALS 

Goal 1: Foster public awareness of and appreciation for the history of Gullah Geechee 

people, their contributions to the development of the United States, and their connections 

to the African diaspora and other international cultures. 

Goal 2: Enhance the quality of life for current and future generations of Gullah Geechee 

people within the Corridor. 

Goal 3: Protect, preserve, and restore tangible and intangible natural and cultural 

resources in communities and other areas that are of cultural and historical significance to 

Gullah Geechee people. 

 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

23 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES OF THE CORRIDOR 

For more information about the primary interpretive themes, see chapter 4.

Theme I. Origins and Early Development 

The Corridor preserves and protects many elements essential to understanding the 

plantation economy such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the isolated geographical 

setting, cultural formation, cultivation of rice and other staple crops, and the task system. 

Theme II. The Quest for Freedom, Equality, Education, and Recognition 

The Corridor provides opportunities for examining the evolution and development of 

significant institutions and events from the antebellum period to the present, including the 

period of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, religious and spiritual development, education, the 

Civil War and Reconstruction, civil rights and race relations. 

Theme III. Global Connections 

The Corridor offers opportunities to examine and understand the development and 

evolution of Gullah Geechee identity as part of a larger, global Creole cultural identity 

linked to diverse regions of the world, including Africa and the Caribbean and Pacific 

islands. 

Theme IV. Connection with the Land 

The Corridor promotes awareness that Gullah Geechee people have influenced the natural 

and cultural landscapes of the region, and their cultural identity is connected to a particular 

geographical setting. The ownership and retention of land and built environments, as well 

as access to significant cultural sites, are crucial for the preservation and survival of Gullah 

Geechee culture. 

Theme V. Cultural and Spiritual Expression

The Corridor promotes awareness that the influence of Gullah Geechee people has made a 

lasting impact in all areas of society, including music, arts, handicrafts, foodways, 

spirituality, language, education, and economic development. 

Theme VI. Gullah Geechee Language 

The Corridor promotes awareness that a distinctive Creole language is a characteristic trait 

of Gullah Geechee cultural identity. 
24 

THE CORRIDOR BOUNDARY 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

Section 295C(b)(2) of the designating law allows revisions to the boundary defined in section 

295C(b)(1) as “those lands and waters generally depicted on a map numbered GGCHC 80,000, and 

dated September 2004.” 

The Commission proposes that the Corridor boundary be defined as “those lands and waters 

running from the northern boundary of Pender County, North Carolina, southward to St. Johns 

County, Florida, from the Atlantic coast to 30 miles inland, including all Sea Islands.” This proposed 

boundary includes Pender County, North Carolina, and St. Johns County, Florida, which were not 

included in the boundary defined in the designating legislation. 

The Commission recommends that no other territory be added to the Corridor in the future and that 

the boundaries of the Corridor be fixed. 

Pender County, North Carolina 

The map referenced in Public Law 109-338, Subtitle I was a “draft” developed prior to the release of 

the 2005 Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study Final Environmental Impact Statement

(NPS 2005). The final map in that study included Pender County because of its strong historical and 

cultural ties to Gullah Geechee history and culture and significance to the Corridor. Therefore, given 

that Pender County, North Carolina, was included in the Corridor defined by the study, the 

Commission proposes that Pender County be included as part of the Corridor. A resolution passed 

by the Pender County Board of Commissioners recognizing and supporting the inclusion of Pender 

County, North Carolina, in the Corridor is included in appendix D. 

St. Johns County, Florida 

The final map in the study did not include St. Johns County. The Commission began the process of 

evaluating St. Johns County for inclusion in the Corridor at the urging of members of the public and 

potential partners. To ensure historical significance to Gullah Geechee history and culture, the 

Commission evaluated the county’s ability to meet a series of criteria established by the 2005 study. 

To this end, the Commission determined that St. Johns County possesses 

 the historic presence of Gullah Geechee people in the area dating from the colonial period 

 reliable documentary evidence of rice production; discernible traces of the spoken Gullah 

Geechee language 

 a historic connection to South Carolina or that portion of the Carolinas Colony that became 

South Carolina 

 a sense of historic connection to Gullah Geechee culture; family, and personal narratives 

 aspects of the Gullah Geechee culture that are practiced and celebrated on a regular basis 

 territory that is contiguous to the southern boundary specified in the designating law 
The Corridor Boundary 

25 

Fort Mose is an important resource within the Corridor—one that has a long and significant history 

to Gullah Geechee people. In 1687, the first documentation of enslaved Africans escaping from the 

English in Carolina was recorded by Spanish authorities. Six years later, the Spanish King enacted the 

Edict of 1693, “granting liberty to all [runaway slaves]...the men as well as the women...so that by 

their example and by my liberality...others will do the same” (Twyman 1999; Landers 1999). By the 

early 1700s, the town of Gracia Real de St. Teresa de Mose (Fort Mose) was developing as a runaway 

haven for both runaway blacks and Native Americans (Dixon 2010). 

Appendix D provides additional 

information about the history of 

Gullah Geechee people in Florida, the 

relationship between St. Johns County 

and the Corridor, and a historical time 

line of Gullah Geechee people in St. 

Johns County. 

Throughout the planning process, 

Florida community members and 

government entities provided strong 

public support for extending the 

southern Corridor boundary. In 

August 2010, Florida Governor Charlie 

Crist sent the Commission a letter 

asking the Commission to include St. 

Augustine, Florida, and Fort Mose 

within the Corridor. The Florida state legislature, St. Johns County, and the City of St. Augustine also 

passed resolutions supporting the inclusion of St. Johns County. Copies of these resolutions are 

included in appendix D. Additional public comments and testimony presented during public 

meetings held by the Commission also supported including St. Johns County in the Corridor. 

The Corridor boundary would be finalized once this plan is approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior. This boundary represents the area within which NHA program funds may be expended. An 

updated map of the Corridor, which was prepared using the latest geographic information system 

(GIS) technology, delineates the final boundary of the Corridor. See map 5. 

Although the boundary is fixed as it relates to the expenditure of NHA program funds, the 

Commission plans to continue to work with communities, agencies, and organizations outside the 

boundary, as appropriate, to better meet the vision, mission, and goals of the Corridor, and to 

interpret the Gullah Geechee story that has not been bound by lines on a map. 

The boundary of the Corridor encompasses approximately 12,818 square miles (8,203,808 acres; an 

area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined). The Corridor extends about 425 miles along the 

Atlantic coast and 30 miles inland from the northern border of Pender County, North Carolina, 

through South Carolina and Georgia to the southern boundary of St. Johns County, Florida. The 

Corridor encompasses all or part of 27 counties. The county names and number of acres in the 

Corridor are included in table 1. 

HISTORY OF CORRIDOR COUNTIES 

The counties or portions of counties that comprise the Corridor boundary have a history unto 

themselves. The European concept of dividing land into manageable counties was introduced to 

FIGURE 3. FORT MOSE 1783, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

26 

America during the colonial period, serving as a useful way to enforce local laws, collect taxes, and 

administer justice. Over the centuries, the demarcation of land into districts and counties has 

changed within the Corridor boundary as depicted on the maps on the following pages. 

New Hanover County in North Carolina, for example, was divided into two separate counties (New 

Hanover County and Pender County) in 1875. In South Carolina, the General Assembly of South 

Carolina divided the state into 34 counties in 1785. These boundary lines were redrawn and 

reincorporated into districts in 1798 (Charleston County Online 2011). Then in 1877, Hampton 

County was formed from what was formerly known as the Beaufort District (Hampton County 

2011). In 1912, Jasper County was formed from parts of Beaufort and Hampton counties (South 

Carolina’s Information Highway 2011). St. Johns County, Florida, was one of two original counties 

in the U.S. territory of Florida that was later divided to form Duval County in 1822 and Nassau 

County in 1824. 

TABLE 1. COUNTY NAMES AND NUMBER OF ACRES IN THE CORRIDOR

County Acres within the Corridor 

Boundary 

Is Entire County within the 

Corridor Boundary? 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Brunswick 563,246 Yes 

Columbus 378,325 No 

New Hanover 139,849 Yes 

Pender 442,355 No 

TOTAL 1,523,775 N/A 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Beaufort 475,148 Yes 

Berkeley 449,824 No 

Charleston 652,246 Yes 

Colleton 248,849 No 

Dorchester 120,126 No 

Georgetown 555,213 Yes 

Horry 593,050 No 

Jasper 265,002 No 

Marion 34,677 No 

Williamsburg 109,700 No 

TOTAL 3,503,835 N/A 

GEORGIA 

Brantley 38,549 No 

Bryan 153,418 No 

Camden 414,879 No 

Chatham 313,165 Yes 

Effingham 128,621 No 

Glynn 296,181 Yes 

Liberty 217,754 No 

Long 87,294 No 

McIntosh 304,826 Yes 

Wayne 85,566 No 

TOTAL 2,040,253 N/A 
The Corridor Boundary 

27 

TABLE 1. COUNTY NAMES AND NUMBER OF ACRES IN THE CORRIDOR

County Acres within the Corridor 

Boundary 

Is Entire County within the 

Corridor Boundary? 

FLORIDA 

Duval 442,685 No 

Nassau 252,081 No 

St. Johns 441,179 Yes 

TOTAL 1,135,945 N/A 

CORRIDOR TOTAL 8,203,808

Source: Tele Atlas North America, Inc., ESRI 2008 
Myrtle Beach

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

BLADEN

Spanish East Florida

Charleston Dist.

CAMDEN

Colleton Dist.

Beaufort Dist.

Horry Dist.

LIBERTY

Marion Dist.

BRUNSWICK

NEW HANOVER

BRYAN

Williamsburg Dist.

COLUMBUS

McINTOSH

WAYNE

GLYNN

Georgetown Dist.

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

Legend

Historic Counties w/in Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Historic Counties and Parishes

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - May 2012

Map 2: Historic Counties as of April 12, 1811
Myrtle Beach

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

Charleston Dist.

Colleton Dist.

DUVAL

Beaufort Dist.

Horry Dist.

Marion Dist.

ST. 

JOHNS

WAYNE

LIBERTY

BRUNSWICK

NASSAU

NEW HANOVER

COLUMBUS

BRYAN

Williamsburg 

Dist.

CAMDEN

McINTOSH

GLYNN

Georgetown 

Dist.

EFFINGHAM

CHATHAM

Legend

Historic Counties w/in Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Historic Counties and Parishes

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012

Map 3: Historic Counties as of April 12, 1861
Myrtle Beach

HAMPTON

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

HORRY

BERKELEY

DUVAL

WAYNE

LIBERTY

PENDER

COLLETON

ST. JOHNS

COLUMBUS

NASSAU

CHARLESTON

BRUNSWICK

BRYAN

WILLIAMSBURG

CAMDEN

MARION

GLYNN

BEAUFORT

GEORGETOWN

DORCHESTER

EFFINGHAM

McINTOSH

CHATHAM

NEW HANOVER

Legend

Historic Counties w/in Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Historic Counties and Parishes

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012

Map 4: Historic Counties as of April 12, 1911
Union

Aiken Evans

Jesup

Ocala

Dudley

Monroe

Sumter

Conway

Kinston

Belmont Gaffney

Clinton

Laurens

Clinton

Hopkins

Palatka

Matthews

Newberry

Florence

Red Hill

Socastee

Martinez

Beaufort

Rock Hill

Lancaster

Lumberton

Hampstead

Greenwood Masonboro

Brunswick

Kingsland

St. Marys

Fort Bragg

Hope Mills Rockingham

Laurinburg

Hartsville

Darlington

Seven Oaks Dentsville

Orangeburg

Georgetown

Statesboro

Hinesville

Fruit Cove Middleburg

Palm Coast

Spartanburg

Summerville

Palm Valley Orange Park

Port Orange

Myrtle Beach

Johns Island

Fort Stewart

Ormond Beach

Bennettsville

West Columbia

St. Augustine

South Daytona

Kings Mountain Southern Pines

Atlantic Beach

Fernandina Beach

Wilmington Island

North Myrtle Beach

Hilton Head Island

Jacksonville Beach

Savannah

Wilmington

Charleston

Jacksonville

Jacksonville

Charlotte

Columbia

North Charleston

Daytona Beach

Fayetteville

Horry

Aiken

Marion

Duval

York

Berkeley

Clay

Burke

Pender

Colleton

Bladen

Duplin

Charleston

Lee

Onslow

Volusia

Robeson

Jasper

Union

Beaufort

Sampson

Brunswick

Putnam

Nassau

Florence

Glynn

Sumter

Laurens

Columbus

Bulloch

Wayne

Orangeburg

Fairfield

Richland

Camden

St. Johns

Liberty

Union

Kershaw

Anson

Screven

Flagler

Georgetown

Jones

Long

Bryan

Lexington

Chester

Hoke

Charlton

Williamsburg

Dillon

Saluda

Marion

Chatham

Chesterfield

Newberry

Spartanburg

Clarendon

Tattnall

Moore

Barnwell

McIntosh

Lancaster

Hampton

Lenoir

Edgefield

Brantley

Marlboro

Dorchester

Jenkins

Richmond

Calhoun

Baker

Allendale

Bamberg

Stanly

Pierce

Polk Wayne Craven

Harnett Gaston

Evans

Candler

Darlington

Cumberland

Effingham

Cherokee

Scotland

Greenwood

Emanuel

Richmond

Lake

New 

Hanover

Ware

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Legend

Cities - Population

8000 - 45000

45001 - 245000

245001 - 750000

Counties

States

City Limits

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Proposed Boundary Expansion of the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - May 2012

Map 5: Proposed Boundary
32 

APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, AND INITIATIVES 

The following federal laws have guided the planning process. Management of the Corridor, 

including implementation actions, must be consistent with these laws, policies, and initiatives. The 

following section summarizes the key laws, policies, and initiatives governing management of and 

planning for the Corridor. 

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 

This management plan has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.) (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), Director’s Order 2: Park Planning, and NPS Management 

Policies 2006. 

The National Environmental Policy Act establishes “a national policy, which will encourage 

productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.” The National 

Environmental Policy Act requires all government agencies to develop procedures that ensure open 

and honest documentation of existing resources and potential effects to these resources as a result of 

the proposed action. NEPA fosters public involvement as a key element of the decision-making 

process. NEPA compliance procedures are described in NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making and the accompanying reference 

manual. See the next section for a description of this plan’s compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

How this Management Plan Complies with the National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act is applicable to the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage 

Corridor Management Plan because the Secretary of the Interior approves the management plan. 

Evaluation of the potential for significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed 

strategies and actions in this plan concluded that the appropriate NEPA pathway was a categorical 

exclusion, specifically 3.3R. Categorical Exclusion 3.3R states “adoption or approval of surveys, 

studies, reports, plans and similar documents which will result in recommendations or proposed 

actions which would cause no or only minimal environmental impact.” The determination that 

Categorical Exclusion 3.3R was the appropriate NEPA pathway precluded the need to prepare an 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531–1543) requires federal agencies to ensure that 

management activities authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency, do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed endangered or threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat that is critical to the conservation of these 

species. Given the conceptual nature of this management plan, no effects on threatened or 

endangered species are expected. As specific projects are implemented, consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service would take place in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. 
Applicable Laws, Policies, and Initiatives 

33 

THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 

Passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470) (NHPA) 

established a comprehensive program to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the 

nation as a living part of community life. Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

delineates broad historic preservation responsibilities for federal agencies, such as the National Park 

Service, to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into all of their ongoing programs. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account 

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties that are either listed in or eligible to be listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places. The national register includes districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects important for their significance in U.S. history, architecture, archeology, 

engineering, and culture. The goal of the section 106 review process is to seek ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties that are listed in or eligible for listing 

in the national register. The National Park Service has determined that this management plan 

involves no federal undertakings on historic properties. The Commission will complete a section 106 

review, as appropriate, throughout implementation of this management plan for each undertaking 

involving a federal nexus. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES 2006 

Section 1.4.4 prohibits impairment of park resources and values unless a particular law directly and 

specifically provides otherwise. Since the Corridor is not a unit of the national park system, it is not 

subject to section 1.4.4 and as a result, impairment of resources and values is not discussed in this 

document. 

Section 1.3.4 does relate to this plan because it outlines “heritage area” designation as another option 

for recognizing an area’s importance to the nation without requiring or implying management by the 

National Park Service. It supports the management of heritage area resources for conservation, 

recreation, education, and continued use through partnerships among public and private entities at 

the local or regional level. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 

The Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted in 1972 to preserve, protect, develop, and where 

possible, to restore and enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone. The act requires federal 

agency activities (i.e., “direct agency” activities) to be fully consistent with a state’s approved coastal 

management program, unless full consistency is prohibited by federal law. This plan does not 

propose any development in the Corridor and no management activities in this plan conflict with the 

coastal zone management program. Therefore, there is no effect on coastal resources in the 

Corridor. 

GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT OF 2006 

Section 295I of Public Law 109-338 requires the Commission to “establish one or more Coastal 

Heritage Centers at appropriate locations within the Heritage Corridor in accordance with the 

preferred alternative identified in the Record of Decision for the Low Country Gullah Culture Special 

Resource Study and Environmental Impact Statement, and additional appropriate sites.” The 

Commission has developed criteria for the development of coastal heritage centers, which are 

included in chapter 3. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

34 

Section 295C(b)(2) provides for boundary adjustments if they are: (1) proposed in the management 

plan, and (2) approved by the Secretary of the Interior. A subcommittee of the Commission was 

established during the planning process to analyze, evaluate, and propose any boundary adjustments 

to the Corridor boundary. An explanation for the inclusion of Pender County, North Carolina, and 

St. Johns County, Florida, in the Corridor are included in chapter 1. 

Section 295F describes the requirements of the Corridor’s management plan. This section states that 

the management plan include the components listed in table 2, below. 

AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE OF 2010 

President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative in April 2010 to develop a 

21st century conservation and recreation agenda. AGO takes as its premise that lasting conservation 

solutions should rise from the American people—that the protection of our natural heritage is a nonpartisan objective shared by all Americans. 

AGO recognizes that many of the best ideas come from outside Washington, D.C. Instead of 

dictating policies, this initiative turns to communities for local, grassroots conservation initiatives. 

Instead of growing bureaucracy, it calls for reworking inefficient policies and making the federal 

government a better partner with states, tribes, and local communities. 

The goals of the initiative are to: 

 Reconnect Americans, especially children, to America’s rivers and waterways, landscapes of 

national significance, ranches, farms and forests, great parks, and coasts and beaches by 

exploring a variety of efforts, including: 

1. promoting community-based recreation and conservation, including local parks, 

greenways, beaches, and waterways 

2. advancing job and volunteer opportunities related to conservation and outdoor 

recreation 

3. supporting existing programs and projects that educate and engage Americans in our 

history, culture, and natural bounty 

 Build upon state, local, private, and tribal priorities for the conservation of land, water, 

wildlife, historic, and cultural resources, creating corridors and connectivity across these 

outdoor spaces, and for enhancing neighborhood parks; and determine how the federal 

government can best advance those priorities through public and private partnerships and 

locally supported conservation strategies. 

 Use science-based management practices to restore and protect the lands and waters of this 

nation for future generations. 

The Commission plans to explore meeting these initiatives. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE A CALL TO ACTION STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN OF 2011 

In preparation for the centennial of the National Park Service on August 25, 2016, the NPS director 

released a strategic plan titled A Call to Action, which is a call to all National Park Service employees 

and partners to commit to actions that advance the agency toward a shared vision for 2016 and the 
Applicable Laws, Policies, and Initiatives 

35 

second century of the National Park Service. As partners of the National Park Service, the 

Commission will support and contribute to the initiative’s goals of Connecting People to Parks and 

Preserving America’s Special Places. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE POLICY MEMORANDUM 12-01 

This NPS director’s 2012 policy memorandum affirms the National Park Service’s support for the 

National Heritage Areas Program and encourages NPS managers and staff to help the National 

Heritage Areas succeed, in part by partnering with and assisting, to the maximum extent possible, 

local heritage area initiatives. 

TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENT, SECTION 295F(A)(1-9) HOW THE REQUIREMENT IS ADDRESSED

Include comprehensive policies, strategies, and 

recommendations for conservation, funding, 

management, and development of the Corridor. 

Chapter 3 provides the framework for policies, strategies, and 

recommendations governing the conservation of resources, 

potential funding opportunities for implementation efforts, and 

management and development of the Corridor. 

Take into consideration existing state, county, and 

local plans in development of the management plan 

and its implementation. 

Plans at all levels of government within the Corridor have been 

considered in the development of this plan and its approach to 

implementation. See chapter 3, “Potential Partners and Related 

Plans.” 

Include a description of actions that governments, 

private organizations, and individuals have agreed to 

take to protect the historical, cultural, and natural 

resources of the Corridor. 

The Commission has received letters of support from government 

agencies and other organizations. See appendix G for copies of 

letters and commitments received. 

Specify the existing and potential sources of funding 

to protect, manage, and develop the Corridor in the 

first five years of implementation. 

Past sources of funding and expenditures to date are in chapter 3, 

“Funding and Early Implementation.” Potential sources of 

funding are identified in table 24 in chapter 3. 

Include an inventory of the historical, cultural, and 

natural resources of the Corridor related to the 

themes of the Corridor that should be preserved, 

restored, managed, developed, or maintained. 

An inventory of historical, cultural, and natural resources is 

included in appendix C and each resource is linked to the 

appropriate interpretive theme(s). This inventory list provides a 

foundation to be built upon throughout implementation; it does 

not include all relevant or important resources of Gullah Geechee 

people. More research and documentation are needed as part of 

implementation. 

Recommend policies and strategies for resource 

management that consider and detail the application 

of appropriate land and water management 

techniques, including the development of 

intergovernmental and interagency cooperative 

agreements to protect the Corridor’s historical, 

cultural, and natural resources. 

The Corridor does not own or have any regulatory authority over 

land or water within the Corridor boundary. The implementation 

framework in chapter 3 includes strategies for tangible and 

intangible resource protection. Implementation of these strategies 

would occur with the assistance of partners across agencies and 

political boundaries, using best management practices. 

Describe a program for implementation of the 

management plan including plans for resource 

protection, restoration, construction, and specific 

commitments for implementation that have been 

made by the local coordinating entity or any 

government, organization, or individual for the first 

five years of implementation. 

The implementation matrix in chapter 3 outlines the strategies 

that the Commission has identified to meet the goals and 

objectives of the Corridor in a three-phased approach. 

Implementation is to occur in cooperation with governments, 

organizations, and individuals over the life of the plan. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

36 

TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENT, SECTION 295F(A)(1-9) HOW THE REQUIREMENT IS ADDRESSED

Include an analysis and recommendations for the 

ways in which federal, state, or local programs may 

best be coordinated to further the purposes of this 

subtitle. 

Throughout the planning process, federal, state, and local 

partners have been included in the development of the 

management approach and implementation strategies and 

actions. Further coordination and collaboration would be required 

on a project-by-project basis throughout the life of the plan. 

Include an interpretive plan for the Corridor. Chapter 4 serves as the interpretation plan for the Corridor. 
NEXT ST

After pub

period, af

received, 

Interior. 

IMPLEM

The appr

plan wou

and the a

Once the

consultat

response 

undertak

plan. 

NEXT

TEPS 

blic distributi

fter which th

as appropria

MENTATION

roval of this p

uld be forthco

ssistance of p

plan has bee

tions would b

to an immed

en by the Co

T STEPS A

ion of the ma

he Commissio

ate. The plan

N OF THE P

plan does not

oming. Imple

partners and 

en approved,

be completed

diate need or 

ommission w

NAVASS

AND IMPL

anagement pl

on and plann

n can be imple

PLAN 

t guarantee th

ementation o

the public. F

 more detaile

d, as appropr

changes in f

ould be align

SA DOCK, NAV

37 

LEMENTA

lan, there wil

ning team wil

emented onc

hat the fundi

of the approv

Full impleme

ed planning, 

riate. The Co

future NHA p

ned with the m

VASSA, BRUNSW

ATION OF

ll be a 30-day

ll evaluate an

ce it is signed

ing and staffi

ved plan wou

entation coul

environmen

mmission ma

program requ

management

WICK COUNTY,

F THE PLA

y public revie

nd address co

d by the Secre

ing needed to

uld depend on

d be many ye

ntal documen

ay also take a

uirements. A

t framework 

NC 

AN 

ew and comm

omments 

etary of the 

o implement 

n future fund

ears in the fu

ntation, and 

action in 

All actions 

outlined in t

ment 

the 

ding 

uture. 

this 

2

Chapter 2

Context of the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Chapter 2 divider photos (top to bottom) 

 Tabby Cabin Row, Kingsley Plantation, Duval County, FL (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Fanner Basket and Rice Stalk (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 Rice Field Canal, Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 
41 

OVERVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of the cultural and natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, 

and land ownership and land cover within the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (the 

Corridor). It is not an exhaustive description of existing conditions, but provides enough 

information to better understand the history and current conditions in the Corridor. 

For additional information on the Corridor, see the Corridor Web site at: 

www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org and the special resource study published prior to designation of the 

Corridor: Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Throughout the remainder of the document, information about the Corridor is presented 

geographically from north to south rather than in the order identified in the designating law (South 

Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida). 
42 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND CONTEMPORARY 

EVENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

FIRST CONTACT—NATIVE AMERICAN, EUROPEAN, AND AFRICAN 

The Corridor’s coastal environment, extending along the Atlantic seaboard from North Carolina to 

Florida, has helped shape the historical settlement patterns and lifeways of the people who lived in 

this coastal region, which is also known as the lowcountry. Archeological evidence such as shell 

middens, sand and shell mounds, and shell rings associated with fiber-tempered pottery suggests that 

native peoples inhabited the area as early as the late Archaic period, approximately 2500 BC (Phelps 

1983). Native Americans populated the area as migratory communities who practiced seasonal 

hunting and fishing. In time they evolved into diversified, semisedentary cultures that cultivated the 

region’s fertile soil, while continuing to hunt and fish. These communities settled near fresh water 

sources such as the Savannah and Ogeechee rivers in Georgia and Waccamaw River in North 

Carolina. By using fire to clear land, they perfected their agricultural methods and established secure 

base camps for hunting, fishing, trading, and ceremonial practices. 

Native American migration in and out of the lowcountry region created a network of trails such as 

the Great War Path, Chickamauga Path, Crawfish Springs Road, and others. Many of these early 

trails became roads that still exist today. Extensive use of fire for hunting and agriculture altered the 

landscape by creating open woodlands and fields. The broad grassy plains, pine and oak hardwood 

forests, and numerous rivers made the land ideal for hunting and the soil fertile for agriculture and 

encouraged the establishment of villages. 

By the 1600s, the area encompassing present day South 

Carolina was populated by approximately 15,000 native 

people. During the population peak, this area contained 

Siouan-speaking tribes such as the Chicoras, Catawbas, 

Santees, Sewees, PeeDees, Waterees, and Congarees; 

Iroquoian-speaking tribes composed mostly of 

Cherokees, and Muskhogean-speaking tribes such as 

the Cusabos and Yamasees (NPS 1994). In the Cape 

Fear region of North Carolina, which is defined as a 50-

mile radius around Wilmington, the major tribes were 

the Waccamaws and the Siouan speaking Cape Fear 

Indians. The coastal areas of Georgia were widely 

populated by the Euchee and Guale tribes. Some of the 

earliest documented tribes still remain in the region; 

however, in the 19th century, most Native Americans 

were forced by the U.S. government to move westward 

along what is often referred to as the “Trail of Tears.” 

The first recorded European contact with native 

peoples within the Corridor occurred in 1513 when the 

Spanish explorer, Juan Ponce de León encountered the 

Calusa Nation in Florida and claimed the area for Spain. 

In 1524, King Francis I of France sent the Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazano to search for a 

passage to the Indies. Verrazano visited the Cape Fear coast and recorded the earliest known 

description of the region (Lee 1965). In successive grants of 1663 and 1665, King Charles II of 

LAND’S END LIVE OAK TREE

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

43 

England granted to eight Lords Proprietors all of the land from the southern border of Virginia to 

the middle of present day Florida and from the Atlantic coastline to the South Seas (Pacific Ocean). A 

considerable portion of the territory contained in these grants was claimed by Spain. The English 

first arrived in the area of the Corridor in 1662–1663 when William Hilton and a group of Puritans 

explored the Cape Fear region on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1664, settlers from 

Barbados migrated to the Cape Fear region and established a settlement they named Charles Towne 

near the mouth of Town Creek, North Carolina (Lee 1965 and Powell 2006). In 1670, another 

Charles Towne (Charleston, South Carolina) was established on the west bank of the Ashley River by 

settlers from Barbados and England. After 1691, the northern part of the original grants was 

generally known as North Carolina and received a separate governor from South Carolina in 1712 

and became a royal colony in 1719. In 1732, Georgia, the last of the original 13 English colonies, was 

granted to a board of trustees for a period of 20 years. Originally founded as a philanthropic 

experiment to rehabilitate debtors and serve as a military buffer against Spain, Georgia encompassed 

what had been the southernmost part of South Carolina. Once Europeans established themselves, 

native populations within the Corridor dramatically declined as a result of warfare, and diseases to 

which they had no immunity. Europeans also captured, enslaved, and sold many native people, some 

of whom were transported to other regions of mainland North America or to the Caribbean. 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GULLAH GEECHEE PEOPLE AND CULTURE 

Enslavement in the Colony of Carolina 

The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina dated July 21, 1669, outlined a plan for government and 

social organization for Carolina, recognized slavery, and specified in Article 110 that, “every 

Freeman of Carolina shall have absolute Power and Authority over his Negro Slaves, of what 

Opinion or Religion whatsoever” (Locke 1669). Thus, it is no wonder that enslaved people of African 

origin came to the region that encompasses much of the Corridor at the same time, and often on the 

same ships, as did English settlers. These enslaved Africans came from a variety of sources—Africa, 

primarily West Africa, England, other English colonies in mainland North America, European 

colonies in Central and South America, or the Caribbean, especially Barbados. Some were born in 

the New World. Collectively, these people constitute the charter generation of enslaved Africans 

within the Corridor. 

West African Rice Heritage 

An important reason why Africans, primarily West Africans, were chosen for enslavement in the 

New World was that they had an agricultural tradition and knew how to domesticate animals and 

cultivate a variety of cereal, grain, and vegetable crops. During the first two decades of settlement, 

approximately 1670–1690, enslaved Africans lived, worked, and socialized with indentured white 

servants and enslaved or free Native Americans. Social bonds were formed and there was an 

interchange of culture. Enslaved Africans were afforded the opportunity to participate in a range of 

economic activities; in addition to growing their own food in gardens in their slave villages, they 

labored in the livestock industry, produced naval stores, and occasionally engaged in the fur trade. 

In the last decades of the 17th century, rice was successfully cultivated in what is now South 

Carolina, and its production rapidly became the main economic activity. Once rice had proven itself 

a lucrative staple crop, the character of the physical landscape and the makeup and density of the 

enslaved population dramatically changed. At first, rice was grown as a subsistence crop in damp soil 

without irrigation. Later, the reservoir system, which involved the impounding of fresh water from 

streams, springs, and swamps, was used for the periodic irrigation of rice fields. By the mid-18th 

century, the tidal flow or tidewater method was employed to produce rice. This involved situating 
CHAPTER 2

rice fields

canals, di

by the ris

tidewater

enslavem

rice was w

Africans a

productio

There wa

as rice cu

South Ca

Enslaved 

in 1750. A

Carolina 

extended

areas, the

: CONTEXT OF T

s adjacent to 

ikes, sluices, a

ing tides. Afr

r rice produc

ment. Most pl

work fit only

also had an a

on of rice. 

as a tremendo

ultivation spre

arolina moved

Africans and

After England

and Georgia

d from the Ca

e black popul

HE GULLAH GEE

rivers and st

and trunks, t

ricans from t

ction and this

antation own

for enslaved

array of techn

“RICE CULTU

ous increase 

ead. In 1725,

d into the Ca

d planters we

d gained con

a, expanded t

ape Fear regio

lation greatly

ECHEE CULTURA

treams flowin

the fields wer

he west coas

s knowledge 

ners agreed t

d blacks. How

nological and

URE ON THE OG

HARPER’S WEE

in the numbe

, planters and

ape Fear regio

ere already pr

trol of East F

he productio

on of North 

y exceeded th

L HERITAGE COR

44 

ng into the oc

re flooded w

t of Africa w

was transferr

hat the physi

wever, they w

d managerial 

EECHEE” NEAR 

EKLY, JANUARY

er of enslave

d enslaved Af

on of North 

roducing rice

Florida in 176

on of rice to t

Carolina to t

hat of whites

RRIDOR

cean. Throug

with fresh wat

were familiar w

red to the Ne

ical labor inv

were reluctan

skills that we

SAVANNAH, G

Y 5, 1867

d Africans im

fricans from 

Carolina and

e in Georgia 

63, planters,

that region. B

the St. Johns

. 

gh an intricat

ter that was f

with the tech

ew World wi

volved in the 

nt to acknowl

ere essential 

GEORGIA

mported into

the Goose C

d established

before slaver

primarily fro

By 1770, the U

River in Flor

te system of 

forced upstre

hnology of 

ith their 

production 

ledge that 

to the 

o the lowcoun

Creek area of 

d rice plantati

ry was legaliz

om South 

U.S. rice coa

rida—in mos

eam 

of 

ntry 

ions. 

zed 

st 

st 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

45 

FIGURE 4. MAP OF ETHNIC GROUPS TRANSPORTED FROM WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA TO THE AMERICAS

The Transatlantic Slave Trade 

Gullah Geechee people trace the genesis of their culture to enslaved Africans, primarily West 

Africans, who were brought to the lowcountry by way of the Transatlantic Slave Trade during the 

18th century and the first half of the 19th century. The Transatlantic Slave Trade was a sophisticated 

and complex global conduit for the procurement, transport, and sale or disposition of human beings. 

Many enslaved Africans were dumped overboard, bartered away, or consigned to brokers. It was 

sanctioned and rationalized at various times by most civilized nations of the world, including Great 

Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands. By the early 1700s, the colony of 

South Carolina began to outpace the slave market of the Chesapeake Bay region. The city of Charles 

Towne (Charleston, South Carolina) eventually became the largest transatlantic slave market in 

North America. When slavery was legalized in Georgia, Savannah became the major slave trading 

center in that colony. 

While the Transatlantic Slave Trade expanded in English colonies, it remained illegal in the Spanish 

colony of Florida. A Royal Edict in 1693 by Spain, a Roman Catholic nation, provided religious 

sanctuary for runaway slaves in Florida. Even before this announcement, enslaved Africans, 

primarily from South Carolina, had sought freedom by fleeing to Florida. Some established fortified 

self-sufficient maroon (term portraying fugitive runaway slaves) outposts and their survival skills 

enabled them to tenuously maintain their freedom. Gullah Geechee runaways were frequently 

welcomed by Native Americans and the two cultures formed common bonds based on their 

opposition to the European Americans. There was a considerable amount of cultural interchange 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

46 

and intermarriage between Native Americans and Gullah Geechee fugitives who were at times 

referred to as Indian Negroes or Black Seminoles. 

Whatever the name, they constitute an important component of the Seminole Nation—they were 

among those who were forcibly relocated to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) in 1842. Groups of Black 

Seminoles migrated from Indian Territory into Mexico. In the 1820s, some Black Seminoles left 

mainland North America and settled in the vicinity of Red Bays, which is on Andros Island in the 

Bahamas. These Black Seminoles, in time, developed Gullah Geechee culture into a diaspora, to 

which language and basket weaving techniques comprised the core cultural components. In 1738, 

Fort Mose (located 2 miles north of present day St. Augustine, Florida) became the first legally 

sanctioned free black settlement in North America. 

On March 2, 1807, President Thomas Jefferson signed a bill outlawing the foreign slave trade 

effective January 1, 1808. However, the opening of new lands for the cultivation of sugar and cotton 

increased the demand for enslaved blacks, and the illegal traffic in human beings continued until 

demand was eliminated by the Civil War. 

The significance of the Transatlantic Slave Trade for those enslaved Africans who eventually arrived 

on plantations in the lowcountry (before and after the foreign slave trade was outlawed) is one of 

survival. They had endured capture, removal from their villages, imprisonment, branding, rape and 

sexual assault, being forced on ships for destinations unknown, the horrors of the “Middle Passage,” 

and the transition from personhood to property as they were sold at market. Nevertheless, enduring 

bonds of friendship and fictive kinship—relationships resembling familial bonds between people 

who are not related by blood or marriage—were often formed among passengers on slave ships, 

which facilitated the development of new social arrangements on plantations. 

Historians are not in agreement as to the precise region of Africa from which the majority of captives 

with a rice growing tradition originated. Some historians have identified the region as the west coast 

of Africa, others say it was the Grain Coast, or the Rice Coast, or the Slave Coast, or Senegambia, or 

Angola. Even with sophisticated databases on the slave trade, this issue is far from settled. The 

historian Charles Joyner noted the importance of the controversy, which relates to the present day 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, when he wrote that, “The unpleasant truth is that there 

could hardly have been a successful rice culture in South Carolina without the strength and skills of 

enslaved Africans” (Joyner 1984). 

Enslaved Africans also brought a variety of other skills and expertise in agricultural production and 

other economies including metallurgy, irrigation techniques, herding, and the cultivation of 

vegetables such as beans, peas, okra, and yams. These were of value to Europeans in the global 

market of commodity and exchange. However, of all staple crops, rice was the only one that was 

planted, cultivated, harvested, and occasionally marketed by enslaved laborers and managers. 

Planters also believed that enslaved people from the west coast of Africa had a resistance to yellow 

fever and malaria that enabled them to live and work on the mosquito-infested plantations during 

the “sickly season,” which was mainly during the summer. Plantation owners and most other white 

people often deserted plantations during the mosquito season. These absentee plantation owners 

allowed enslaved Africans to manage plantations and produce crops without any supervision by 

whites. 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

47 

RICE TRUNK AND CANAL, MANSFIELD PLANTATION

GEORGETOWN, GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SC 

Enslaved Africans arrived in the lowcountry with a diverse range of cultural, linguistic, and spiritual 

practices. They adapted these to their changed status of experiencing the culture and language of 

predominantly white planters and overseers and to their new North American environment. Once 

on plantations, the numbers of new arrivals were often large enough to overwhelm the proto-Creole 

culture of the charter generation of enslaved Africans. Moreover, because many of the transplanted 

African peoples did not share the same cultural practices, eventually common institutions and a 

synthesized new Creole culture (now known as Gullah Geechee) emerged in the early communities 

and plantations where they lived. 

The foundations of this culture rested on the ability of enslaved Africans to adjust to multiple 

systems of labor organization and management, and to reproduce themselves while creating and 

sustaining family, community, linguistic, and spiritual institutions. However, due to the dynamics 

and peculiar circumstances of its formation, Gullah Geechee culture is not monolithic and its 

manifestation varied from region to region, from rural to urban areas, and often from plantation to 

plantation. The isolated existence of enslaved Africans on remote plantations, their density in the 

general population, and their proximity to the port cities, towns, and commercial centers of 

Georgetown and Charleston, South Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; and Savannah, Georgia, 

also facilitated the development of Gullah Geechee culture. 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

48 

The Task System 

It is often stated that the task system for 

organizing labor, as opposed to the gang 

system, promoted the formation of Gullah 

Geechee culture. Rather than large numbers 

of enslaved Africans performing the same 

kind of labor from dusk to dawn under the 

central direction of an overseer or driver, 

those who labored under the task system 

were assigned a certain amount of work to be 

completed in a certain amount of time. Once 

the task was completed, enslaved Africans 

were free to cultivate their own garden plots 

in slave villages and to hunt or fish in order 

to supplement their food, clothing, and 

shelter allotments. This task system also 

afforded an opportunity for the enslaved 

producers of food and other commodities to 

sell their goods and to participate in the 

market economy. 

Under the task system, enslaved laborers 

were personally responsible for the quantity 

and quality of their labor, and if their efforts 

were satisfactory, they had some time to focus on their families or to engage in religious and 

community activities. Besides, they were not always under the constant scrutiny or supervision of 

their overseers. However, the main purpose of the task system was to maximize production and it 

did not always work to the advantage of the enslaved who labored under compulsion and without 

compensation. Often the work assigned was too arduous or beyond the physical capability of a 

laborer to perform in the allotted time. Assigned tasks were often extended or reinterpreted, and 

completed tasks rarely if ever met the satisfaction of some overseers or drivers who knew exactly 

who was responsible and punished defective work accordingly. 

Like the gang system, the task system also limited opportunities for enslaved Africans to commune 

together in the field, to sing secular and spiritual songs, to engage in courtship, to verbalize 

aggression, and to sabotage crops. In addition to rice, the task system was used in the production of 

indigo and naval stores; its use survived the institution of slavery. Post-emancipation labor contracts 

often specified the number of tasks black tenant farmers or sharecroppers would perform for 

landlords in return for use of their land. 

Although the task system may have provided better conditions than the gang system, it did not 

negate the harsh living conditions under which they labored. Having to work in all extremes of 

weather, and often in snake-infested waters up to their knees, the mortality rate of enslaved Africans 

from cholera, respiratory diseases, and a variety of other ailments often exceeded the number of 

births on plantations. Enslaved Africans also endured extreme punishments, which along with the 

inhumane conditions under which they were forced to live and work, made life intolerable. 

Consequently, many enslaved Africans sought every opportunity to resist their status or to escape 

from bondage, using a variety of strategies to do so. They incorporated a myriad of tactics such as 

arson, sabotage, murder, and complete insurrection. The Revolutionary War presented an 

SLAVE QUARTERS, FORT KING GEORGE

DARIEN, MCINTOSH COUNTY, GA 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

49 

opportunity to earn their freedom by actively supporting the British or American cause. Although 

enslaved Africans were at first not permitted to fight in the war; ultimately, they were sent to the 

Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia, areas to help fortify and defend these important 

southern cities. During the critical year of 1779, patriots in South Carolina and Georgia refused to 

recruit enslaved Africans in their own defense. However, many enslaved persons within the 

boundaries of the Corridor gained freedom by running away from their enslavers. Possibly as many 

as 10,000 gained their freedom by supporting the British, and some found their way to Nova Scotia 

and back to Africa where they helped found Freetown, Sierra Leone, and the country of Liberia. 

The Civil War 

The Civil War disrupted Gullah Geechee culture, but it also brought positive and permanent changes 

to the region. Many enslaved Africans were forced by their enslavers to leave their home plantations 

and migrate inland to escape Union armies. Some enslaved Africans never returned. Black refugees 

from other regions entered the area, squatted on land, or became satellites of Union armies. In some 

places plantation owners and other whites abandoned the area, and there was chaos and lawlessness 

as formerly enslaved Africans tasted and tested their freedom. 

Beginning in November 1861, and continuing until the end of the war, thousands of enslaved 

Africans from the Sea Islands and beyond found freedom within the confines of Union lines. Others 

were recruited or impressed into military service. Some African Americans, for the first time in their 

lives, were able to earn cash by growing cotton for the United States, by providing lumber for the 

construction of military installations, or by cutting wood to fuel blockading ships. In August 1862, 

General Rufus Saxton, with the concurrence of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, began to form the 

1st South Carolina Volunteers, the first regiment of formerly enslaved Africans mustered into Union 

service. The 1st Regiment was later reconstituted as the 33rd United States Colored Troops (USCT). 

As the war progressed, 

African Americans serving in 

USCT units performed a 

number of combat, combat 

support, or military 

occupation duties in most 

regions of the Corridor, and 

they campaigned from North 

Carolina to Florida. Except 

for their white officers, black 

soldiers served in racially 

segregated units, received 

discriminatory treatment in 

the form of duty assignments, 

and before June 1864, 

received less pay than white 

soldiers. They also could not 

become officers unless they 

were chaplains or surgeons, 

and if captured, there was no 

guarantee they would be 

treated as prisoners of war. 

U.S. COLORED TROOPS, NC HIGHWAY HISTORICAL MARKER

WILMINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY, WILMINGTON, 

NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

50 

Members of USCT units were not only liberators, but were carriers of culture who assisted in 

establishing schools, churches, religious denominations, and fraternal and political organizations 

throughout the Corridor. 

Motivated by a desire to rid his army of the thousands of refugees who were following in its wake, 

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 12, 1865, met with 20 black clergy and 

community leaders (15 of whom were formerly enslaved Africans) in Savannah, Georgia, to discuss 

the future of formerly enslaved Africans following their emancipation. Sherman later wrote in his 

memoirs that the black leaders said they would prefer to live in communities separate from white 

people in order to avoid racial prejudice, which they feared would take years to overcome. 

Land Ownership 

The paramount desire of freedmen and the descendants of enslaved Africans was to own land. This 

was a universal sentiment among freedmen throughout the Corridor because they saw land 

ownership as the foundation of their freedom. In a letter to President Abraham Lincoln, which was 

dictated to a white female teacher who had spent time in the Sea Islands, a freedman states the desire 

of his people for land. He hoped that the teacher would personally relay his message to Lincoln. He 

somehow thought that he would receive a favorable response to his request, if his message was 

delivered by a woman. The letter is quoted at length because although the freedman’s name has 

escaped history, his words, which the teacher attempted to copy exactly as they were heard, captures 

much of the essence of Gullah Geechee culture: faith in God, love of family, a commitment to labor, 

and a desire to hold on to land that generations of their ancestors had cultivated and nurtured. It also 

raises important questions regarding land ownership. The letter is quoted as follows: 

My Dear Young Misus: I been a elder in de church, and spertual fader to a hep of gals 

no older dan oona [you]. I know dat womens has feelin’ hearts, and dat de men will 

heardy de voice of a gal when dey too hard head for mind dose dat has more wisdom. 

Si I bin a beg one of dese yere little white sisters in de church, dat de Lord sends from 

de Nort for school we chillen, to write to oona for me to ax of oona if oona so please 

an’ will be so kind, my missus to speak to Linkum and tell him for we how we po’ 

folks tank him and de Lord for we great privilege to see de happy day when we can 

talk to de white folks and make known to the gov’ment what we wants. Do my missus 

tell Linkum dat we wants land-dis bery land dat is rich wid de sweat ob we face and 

de blood of we back. We born here; we parents’ graves here; we donne oder country; 

dis yere our home. De Nort folks had home, antee? What a pity dat dey don’t love der 

home like we love we home, for den dey would neber come here for buy all way from 

we. 

Do my missus, beg Linkum for lef us room for buy land and live here. We don’t ask 

for it for notins. We too thankful. We too satisfy to pay just what de rich buckra pay. 

But de done buy too much a’ ready, and left we no chance. We could a bin buy all we 

want, but dey make de lots too big, and cut we out. 

De word cum fro Massa Linkum’s self, dat we take out claims and hold on ter um, an’ 

plant um, and he will see dat we get um, every man ten or twenty acre. We too glad. 

We stake out an’ list, but fore de time to plant dese missionaries [tax commissioners] 

sells to white folks all the best land. Where Linkum? We cry to him, but he too far to 

hear we. Dey keep us back, and we can’t tell himself. Do missus speak ter um for we, 

an’ ax Linkum for stretch out he hand an’ make dese yere missionaries cut de lans so 

dat we able to buy. Dey good and wise men may be, but ax Linkum for send us his
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

51 

word, and den we satisfy. Our men-ebry able bodied man from we island-been a fight 

for dere country in Florida, at Fort Wagner, any where dat govment send um. But his 

dere country. Dey want land here, for dere wives to work. Look at de fiels! No more 

but womens and chilens, all de men gone to fight, and while dey gone, de land sole 

from dere families to rich white buckra to scrape, and neber live on. Dey runs to de 

Nort; deycan’t live here. What dey want to carry from we all de witeness of the land, 

and leave we for Govment to feed (McPherson 1965). 

On January 16, 1865, Sherman signed Special Field Order No. 15, which specifically set aside the 

islands from Charleston south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers from 30 miles back from 

the seas and the country bordering the St. Johns River, Florida. This area was approximately the 

coastal region from Charleston, South Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida. The special field orders 

stated that these areas would be “set apart for the settlement of the negroes now made free by the 

acts of war” (Sherman 1865) and that no white people would be permitted to reside there, with the 

exception of U.S. government and military officials. Sherman’s order did not affect the large enslaved 

African population in the area surrounding Georgetown, South Carolina, or the Cape Fear region of 

North Carolina. Major General Joseph Hawley, Commander of the Military District of Wilmington, 

signed a decree on April 11, 1865, seizing four major rice plantations for the use of freedmen and 

destitute refugees. 

By the summer and fall of 1865 over 40,000 newly freed people settled on 40-acre tracts in the 

designated coastal areas. However, in August 1865, President Andrew Johnson granted pardons and 

a restoration of property to Confederate rebels. In October 1865, General Oliver O. Howard, the 

Commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau, at a meeting on Edisto Island, South Carolina, had the 

unpleasant duty of informing the freedmen that their land would be given back to their former 

enslavers, and they must agree to work for planters or be evicted. 

Thus, while some Gullah Geechee people 

gained legal land ownership through the 

limited extent of Sherman’s Special Field 

Order, others with the assistance of the 

Freedmen’s Bureau, acquired land through 

individual or group purchases of land 

confiscated by the U.S. government for the 

nonpayment of taxes, or by claiming 

abandoned land. Freedmen in the Sea Islands 

were more successful in acquiring land than 

those in other regions of the Corridor, and in 

1870, it was alleged that they owned more land 

than blacks anywhere in the South. They clung 

to this land, and according to the historian 

George Brown Tindall, “as late as 1930 black owners of land on St. Helena Island constituted a 

unique society of ‘black yeomanry’” (Tindall 1952). 

Elsewhere, there was no meaningful program of land redistribution within the Corridor. Gullah 

Geechee landowners were able to develop a self-sustaining economy based on the small-scale 

production of cotton, subsistence agriculture, and truck farming supplemented with fishing and 

harvesting shrimp and oysters. As a result, many were able to avoid the evils associated with the 

tenant farming and sharecropping systems. The majority of landless blacks within the Corridor 

worked as laborers on public works or in the timber, seafood, mining, or fertilizer industries. They 

BATEAU BOAT
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

52 

also worked in agriculture as sharecroppers, tenant farmers, or wage laborers who primarily 

produced cotton. 

During the Civil War, there was a tremendous increase in the number of black refugees who moved 

into the Corridor from other regions seeking protection within Union-controlled areas. On some 

islands, newcomers represented approximately one-third of the population. However, these 

refugees did not have an adverse effect on Gullah Geechee culture. The small rural settlements 

established by Gullah Geechee people had strengthened cultural ties and community solidarity that 

helped sustain them during periods of economic distress or social turbulence in the aftermath of the 

Civil War. These communities were often bonded as intergenerational families who lived on family 

compounds or at times on the same land where they had previously been enslaved. Elders in the 

communities transmitted the Gullah Geechee language, stories, customs, and rituals. The close 

family ties and strong sense of community kept the people together during difficult times such as the 

Great Depression. Many of these communities have remained intact. 

The Reconstruction Period 

During the reconstruction and post-emancipation periods, there was a great wave of institutional 

building within the Corridor. Emancipation eliminated the antebellum distinction between free 

blacks and those who were enslaved, and they expressed their new unity by cooperating with Union 

soldiers, Freedmen’s Bureau officials, northern missionaries, teachers, and philanthropists from the 

North to strengthen their communities. 

Freedmen had longed for an opportunity to worship their God in their own way and to choose their 

own religious leaders. Well before the end of the Civil War, and as soon as Union forces occupied an 

area, new religious institutions were established and old ones were revived. Christianity was the 

dominant religion of most enslaved Africans during the antebellum period. In fact, some Africans 

were Christians when they arrived in North America, and many freedmen later claimed that their 

religion was a major factor that helped them survive their bondage. African Americans withdrew 

from white churches, formed new congregations, or joined new denominations, especially the 

African American Episcopal Church and the African American Episcopal Zion. 

There was a wave of church building throughout the corridor as blacks repaired war-damaged 

churches or constructed new ones. These churches include stately edifices in major urban areas and 

small white, wood-framed structures that still dot U.S. Highway 17 from one end of the Corridor to 

the other. In addition to serving the religious needs of their adherents, churches also provided social 

services and served as community centers and schools. These wooden churches testify to the fact 

that a historically constituted black community existed in the immediate vicinity. 

Within Union-occupied areas, military personnel and northern teachers also commenced efforts to 

provide blacks with a formal education. Reflecting their desires for education, African Americans of 

all ages flocked to these schools because they understood that education was an opportunity for selfimprovement. In some areas, they contributed money and their own labor to hire teachers and erect 

school houses. There was no system of public education anywhere in the antebellum South, and 

during Reconstruction, African Americans were prominent among those who agitated for public 

schools. Though most northern missionaries, preachers, and teachers—both black and white—were 

motivated by altruism and were sympathetic to the needs of freedmen, their efforts often had the 

effect of weakening the traditional culture of Gullah Geechee people. This was especially true of the 

language and speech patterns of Gullah Geechee people and their religious practices. 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

53 

Blacks also established a host of fraternal organizations, militias, fire companies, veterans, and 

political organizations in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Gullah Geechee people provided 

much of the leadership for these organizations. Black main streets emerged in towns and cities that 

provided opportunities for professionals and business owners to serve the African American 

community. Much of the potential for advancement in property ownership, entrepreneurship, 

political leadership, and business and professional success among African Americans in the late 19th 

century was stifled by the effects of legal segregation, disfranchisement, and racial and political 

violence. They lacked access to land and employment opportunities with fair wages. Just as they had 

been doing since the colonial period, Gullah Geechee people sought relief by moving to the 

Northern, Midwestern, and Southwestern parts of the United States, and a few returned to Africa. 

Some helped to establish the country of Liberia and Freetown, Sierra Leone. 

Out-Migration During the 20th Century 

At the turn of the 20th century, the out-migration from the Corridor accelerated as thousands of 

Gullah Geechee people moved north in search of a better life. Many northerners who encountered 

Gullah Geechee people had negative perceptions of the culture. For example, they saw Gullah 

Geechee language as an indication of low status, ignorance, and laziness. However, beginning with 

the groundbreaking research of linguist Dr. Lorenzo Dow Turner, who conducted field studies into 

the speech forms of Gullah Geechee communities of South Carolina and Georgia during the 1930s, 

linguists concluded that Gullah Geechee speech was not English but was in fact a different language. 

World War II brought many changes to the coastal areas within the Corridor when the U.S. military 

acquired lands to construct shipyards, ports, coastal defense airstrips, and other installations. These 

bases provided some economic opportunities for Gullah Geechee people. However, the great 

increase in the numbers of outsiders along the southeastern coastline and Sea Islands had an adverse 

effect on the people’s land, language, culture, traditions, and traditional way of life of Gullah 

Geechee people. After World War II, commercial fishermen from outside the Corridor with their 

larger, motorized boats significantly undercut the livelihood of Gullah Geechee fishers and 

shrimpers who used small-scale methods. Bridges that connected the Sea Islands to the mainland 

were constructed, making these areas easily accessible. They became a catalyst for development on 

the coast, thereby increasing outside cultural influences on Gullah Geechee coastal communities. 

Beginning with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling (U.S. Supreme Court 1954), the modern Civil 

Rights Movement brought more structural changes to the Corridor than any other time since the 

Civil War. The legal foundations of disfranchisement and Jim Crow laws for racial segregation were 

dismantled and Gullah Geechee people participated in a wide range of activities that helped 

desegregate public schools, public transportation, public facilities, and other places of public 

accommodation, and helped restore voting rights. However, the Civil Rights Movement resulted in 

important unintended consequences. On black main streets throughout the Corridor, businesses and 

places of entertainment or recreation disappeared as a result of integration. Historic African 

American educational institutions, especially high schools, were downgraded or closed, and 

residential neighborhoods in desirable locations witnessed the influx of outsiders and gentrification. 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

54 

The Late 20th Century 

The late 20th century brought a new 

twist to the term “plantation” within 

the Corridor in the form of resorts, 

subdivisions, golf courses and golf 

communities, and recreation facilities. 

At these seemingly modern 

plantations, Gullah Geechee people 

served primarily as a menial labor 

force. These developments resulted in 

an additional loss of Gullah Geechee 

land and cultural sites. Gated 

residential and resort communities 

blocked access to sacred sites and 

cemeteries, harvesting areas for 

traditional herbs and sweetgrass 

gathering, and points along the sea 

that traditionally have been open to 

fishing families. New roads and 

highways supporting new 

developments, including shopping 

centers and subdivisions, led to 

further encroachment on cultural sites 

and also negatively impacted Gullah 

Geechee neighborhoods. Land values 

and tax rates increased and the 

pressure to sell or otherwise acquire 

Gullah Geechee land for development 

intensified. Despite these threats, just as in the past, Gullah Geechee culture proved its resiliency and 

has experienced revitalization in recent years. 

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Revitalization of Gullah Geechee culture has resulted from a growing awareness among Gullah 

Geechee people and others about the contributions made to the U.S. economic and cultural fabric by 

enslaved Africans and their Gullah Geechee descendants. Contemporary efforts toward this trend 

have come through numerous undertakings by grassroots organizations, community festivals, 

nongovernmental organizations, cultural performers, authors, artists, educational and community 

institutions, movies, and television programs that used the words “Gullah” or “Geechee” in their 

names in order, in part, to educate and inform. The effort to translate the Bible into the Gullah 

Geechee language and a growing awareness of the relationship of Gullah Geechee culture and West 

African heritage were also among several influential contributing factors. 

An article in The New York Times on March 1, 1987, about the Sea Island Translation Team and 

Literacy Project, headquartered on St. Helena Island, South Carolina, kindled national and 

international attention about Gullah Geechee culture and speech ways. It cited, in part: 

“They are writing down a language rarely written, in a project that began more than 

seven years ago and is still many years from completion. It is a labor of love, they say. 

They are translating the Bible into Gullah. 

ALEX AND LUTHER JONES AND A MULE

OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

55 

An estimated 250,000 people along the Georgia, Carolina, and northeastern Florida 

coasts speak some degree of Gullah, a blend of English and West African languages 

that some linguists believe was developed along the trade routes that brought slaves 

to America” (Toner 1987). 

FIGURE 5. PAGE FROM DE NYEW TESTAMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GULLAH BIBLE

During that same period, members of Gullah Geechee communities became aware of direct ties 

between their culture and West African culture through a visit from President Joseph Momoh of 

Sierra Leone. Having been informed about similarities in Gullah Geechee and Sierra Leonean 

cultures by anthropologist and educator Joseph A. Opala, Momoh contacted Opala, author of The 

Gullah, Rice, Slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American Connection (Opala 1987), to help coordinate his 

visit to Beaufort and St. Helena Island, South Carolina, in 1988. Cultural and lingual ties were 

reinforced during this event, as Gullah Geechee residents met with a West African leader who not 

only understood their speech, but also shared a love of rice dishes and other aspects of their cultural 

heritage. In 1989, at Momoh’s request, a contingent of Gullah Geechee residents traveled to Sierra 

Leone for the country’s first Gullah Homecoming, which is chronicled in the documentary film, 

Family Across the Sea (SCETV 1990). 

Two other “Gullah Homecomings” have continued to raise cultural awareness. In 1987, the Moran 

family of Harris Neck, Georgia, visited Sierra Leone, as documented in the film The Language You 

Cry In (SCETV 1990). An elderly Harris Neck resident, Mary Moran, remembered a song she had 

been taught by her grandmother, who had been enslaved. She didn’t know anything about the song 

except the tune and the African words. In 1981, Opala carried a recording of the song made during 

the 1930s by linguist Lorenzo Dow Turner to numerous Sierra Leonean villages and discovered that 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

56 

the song is a funeral dirge, still remembered in the Mende region. Mrs. Moran joined in singing the 

song, which had been passed down in Moran’s family, mother to daughter, for 200 years at the 

Mende village where the song is still sung (Massally 2010). 

“Priscilla’s Homecoming,” the third “Gullah Homecoming” in Sierra Leone, occurred in 2005. Mrs. 

Thomalind Martin Polite, a 31-year-old schoolteacher from Charleston, South Carolina, participated 

in the week-long national celebration, traveling with a group of Gullah Geechees, African Americans, 

and Americans. Polite is the seventh-generation descendant of “Priscilla,” a 10-year-old Sierra 

Leonean girl who was brought on a slave ship to Charles Towne, South Carolina, in 1756. The 

discovery of a rare paper trail connected Polite to her ancestors, which included slave sale records, 

plantation records, and slave ship records that had been discovered by Edward Ball, a writer and 

descendant of Priscilla’s enslavers, and Opala (Daise 2007). 

The three homecoming events of Gullah Geechee people included a visit to Bunce Island, which 

houses the ruins of the British slave castle that had an open slave yard, or prison, at its rear. Many 

enslaved Africans who left Bunce Island were brought to rice plantations in former colonies within 

the present-day Corridor. Enslaved Africans who departed from slave ports that included Goree in 

Senegal, James Island in the Gambia River, Elmina Castle, and Cape Coast Castle in Ghana were 

transported primarily to Brazil, the West Indies, or other destinations of the African diaspora (Eltis 

2000). 

The Bunce Island Preservation Initiative was established in Sierra Leone in 2005 with the 

understanding that 

. . . these remnants are endowed with a deep-rooted historical and spiritual 

significance to African-Americans and Sierra Leoneans alike that must be preserved 

for present and future generations. Its preservation and promotion will educate 

people throughout the world about the Atlantic slave trade and its terrible cost in 

wasted lives and broken families (Daise 2007). 

In 2010, two major museum exhibits brought recognition to a traditional art form and language, two 

important facets of Gullah Geechee culture and heritage, and informed viewers from around the 

world about their global impact. The first, a traveling exhibit, Grass Roots: African Origins of an 

American Art, traces the history and artistry of southern sweetgrass baskets and their cousins in 

Africa. Created by the Museum for African Art in New York City, in partnership with the Avery 

Research Center for African American History and Culture at the College of Charleston and the 

McKissick Museum of the University of South Carolina, the exhibit includes a collection of artifacts, 

sweetgrass baskets, images, documents, and interpretive information about an enduring traditional 

Gullah Geechee art form (Museum of African Art 2010). 

The second, the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum’s Word, Shout, Song: Lorenzo Dow 

Turner Connecting Communities through Language exhibit in Washington, D.C., has become a 

traveling exhibition. It documents the historical journey made by people from Africa, with their 

language and music, to the Americas. The exhibit displays tell the story of linguist Lorenzo Dow 

Turner’s discovery in the 1930s that the people of Georgia and South Carolina still possessed parts of 

the culture and language of their enslaved ancestors. Through Turner’s collection of rare 

photographs, recordings, and artifacts, the exhibit showcases lingual and cultural connections of 

Gullah Geechee people with West African and Afro-Brazilian communities. 
Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

57 

These events, initiatives, and exhibits, among numerous others, helped to shape what has been 

established as the vision of the Corridor: “an environment that celebrates the legacy and continuing 

contributions of Gullah Geechee people to our American heritage.” 
58 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Given that the number of tangible and intangible resources within the Corridor are far too numerous 

to provide a description of each, one example is provided from each state for the five cultural 

resource categories identified below. 

1. ethnographic resources 

2. archeological resources 

3. structures and districts 

4. cultural landscapes 

5. museum collections 

Although the descriptions of numerous resources are described as “African American,” their 

geographical location within the Corridor validates them as “Gullah Geechee” even though the term 

“Gullah Geechee” may not have been regarded as a cultural identifier during the time of origin. 

The large number of resources in the Corridor is a 

testament to its rich history and culture. Table 3 does not 

represent all listings in the National Register of Historic 

Places within the Corridor boundary; rather, they are 

listings that are associated with Gullah Geechee history, 

culture, and/or people that are identified on the 

inventory included in appendix C on the CD. Over 200 

properties with significance associated with Gullah 

Geechee historic context have been listed in the national 

register, and many more properties have been identified 

as potentially eligible for listing. Some of the resources 

are contributing components to larger national register 

listings such as historic districts. Both the inventory and 

number of listings in the national register within the 

Corridor that are related to Gullah Geechee history and 

culture are subject to change. The resource inventory in 

appendix C includes places listed in the national register and identifies the interpretive theme(s) and 

resource category(ies) for each resource identified to date. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Description 

Ethnographic resources are defined by Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management, as any 

“site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, 

religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated 

with it.” Ethnographic resources are associated with cultural practices, beliefs, the sense of purpose, 

or existence of a living community that is rooted in that community’s history or is important in 

maintaining its cultural identity and development as an ethnically distinctive people. 

To date, only one national register-eligible traditional cultural property, an ethnographic resource, 

has been documented in the Corridor. This site is the sweetgrass basket corridor in the town of 

TABLE 3. NATIONAL REGISTER OF

HISTORIC PLACES: LISTINGS RELATED TO 

GULLAH GEECHEE HISTORY AND CULTURE 

WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

State No. of Listings 

North Carolina 9 

South Carolina 132 

Georgia 57 

Florida 16 

Total 214 

________________________ 

Source: National Register of Historic Places 
Cultural Resources 

59 

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. It was officially designated in June 2009 (Goodman and 

McCormick n.d.). 

The entire Corridor has been identified as an ethnographic resource for its rich cultural complexity, 

which expresses itself in its folk life and traditions such as foodways, music, language and oral 

traditions, craft traditions, and religion and spirituality. 

Folk Life and Traditions 

Included as ethnographic resources in this 

management plan are the Corridor’s rich folk life 

and traditions. The values and beliefs of the 

culture are embodied and displayed through 

foodways; music and performing arts; language 

and oral traditions; craft traditions; and religion 

and spirituality. Retention of African traditions 

within Gullah Geechee culture has survived many 

deliberate attempts on the part of enslavers to 

suppress ethnic identities. Since the early 20th century, historians and social scientists have 

increasingly devoted efforts to studying and researching the social traditions and folk life of Gullah 

Geechee communities. A compilation of research on the culture reveals that there was no one west 

or central African cultural contribution. In addition, variations among communities within the 

Corridor exist due to their geographical and historical development, which have been documented 

in an extensive and growing body of scholarly work (see appendix N). 

 

The folk life and traditions of Gullah Geechee people are actively promoted and preserved by 

numerous Gullah Geechee communities, nonprofit organizations, churches, and other groups 

throughout the Corridor. For example, aspects of the culture can be experienced at organized 

festivals and programs (a preliminary list of festivals within the Corridor is included in appendix J). 

In addition, local artisans and musicians continue to practice their crafts and form outward displays 

of Gullah Geechee culture within the four states, celebrating the survival of heritage and knowledge 

of daily living. Knowledge of folkways and traditions are also shared by elders, and now an 

increasing number of schools are beginning to incorporate Gullah Geechee history and culture, 

including folk life and traditions, into their curriculum. 

Foodways

The ethnic groups that contributed to the creolization of Gullah Geechee culture dominated the 

coastal areas of Africa from contemporary Senegambia to northern Liberia. For centuries these 

ethnic groups cultivated rice, a crop considered indigenous to the region that Europeans would 

come to label the Rice Coast (Wood 1974). 

Cultural habits and diet were transplanted from this region to the European colonies of the southern 

coastal territory, where the topography was similar to the rice region of West Africa. Strains of 

indigo, rice and cotton indigenous to West Africa were introduced at differing stages of agricultural 

production in the colonies (Littlefield 1981). 

“Everything here is important to our existence, our 

culture, it’s important to the country and the world . . . 

it’s important to preserve the way we built our 

houses. . .the way we cook, the way we raise our children, 

our religious practices.” 

Benjamin Hall 

Sapelo Island, GA – June 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

60 

Gullah Geechee traditional foodways feature, 

among other West African produce, 

transplanted rice, greens, peanuts, benne, 

sweet potatoes, and okra. Fish dishes and 

spices, also imported by enslaved Africans, 

manifested in new recipes using locally 

available foods and seasonings. Such produce 

as sweet potatoes, okra, greens, corn, rice, 

sorghum, peas, tomatoes, watermelon, and 

peanuts were grown on plantations in 

subsistence garden plots. Diets were 

supplemented by cultivating brown, rough, or 

cracked rice, rice flour, blackstrap molasses, 

unrefined brown sugar, and manually milled 

corn and cornmeal. Gullah Geechee food also 

contains Spanish and Native American 

influences with the use of chili peppers, 

squash, and corn. Ham, bacon, chicken, and 

locally caught seafood provided protein in the 

traditional diet. Gullah Geechee people 

applied African cooking methods and seasoning styles to this wide variety of foods and herbs, 

inventing a form of Creole southern cooking. The continuity of these traditional foodways forms an 

important role in the lives and health ways of Gullah Geechee people today. Some within the culture 

still believe that rice must be a part of the daily meal, or a good meal has not been eaten. 

Music 

Music remains an important aspect of Gullah Geechee culture. It is described as a call-and-response 

or shout-form of music. The shout, also known as ring shout, uses hand clapping and audible 

footwork. Derived from West African traditions, it evolved as a religious practice in Gullah Geechee 

culture. Members of a church or religious gathering may participate in the shout tradition, which is 

performed as a sacred ritual. Participants move in a counter-clockwise circle and use shuffling 

movements while vocalizing in call-and-response singing. 

During enslavement, the ring shout began as a clandestine religious worship activity in brush arbors 

throughout the vast rice and cotton plantations that once occupied the coasts of Georgia and South 

Carolina. Later, the ring shout was practiced in praise houses. After emancipation, the ring shout was 

practiced at places of worship. Its traditional practice as a group activity helped instill social 

consciousness. Lydia Parrish observed the ring shout practice in McIntosh County and St. Simons 

Island and wrote about it in her 1942 publication, Slave Songs of the Georgia Sea Islands. 

The method of using the feet and hands to create rhythms began when plantation owners prohibited 

the use of drums as musical instruments for fear that they could be used by the enslaved people to 

communicate between plantations. Polyrhythmic hand clapping and foot stomping accompanies the 

call-and-response delivery of traditional Gullah Geechee songs and marks a distinctive folk life 

tradition. The genre includes children’s game songs, work songs, funeral songs, code songs, and 

baptism songs (Parrish et al. 1942). 

GULLAH GEECHEE SEAFOOD MEAL: RED RICE, CRAB, GREEN 

BEANS, WHITING FISH, COLESLAW, BREAD PUDDING 
The shou

demonstr

The first 

to appear

the Atlan

Wentwor

collected

woman o

Penn Sch

and had h

(Copelan

spirituals

and jazz. 

official st

(South Ca

ut tradition ha

rations as we

substantial c

r in the Unite

tic Monthly in

rth Higginson

 in 1864 by C

of color from 

hool on St. He

heard them s

nd 2007). A G

 are the basis

The spiritual

tate music of 

arolina State 

DOIN

as been passe

ell as religious

ollection of N

ed States was

n 1867 by Co

n. The spiritu

Charlotte For

the North w

elena Island,

ung by newly

Gullah Geech

s for gospel m

l was designa

South Caroli

House 2011

NG THE RING SH

ed down to c

s practice. 

Negro spiritu

 published in

olonel Thom

uals were 

rten, a free 

who taught at 

 South Carol

y freed peop

ee art form, 

music, the blu

ated as the 

ina in 1999 

).

61 

HOUT IN GEORG

current gener

uals 

n

as 

lina, 

le 

ues, 

“

sou

ar

rag

GIA, CA. 1930S

rations who h

“. . . without Afr

undtrack to the 2

re no blues, ther

gtime, there’s no

rumba, no sam

Mount Pleasa

S

help keep it a

rican American 

20th century. T

re’s no rhythm a

o rock and roll, t

mba, nothing. It j

Dr. Simon Lew

ant, SC – June

Cultural Reso

alive in 

culture, there is

There is no jazz,

nd blues, there’

there’s no regga

just falls silent.”

wis 

e 2009 Meeting

ources 

s no 

 there 

’s no 

ae, no 

”

g
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

62 

Language and Oral Traditions 

Gullah Geechee people have maintained a distinctive Creole language in the region of the Sea Islands 

and adjacent mainland areas that comprise the Corridor. Typically referred to as talking “Gullah” or 

“Geechee,” the Gullah Geechee language began as a pidgin, a simplified, ad-hoc speech variety used 

for communication among people of different languages. Arising out of a matrix of various African 

languages and English, this pidgin took on 

a more definite form as a Creole language 

as it became a mother tongue and the 

native language of a speech community, 

with vocabulary from various West 

African languages and English, West 

African phonological patterns, and nonWestern syntactic features. Beginning 

with Lorenzo Dow Turner’s groundbreaking study Africanisms in the Gullah 

Dialect, published in 1949, linguists have 

determined that Gullah Geechee is not 

just a substandard dialect of English, but is 

rather a well-formed English Creole like 

the Patois spoken in Jamaica and the Krio 

of Sierra Leone, and analogous to the 

French Creole spoken in Haiti. 

Historically, Gullah Geechee, known for years as either Gullah or Geechee, is credited with 

influencing the vocabulary of the Southern United States and traditional Southern speech patterns. 

Some English vocabulary has been borrowed from West African languages by way of Gullah 

Geechee. Because the Gullah Geechee language has been derided as substandard and improper 

English for many decades, its use has waned as a result of assimilation to English and is disappearing 

among the younger generation, making it an endangered language (Frank 2007a). Besides Turner’s 

1949 study, a number of dissertations and scholarly articles have been written on the African sources 

of what has historically been identified as Gullah, its classification as a Creole language, its 

relationship to African American vernacular English and other varieties of English, its distinctive 

phonological and syntactic patterns, and its significance to the culture, including among others, 

Baird and Twining 1994; Cassidy 1986, 1994; Cunningham 1970; Frank 2007b; Hancock 1971, 1980, 

1994; Hopkins 1992, 1994; Jones-Jackson 1978, 1983; McWhorter 1995; Mille 1990; Mufwene 1997; 

Nichols 1976; Parsons 1923; Twining 1977; Wade-Lewis 1988; Winford 1997, 1998; and Wolfram 

1974. 

Gullah Geechee has passed through the generations as an oral language. A creative, artistic use of the 

language is reflected in oral literature such as folktales, and has sometimes been reflected in writing, 

although to date there is no widely accepted written form. A written translation of the New 

Testament in Gullah Sea Island Creole published in 2005 (Sea Island Translation Team) provides a 

model of how the language can be written, yet other written examples exist as well. However, 

keeping in mind that a standard writing system is not a requirement for a language to be considered a 

language, the Gullah Geechee language retains its intrinsic value and significance, even in its purely 

oral form. Gullah Geechee is spoken as a first or only language by relatively few people today and 

continues to exist primarily in its oral form. For these two reasons, it is considered an endangered 

cultural resource of the Corridor (Frank 2007a; NPS 2005). Oral literature and history, including 

legends, folktales, stories, and tales of supernatural events, reflect Gullah Geechee culture. Many of 

the stories are examples of the manipulation of power and the hope for freedom that were passed 

down from formerly enslaved Africans. 

SAPELO ISLAND CULTURAL DAY 2003 

MCINTOSH COUNTY, GA 
Cultural Resources 

63 

Craft Traditions 

Although there are many Gullah Geechee craft traditions, three are highlighted below: sweetgrass 

basketry, quilting, and the making of cast nets. 

Sweetgrass basketry, one of the most 

well-known of Gullah Geechee craft 

traditions, is an extension of cultural 

continuity from West African rice 

cultivation and agriculture. The 

fanner basket used in winnowing 

grain, a large flat surface circled by a 

short rim, has become the most 

commonly recognized sweetgrass 

basket style. The baskets are a form 

of coiled seagrass that grows in 

abundance on the Sea Islands. Early 

baskets were made for practical 

agricultural and domestic uses and 

were also used in bartering and as a 

source of income. Still common 

throughout the Corridor, sweetgrass 

artistry is prominent in Mount 

Pleasant, South Carolina, where 

creativity of the local artisan basketmakers, and the sweetgrass basketmaking tradition has been 

recognized nationally by the Smithsonian for its intrinsic artistic value. Roadside sweetgrass basket 

stands are the most visible aspect of Gullah Geechee culture displayed along U.S. Highway 17. A 

portion of the highway was designated as the Sweetgrass Basket Makers Highway in 2006, the same 

year the sweetgrass basket became South Carolina’s official state craft (Michels 2011). 

In addition to sweetgrass baskets, another common 

Gullah Geechee craft is quilting, which evolved from 

West African weaving traditions. The cover design 

materials of quilts featured a “staggered, 

‘syncopated’ strip formation, and utilized differences 

in color to achieve the effect of highlights placed in 

dramatic dispersion on the quilt top” (Twining et al. 

1991). Patches also can be used to make the strips of 

cloth before connecting the strips into a staggered 

pattern. The brightly colored strips or patchwork of 

mosaic designs and appliqués are more than 

utilitarian for making blankets—they are a record of 

the family history, passed on to the next generation. 

Young children were generally told the stories 

behind each patch or strip of cloth as part of the 

bedtime ritual. The quilt-making method in Gullah 

Geechee culture, which became a social ritual, 

generated what are often called story quilts. This 

creolized method of quilting resembles that of some 

West African cultures in textile patterns of cloth 

piecing and randomized strips (Thompson 1984). 

SWEETGRASS BASKETS BY VERA MANIGAULT

“GULLAH O’OMAN QUILT” BY BUNNY RODRIGUES
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

64 

As an extension of both Gullah Geechee traditional foodways involving catching seafood, and of 

craft traditions, members of the community practice a traditional method of making cast nets using 

locally grown cotton. Cast net fishing—a cultural continuity from the rivers of the Rice Coast of West 

Africa—is still practiced by a small group of net makers within the Corridor. 

Religion and Spirituality 

Religion and spirituality have always played a major role in Gullah Geechee family and community 

life. 

“Spiritual concerns could not be set apart from secular or communal ones . . . spirituality affected 

one’s whole system of being, embracing the consciousness, social interactions and attitudes, fears 

and dispositions of the community at large” (Creel 1991). Symbols and songs connected Gullah 

Geechee people to the Rice Coast of West Africa and the earlier enslavement of Africans from the 

Southwest Congo-Angolan region. A notable symbol that has been identified, which connects the 

culture to West Africa and Southwest Africa is the Bakongo sign of a cross found in archeological 

digs on plantations sites in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, with marks on the bottom of 

Colono Ware bowls (Ferguson 1992). The Bakongo spiritual sign of immortality in which time has no 

end and the future can also be the past has been interpreted as the Four Moments of the Sun; the 

horizontal line divides the living world from its parallel of the dead, for death means rebirth (Mbiti 

1989). The cross and circle representation moving counterclockwise has evolved over the centuries 

into the Ring Shout found in praise houses of Gullah Geechee religious culture. 

Generally, enslaved Africans gathered in 

brush arbors for clandestine worship 

services. However, many plantations, 

particularly in the coastal communities of 

South Carolina and Georgia, included a 

praise house, which typically was a small 

wood-framed building where enslaved 

Africans gathered nightly for spiritual 

services. Religious and community life 

centered around praise houses; 

worshippers transcending oppression 

wrought by slavery would sing songs of 

spiritual immortality. 

Funerary rituals involved grave burials. 

The Gullah Geechee custom of holding 

homegoing (funeral) services as symbolic 

for recognizing the hereafter extends from 

the belief that a person’s spirit is eternal. 

Graves were often dressed with cracked pots and markers with glass beads and sea shells to mark the 

connection to the water that brought descendants from Africa, primarily West African, and that 

would hopefully return them to Africa after death. Family members were typically interred in the 

same burial grounds, many of which may be undocumented and hidden from view today. 

Religious practices, places of worship, and burial grounds continue to be important cultural 

expressions of Gullah Geechee lifeways. Practices commemorating ancestors are still found in the 

pouring of libations on the ground, the use of bottle trees as memorials, and the practice of a variety 

of healing rituals of caring for the living and the dead. 

COFFIN POINT PRAISE HOUSE

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
Cultural Resources 

65 

Examples of Ethnographic Resources 

Orton Plantation, Winnabow, Brunswick 

County, North Carolina. Situated on the west 

bank of the Cape Fear River, Orton Plantation 

was established by Roger Moore on lands 

originally granted by the Lords Proprietors of the 

Carolinas to his brother Maurice Moore in 1725. 

Orton Plantation was one of the first and largest 

plantations in North Carolina; it was renowned 

for the high quality of its rice. Orton Plantation 

also produced lumber, tar, and turpentine for export. At the time of his death in 1751, Moore owned 

250 enslaved African workers and over 20,000 acres of land. The Orton Plantation house, which was 

started in 1735, ranks among the best surviving examples of colonial residences in North Carolina. 

Orton Plantation is currently restoring some rice fields and longleaf pine stands, and is not open to 

the public (Jackson, C. 2008). 

Moving Star Hall, John’s Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. The Moving Star Young 

Association was founded as a mutual aid and burial society to provide assistance for its members in 

times of sickness and death. The Moving Star Hall was built in 1917 to provide a meeting place and 

praise house for its members, who were also members of several local churches. The Hall provided a 

meeting place during the week where prayer, songs, and preaching provided alternatives to the more 

formal church services on Sundays and provided leadership opportunities within the African 

American community. In the 1940s, the building served as the meeting place for the Progressive 

Club, which sought to register African Americans to vote. In the 1960s, the hall was associated with 

the rise of the Moving Star Singers, a folk group that recorded three albums and enhanced 

appreciation for the music of the Sea Islands (South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

2009). 

Ossabaw Island, Chatham County, Georgia. Ossabaw Island is the third-largest of Georgia’s 

barrier islands. In 1760, John Morel acquired the island to establish an indigo plantation with 

enslaved labor. Plantation slave census records document the presence of enslaved persons in the 

Morel era totaling 160. After the Morel era on Ossabaw, the Kollock Plantation journals reported 56 

to 68 slaves. In 1860, 71 enslaved persons lived in nine houses on the island. When the Civil War 

ended, Freedmen’s Bureau agent Tunis G. Campbell, was the military governor of Ossabaw Island. 

His report in 1865 indicated that 78 freedmen lived on the island. In 1867, an act of Congress 

returned the island’s plantations to their owners, yet African Americans continued to live and work 

on the island although they did not own the land. In 1898, a major hurricane hit the Georgia coast, 

and African Americans resettled on the mainland just south of Savannah in a community known as 

Pin Point. This community, whose members worked in the oyster industry, still survives today. Three 

tabby cabins constructed from 1820–1840 remain on the island. The cabins have been preserved to 

interpret the lives of the people who lived on Ossabaw Island from enslavement to freedom 

(Cyriaque 2011). 

“. . .in talking about the tangible and intangible things 

about the culture, there’s a spirituality about our culture 

that you cannot place in a museum. And the only way 

people can get a feel for that is to actually meet people 

who are Gullah Geechee people.” 

Liz Santigati 

St. Helena Island, SC – June 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

66 

American Beach, Amelia Island, 

Nassau County, Florida. American 

Beach is a vacation community that was 

created in 1935 when beaches were 

racially segregated in the southeastern 

coastal United States. The beach resort 

was established by seven members of the 

Afro-American Life Insurance Company, 

who were led by Abraham Lincoln Lewis, 

one of the first black millionaires in 

Florida. 

American Beach was planned as an 

amenity for business executives and an 

incentive for company salespeople. As one 

of only a few beaches in the southeastern 

states open to African Americans, 

American Beach became a popular 

summer destination through the late 1930s, 40s, and 50s. Development at the beach included hotels, 

restaurants, bathhouses, nightclubs, and other businesses, as well as residences. Although visitation 

to the beach waned with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which desegregated beaches in 

Florida and opened all other beaches to racial integration, American Beach remained an intact site 

important to 20th century African American history in the Corridor. In 2002, a 40-acre portion of 

American Beach called the American Beach Historic District was listed in the national register 

(Florida Division of Historical Resources 2010b). In 2004, 8 acres within the historic district were 

transferred to the ownership of the National Park Service. This acreage includes the large sand dune 

“NaNa,” which Kingsley descendent MaVynee “Beach Lady” Betsch fought hard to preserve (NPS 

2011b). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Description 

Archeological resources are the material remains or physical evidence of past human life or activities 

that represent both prehistoric and historic time periods. They can be found aboveground, belowground, or underwater; or as artifacts housed in museum collections. Information revealed through 

the study of archeological resources is critical to understanding and interpreting prehistory and 

history. 

Each of the four respective state historic preservation programs promotes the preservation and 

stewardship of archeological resources within the Corridor by providing professional advice to 

private landowners and public land managers. They also provide outreach to the public and conduct 

research within the region to identify, record, and interpret significant archeological sites within 

each of the Corridor’s respective states. 

There are many important archeological resources that directly relate to the primary interpretive 

themes developed for the Corridor. Documented sites associated with the history of Gullah Geechee 

people include ruins or foundations of former buildings, town sites, or sites of cultural activities. 

However, only limited areas of the Corridor have been the subject of archeological surveys; other 

unidentified archeological sites may exist within the Corridor. 

THREE TABBY CABINS

OSSABAW ISLAND, CHATHAM COUNTY, GA 
Cultural Resources 

67 

Examples of Archeological Resources 

Fort Fisher, New Hanover County, North Carolina. Fort Fisher, south of Wilmington, was the 

largest earthwork fortification by the Confederacy during the Civil War. Between 1861 and 1865, 

Fort Fisher played a vital role in the southern war effort through its strategic location at Confederate 

Point (now called Federal Point), which guarded the New Inlet entrance to the Cape Fear River and 

kept the port of Wilmington open for Confederate supply. Fort Fisher is significant to the Corridor 

because its construction involved more than 500 African Americans (both enslaved and free) 

working alongside Confederate soldiers. The massive fort encompassed 1.0 mile of coastline and 

0.33 mile of land defense. After the fall of Fort Morgan on Mobile Bay in August 1864, Fort Fisher 

became the last important coastal fortification under Confederate control. Fort Fisher succumbed to 

a massive 2.5-day amphibious assault by the Union navy and infantry on January 15, 1865, which 

included the 27th U.S. Colored Troops. The defeat at Fort Fisher led to the Confederacy’s downfall 

shortly thereafter. The U.S. military also used Fort Fisher as a military post during World War II; an 

airstrip and highway were added to the fort’s land side at that time. The State of North Carolina has 

owned and managed Fort Fisher since 1960, and the site is now a state historic site. Fort Fisher is 

listed in the national register and is a national historic landmark (North Carolina Office of State 

Archaeology 2010). 

Fish Haul Archeological Site, Mitchelville, 

Beaufort County, South Carolina. The Fish Haul 

archeological site is both a prehistoric and a historic 

archeological site. The prehistoric components date 

to circa 1800 BC to 1300 BC and indicate that the site 

was reoccupied numerous times by early Native 

Americans. The site’s historic component is a 

freedmen’s village known as Mitchelville. Mitchelville 

was occupied during the transition period from 

enslavement to freedom between 1862 and the 1880s. 

Mitchelville was a planned town with neatly arranged 

streets and 0.25-acre parcels. The town was run by a 

supervisor and councilmen who were elected by the 

town’s black residents. The city’s laws required 

education, and regulated sanitation and community behavior. The Fish Haul site represents the only 

known freedmen village established by occupying Union troops. The site was listed in the national 

register on June 30, 1988 (South Carolina Department of Archives and History n.d.). 

Behavior Cemetery, Sapelo Island, McIntosh 

County, Georgia. Behavior Cemetery is the only 

known remaining Gullah Geechee burial ground 

contained within a slave settlement on Sapelo 

Island. The cemetery is believed to be associated 

with slave quarters near Thomas Spalding’s 

plantation and sugar mill complex. Spalding, the 

most powerful landowner in McIntosh County 

during the first half of the 19th century, relied 

heavily on his 400 enslaved Africans to produce 

cotton and sugar cane, as these crops were similar 

to those found in western Africa. Behavior 

Cemetery reflects African burial customs, and 

features graves marked by personal items such as 

MITCHELVILLE HISTORICAL MARKER

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 

BEHAVIOR CEMETERY

SAPELO ISLAND, MCINTOSH COUNTY, GA 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

68 

cups, shells, or checkers that were personally associated with the deceased. Behavior Cemetery’s 

oldest marked grave is dated 1890, but residents attest to hundreds of unmarked graves that existed 

before the devastating hurricane of 1898. The cemetery has been in continuous use by Gullah 

Geechee community members for over 120 years. Archeologists have excavated two slave cabins 

near Behavior Cemetery, and are currently testing the grounds for other graves or remnants of slave 

quarters, and to assess possible expansion of the cemetery. Listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places in 1996, Behavior Cemetery remains the largest burial ground on Sapelo Island (Cyriaque 

2010). 

Kingsley Plantation, Timucuan 

Ecological and Historic Preserve, 

Jacksonville, Duval County, 

Florida. Kingsley Plantation is a 60-

acre unit of the 46,000-acre 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve in Jacksonville, Florida, and 

is managed by the National Park 

Service. Archeological investigations 

have recovered artifacts that reveal 

the daily life activities of the slave 

community at Kingsley Plantation. 

Archeological excavations between 

1968 and 1981 recovered hundreds 

of artifacts such as clay pipes, 

handmade clay marbles, a harmonica, 

toothbrush, brass bell, and glass 

inkwell, along with other possessions 

found at the site of the 32 original 

slave cabins, 25 of which are extant. These artifacts interpret the gardening, hunting, fishing, and 

cooking activities that took place after plantation work was finished, and are the only clues to the 

daily activities of the inhabitants of the slave quarters at Kingsley Plantation. In 2006, the University 

of Florida’s Historical Archaeology Field School began a project at the slave quarters to learn more 

about slave community life (NPS 2010a). In the summer of 2010, the graves and remains of six 

enslaved Africans were discovered (Soergel 2011). 

STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS 

Description 

Structures are constructed works that are 

“consciously created to serve some human 

activity.” They are usually immovable, although 

some have been relocated and others are mobile by 

design. They are significant for their architecture 

or engineering, and for the roles they played in the 

historical development of the Corridor. Many of 

the structures identified within the Corridor are 

sites also important for their ethnographic values 

and their relationship with Gullah Geechee 

cultural history. They are also often linked together 

in national register-eligible or -listed historic 

OVERVIEW OF ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

KINGSLEY PLANTATION, NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, 

TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE, 

DUVAL COUNTY, FL 

SAD IRON (HEATED AND USED TO PRESS CLOTHING)

RECOVERED DURING EXCAVATION

KINGSLEY PLANTATION, NATIONAL HISTORIC 

DISTRICT, TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC 

PRESERVE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL 
Cultural Resources 

69 

districts. These resources range from commercial roadside buildings, to churches, to rice mills, and 

to several historic districts. 

A historic district is a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, 

or objects united historically, culturally, or aesthetically by plan or physical development. This 

definition includes neighborhoods and large rural properties containing multiple physical features 

(architectural, archeological, or landscape components). A district must be a definable geographic 

area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties and be based on a shared relationship 

between the properties constituting the district. Historic districts in the Corridor include 

neighborhoods, family compounds, town settlements, school complexes, and plantations. 

Examples of Structures and Districts 

Williston Middle School, Wilmington, Hanover County, North Carolina. Originally a 

freedmen’s school that was organized in 1865, the school was named after Samuel Williston, a 

northern philanthropist who generously supported the education of African American youth in the 

South. The city of Wilmington purchased the school in 1873, making it the first African American 

school in the city’s free school system. In 1915, a new building was dedicated at 10th and Church 

streets, a new location; it was named Williston Primary and Industrial School. It quickly became the 

educational and social center of the African American community. After outgrowing a number of 

additions in the 1920s, a new Williston High School was erected in 1931, but the building was 

destroyed by fire in 1936, and it was replaced in 1938 by the Williston Industrial School. On May 17, 

1954, the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of 

Education, a new Williston Senior High School was dedicated. Williston had an outstanding record 

of achievement and its students excelled in academics, sports, and other extra-curricular activities 

such as drama, choir, and band. However, to the dismay and resentment of many in the African 

American community, Williston Senior High School closed in 1968 and later the building reopened 

as Williston Middle School, which was racially integrated (Reaves and Tetterton, eds., 1998; Godwin 

2000). 

Penn School Historic Landmark 

District, Beaufort County, South 

Carolina. The Penn School Historic 

Landmark District is on St. Helena 

Island. The Penn School was founded in 

1862 as a school for formerly enslaved 

Africans and their descendants. 

When Union forces captured St. Helena 

Island in 1861, the plantation owners 

fled the island to the mainland, leaving 

behind their enslaved workers. The U.S. 

army divided up the abandoned 

plantations and distributed the land 

among Gullah Geechee people, who 

were descendants of Africans, enslaved 

and free, who formerly worked on these 

plantations. A group of missionaries and 

abolitionists from the northern states 

arrived on St. Helena Island soon thereafter to establish a school for the local population. 

PENN CENTER SCHOOL

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

70 

Although education was the primary mission, 

the Penn School was also a community health 

clinic, farm bureau, and a catalyst for community 

action. The school complex comprised a 

collection of cotton houses, cabins, and deserted 

plantation houses located throughout the island. 

Although the school closed in 1948, the school 

buildings have become a way of preserving St. 

Helena Island’s Gullah Geechee heritage and 

written history. The school’s sole surviving 19thcentury building is the Brick Church, a two-story 

brick masonry church with a gable roof built in 

1855 by enslaved Africans for white plantation 

owners. The church, at which the first classes 

were held, has symmetrically arranged windows, 

doors, and colossal brick pilasters. By 1900, the 

name changed to Penn Normal, Industrial and 

Agricultural School. When the school closed in 1948, it became Penn Community Services Center, an 

agency focusing on self-sufficiency and the advancement and development of the Sea Island 

community and its inhabitants. By the 1980s, it became Penn Center. Its mission is to preserve the 

unique history, culture, and environment of the Sea Islands through serving as a local, national, and 

international resource center, and by acting as a catalyst for the development of programs for selfsufficiency. The Penn Center Historic District was both listed in the national register and designated 

a national historic landmark in 1974 (South Carolina Department of Archives and History 2010). 

Dorchester Academy Boys’ Dormitory, 

Midway, Liberty County, Georgia.

Dorchester Academy was established 

during post-Civil War Reconstruction as a 

school for formerly enslaved Africans and 

their descendants. The school was 

established in part due to the intervention 

of William A. Golding, one of Georgia’s first 

African American legislators. In addition to 

its function as a school, Dorchester 

Academy became an at-large community 

center in the late 19th century and through 

the 1930s. A fire destroyed the school’s first 

dormitory in 1932, and the existing building 

was built at that time as a replacement. 

George Awsumb designed the new 

dormitory, the construction of which was funded by the American Missionary Association, which 

also funded the school’s original establishment. Dorchester Academy played an important role in the 

Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s when the building served as a site for citizenship classes that 

were designed to help educate African American voters. This program helped spark a wave of nearly 

28,000 newly registered African American voters in Georgia. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently 

visited the boys’ dormitory where he planned the Birmingham Campaign for civil rights. Dorchester 

Academy Boys’ Dormitory was listed in the national register in 1986, and listed as a national historic 

landmark in 2006 (Cyriaque 2010). 

PENN SCHOOL HISTORICAL MARKER

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 

DORCHESTER ACADEMY BOYS’ DORMITORY

MIDWAY, LIBERTY COUNTY, GA 
Cultural Resources 

71 

Lincolnville Historic District, St. 

Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida.

The Lincolnville Historic District was 

established as a community of free people, 

many of whom had formerly been 

enslaved and emancipated, in 1866. By 

1930, Lincolnville had become a major 

part of St. Augustine and had become 

populated by both African American and 

white residents. In 1964, Lincolnville 

became the site of civil rights 

demonstrations that contributed to the 

passing of the Civil Rights Act by 

Congress that year. Today, the 

Lincolnville Historic District comprises a 

50-block area within St. Augustine. The 

district includes schools, churches, a business district, and residential neighborhoods, many of which 

were built in the late Victorian architectural style. The district was listed in the national register in 

1991 (Florida Division of Historical Resources 2010a). 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Description 

Cultural landscapes are areas that reflect how people adapt and use natural resources, as expressed 

by the land organization or use, settlement patterns, circulation, or types of structures, and how the 

area reflects cultural values and traditions. The National Park Service categorizes cultural landscapes 

into four types: historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, historic sites, and 

ethnographic landscapes. Within the Corridor, there are Gullah Geechee sites that may fulfill the 

above definition of a cultural landscape, but have not previously been identified as such. 

Cultural landscapes within the Corridor include plantations, family compounds, or other important 

places with ties to long-established Gullah Geechee communities. 

Examples of Cultural Landscapes 

Poplar Grove Plantation, Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. Poplar Grove is 

a 628-acre agricultural plantation near Wilmington that operated from 1795 through the Civil War, 

and post-Civil War until 1971. Until the Civil War, between 22 and 64 enslaved Africans worked and 

lived at Poplar Grove and raised cotton, rice, tobacco, and indigo for their enslaver, Joseph Foy. 

Poplar Grove was also a pioneer in the successful cultivation of peanuts, and is one of the South’s 

oldest peanut plantations (Judah 2009). Upon Foy’s death in 1861, the Foy family freed their 

enslaved African workers living at the Poplar Grove Plantation. The African Americans remained 

residents on the plantation after the Civil War and farmed the land as tenant farmers under the Foy 

family’s ownership of the property. The African American community built a group of houses about 

a mile south of the plantation, called Foy Town, and took the last names of Foy, Simmons, and 

Nixon. Poplar Grove Plantation remained in the Foy family until the 1970s and opened as a museum 

in 1980. Many of the farming resources, outbuildings, and craft traditions dating to the 19th century 

are preserved and maintained as part of the museum interpretative program (Poplar Grove 

Plantation 2010). 

LINCOLNVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT, FL HISTORICAL MARKER

ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

72 

North and South Santee River Watershed, Multiple Counties, South Carolina. The Santee 

River drains into the central coastal plain of South Carolina within the Corridor. The Santee 

subbasin covers 690 square miles (442,000 acres) and begins where the Santee River exits Lake 

Marion (USDA 2010d). About 10 miles from its mouth, the river splits into the North Santee and 

South Santee to form Cedar Island. These two channels reach the ocean south of Georgetown, South 

Carolina, at Santee Point. This lower, tidewater area includes the north and south Santee River 

watershed. This watershed is an important cultural landscape for the rice plantations that merged 

along this freshwater tidal river and associated tributaries, including Hampton Plantation State 

Historic Site (SCDHEC 2012). Many of the enslaved Africans who worked on these plantations in 

the 18th and 19th centuries cultivated rice using their knowledge of rice growing from West Africa. 

Needwood Baptist Church and School, 

Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia.

Needwood Baptist Church and School is 

just outside Brunswick on U.S. Highway 17 

in an area that was once a series of 

plantations. The church building was 

constructed in the 1870s. It is a one-story, 

wood-frame building with two square 

towers on the front, including a historic bell 

enclosed by a front porch. The original 

furnishings remain in the church, including 

30 original pews, the pulpit, and pastor’s 

chair. The school building is a one-room 

structure that was constructed circa 1907. It 

was used as a school until the 1960s and 

later as a fellowship hall for the church 

(Cyriaque 2010). 

Kingsley Plantation, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Jacksonville, Duval 

County, Florida. Kingsley Plantation is an agricultural plantation established in the early 19th 

century by slave trader Zephaniah Kingsley and his wife, Anna Madgigene Jai, who was an enslaved 

African woman later freed by Kingsley. 

The Spanish Crown granted Kingsley the land in 1803 with 74 enslaved Africans—Kingsley later 

purchased a large plantation on Fort George Island. Anna Madgigene Jai oversaw the organization of 

the slave quarters on the property, whereby the slave cabins were arranged in a circular pattern 

similar to those found in African villages. When the importation of enslaved people became illegal in 

Florida in 1821, Kingsley began training Africans in his possession, enslaved and free, to become 

exceptional field hands or skilled laborers. He was able to do this because of the plantation’s large 

acreage and the large number of Africans, enslaved and free, in his possession by that time. Kingsley 

illegally transported and sold enslaved Africans who had been specifically trained for plantation 

work to the rice plantations in Georgia and South Carolina and the cotton plantations of the Sea 

Islands. Kingsley’s strategy was successful, as records show that “Kingsley’s Negroes” were in 

demand on the illegal market. 

NEEDWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH

BRUNSWICK, GLYNN COUNTY, GA 
Cultural Resources 

73 

Twenty-three out of the original 32 slave 

tabby cabins are extant on the plantation, 

arranged in a semicircle. This area 

represents the slave community and homes 

of the men, women, and children who lived 

and worked on Kingsley Plantation. These 

cabins were made of tabby, which is a 

mixture of sand, water, and lime that was 

obtained by cooking whole oyster shells in a 

kiln. Whole and pieces of oyster shells were 

added to the mixture as aggregate. Some of 

the Kingsley Plantation buildings, including 

the barn, kitchen, and slave quarters, were 

built using this tabby cement and tabby 

bricks. As tabby was used as a building 

material both here and in West Africa, its 

survival at Kingsley represents a blend of 

the West African, Spanish, and Native 

American cultures (NPS 2005). 

Today, Kingsley Plantation is open to the public as part of the Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve operated by the National Park Service. Although the plantation once grew to more than 

32,000 acres, Kingsley Plantation is now a 6-acre portion of the 46,000-acre Timucuan Ecological 

and Historic Preserve in Jacksonville, Florida. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Description 

Museums and archives in the Corridor contain collections and repositories that relate to the cultural 

and natural history of the region and the primary interpretive themes developed for the Corridor. 

These collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, natural history specimens, 

photographs, maps, and archival and manuscript collections) are important resources in their own 

right, and are valuable for the information they provide about processes, events, and interactions 

among people and the environment. Natural and cultural objects and their associated records 

provide baseline data, serving as scientific and historical documentation of the area’s resources and 

purpose. All resource management records that are directly associated with museum objects are 

managed as museum property. These and other resource management records are preserved as part 

of archival and manuscript collections. They document and provide an information base for the 

continuing management of the Corridor’s resources. Museum collections important to the Corridor 

exist in all four states and are associated with both public and privately owned museums, historic 

sites, and cultural centers. Locations with museum collections are listed in the resource inventory in 

appendix C on the CD. 

Examples of Museum Collections 

Cape Fear Museum, Wilmington, Hanover County, North Carolina. The Cape Fear Museum 

contains relics, artifacts, and images pertaining to the history, science, and cultures of the Lower 

Cape Fear region. The collection contains more than 50,000 objects. The Cape Fear Museum 

collects, preserves, and interprets objects relating to the history, science, and culture of Lower Cape 

TABBY CABIN ROW, KINGSLEY PLANTATION

NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE,

JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

74 

Fear region, and makes those objects and their interpretation available to the public through 

educational exhibits and programs (Cape Fear Museum 2008). 

Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture, Charleston, Charleston 

County, South Carolina. The Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture at 

the College of Charleston was established in 1985 to collect, preserve, and make public the unique 

historical and cultural heritage of African Americans in Charleston and the South Carolina 

lowcountry. Avery’s archival collections, museum exhibitions, and public programming reflect these 

diverse populations as well as the wider African diaspora (Avery Research Center for African 

American History and Culture 2011). The center contains an archive of primary and secondary 

source materials of nearly 4,000 holdings available for research. The center also serves as a cultural 

center, and maintains a national register-listed historic site and operates it as a small museum that is 

open to the public. “Through its research facilities, museum exhibits, tours of its historic site, and 

cultural center, Avery tells the story of African Americans from their origins in Africa through 

slavery, emancipation, segregation, migration, the Civil Rights Movement, and the ongoing struggle 

for social and political equality” (Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture 

2008). 

Beach Institute, Savannah, Chatham 

County, Georgia. The Beach Institute is 

a historic school building in Savannah that 

was the first school for African 

Americans. Following the Civil War, the 

Freedmen’s Bureau, the American 

Missionary Association, and the Savannah 

Educational Association established this 

school in 1867. The school is named after 

Alfred E. Beach, benefactor and editor of 

Scientific American. Beach Institute is a 

popular site for lectures and art exhibits. 

It serves as a community educational and 

cultural center today. The King-Tisdell 

Cottage Foundation has operated the 

Beach Institute since 1989 (Cyriaque 

2010). 

Excelsior Museum and Cultural 

Center, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. The Excelsior School and Cultural Center 

houses a collection of historical records and artifacts important to African American cultural 

heritage in St. Augustine, Florida, and to the Lincolnville community. Parts of the museum 

collections are also dedicated to historic black churches, the activities of Martin Luther King Jr., 

black historical and social societies, and business entrepreneurs. The Excelsior School and Cultural 

Center is housed in St. Augustine’s first black public high school, established in 1901, and is now a 

historic building (Excelsior Cultural Center 2010). 

BEACH INSTITUTE

SAVANNAH, CHATHAM COUNTY, GA 
75 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

OVERVIEW 

Natural resources in the Corridor have attracted attention for centuries. Native Americans, early 

settlers, railroaders, road builders, loggers, miners, and those exploring for oil and gas have all used 

the region. Hardwood forests provided building material and fuel. Water resources provided 

transport. The soils have made good cropland for tobacco, rice, sweetgrass, cotton, and indigo. 

Plant and animal habitat types include agricultural fields, hardwood forests, riparian zones, swamps, 

marshes and wetlands, mowed lawns, and developed areas. 

The Corridor lies within the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain geomorphic province. The predominant 

landscape is flat plains; other landscapes 

include barrier islands, wetlands, swamps, 

mud flats, beaches, sandbars, and coral reefs. 

The area was once submerged, and therefore, 

consists of sediments deposited as the ocean 

receded during the Pleistocene era. Barrier 

islands, beaches, sandbars, swamps, and mud 

flats are actively maintained by fluvial 

deposition and shore zone processes. Strata in 

the Atlantic Coastal Plain were formed during 

the Cenozoic era and include tertiary and 

quaternary marine deposits such as silts and 

clays, shales and sands, slightly metamorphosed volcanic and marine sedimentary rocks, and limestone (McNab et al. 1994). 

The coastal plain is heavily mined for industrial minerals such as clay, limestone, granite, shale, 

crushed stone, dimension stone, feldspar, mica, lithium, olivine, phosphate, pyrophyllite and talc, 

heavy minerals (such as ilmenite, rutile, and zircon), and gemstones (such as emeralds, rubies, 

sapphires, hiddenites, garnets, diamonds, and others); mineral fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and 

natural gas, and uranium minerals; and metallic minerals such as chromium, copper, gold, silver, 

iron, lead, zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, tin, titanium, and tungsten. Not all mining activities 

occur within the Corridor portion of the coastal plain, and not all resources listed are mined in each 

state’s portion of the Corridor. 

The lowcountry is a place where natural, historic, and cultural resources are intertwined to form this 

distinctive setting. The labors of Gullah Geechee ancestors left their mark on the lowcountry 

environment. Early explorers who came to the Carolina Colony found tall virgin forests of longleaf 

pine and cypress gum that were exploited to produce naval stores. Enslaved Africans cleared the 

ground and constructed extensive irrigation systems to control the periodic flooding of rice fields. 

Rice became king, but its status was attained through the forced labor of enslaved Africans. Even 

today it is nearly impossible to look out over a coastal waterway and not see lingering images of rice 

fields—imprints of unique patterns of forced human labor. The patchwork outlines of these former 

rice fields remain as silent tributes to the enslaved Africans who built them. 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

76 

The Corridor is home to a large number of national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Many of 

these wildlife preserves and ecosystems of national significance are due to the presence of former 

rice impoundments, which are still used to irrigate them. The refuges in the Corridor include the 

following: 

 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, SC 

 Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin National Wildlife Refuge, SC 

 Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge, SC 

 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, SC 

 Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

 Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

 Tybee National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

 Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, GA 

SOILS 

The most common sediment types in the Atlantic Coastal Plain are clays, silts, and sands. The major 

soil types in the Coastal Plain are Aquults. These are typical of humid climates and historically 

supported mixed coniferous and hardwood forests and are now often used as croplands or pastures. 

Aquults are composed of clays, and are usually continuously saturated, slow to drain, and found in 

areas where the water table is at or near the surface most of the year (McNab et al. 1994; NRCS 

2010a, b). 

The Corridor also contains Haplaquods and Quartzipsamments. Haplaquods are generally 

permanently wet, are found in swamps, wetlands, riverbanks, etc., and consist of clays, sands, and 

iron and aluminum oxides. Quartzipsamments are unconsolidated sandy soils that are well-drained, 

and are generally found in sand dunes, beaches, etc. (McNab et al. 1994; NRCS 2010a, b). The level 

of wetness of the Aquults and Haplaquods, along with the coarseness of the Quartzipsamments, limit 

the amount and types of development where these soils exist. 

WATER RESOURCES AND QUALITY 

Surface Water 

The Corridor contains numerous blackwater rivers, lakes (including Carolina bays), pocosins, 

wetlands, and small- to medium-sized perennial streams. Water resources are generally of moderate 

density and have very low velocities. The major river basins that lie within the Corridor for each state 

include Cape Fear and Lumber in North Carolina; Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Edisto, 

Salkehatchie, Cooper, Wando, Black, Broad, Combachee, and Savannah in South Carolina; 

Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, Satilla, and St. Mary’s in Georgia; and St. Mary’s, Nassau, and St. 

Johns in Florida. These river basins and their tributaries all drain to the Atlantic Ocean. 
Natural Resources 

77 

Wetlands 

Wetlands are abundant in the Corridor due 

to high water tables and poor drainage. They 

tend to be palustrine systems with seasonally 

high water levels and consist of numerous 

swamps, marshes, and pocosins (McNab 

et al. 1994). Wetlands provide important 

habitat for crawfish and fish, wading birds 

and waterfowl, alligators and other reptiles 

and amphibians, white-tailed deer, muskrat, 

otter, and other mammals. They also provide 

an important natural buffer for flood control 

from heavy rains and hurricanes, as they 

detain and slow rapidly moving floodwaters. 

Water Quality 

The primary pollutants in surface waters of the Corridor are sediments, nutrients (such as nitrogen 

and phosphorus from fertilizers), oxygen-demanding wastes, fecal coliform bacteria, reduced levels 

of dissolved oxygen, and toxic substances (such as mercury, chlorine, zinc, chromium, and ammonia 

from pesticides and industrial activities). Sources of pollution include urban, industrial, and 

agricultural runoff (such as fertilizers and animal waste), development, infilling of wetlands for 

development purposes, recreational uses (such as boating), mining (of sand, gravel, clays, and 

crushed stone), hydro-modification (such as dam construction, stream channelization, channel 

modification, and dredging), and wastewater treatment plants (NCDEP 2002, FLDEP 2010a-c). 

For more detailed information regarding each of the major river basins within the Corridor, please 

see appendix H. 

VEGETATION 

Vegetation within the Corridor consists mainly 

of southern mixed oak-hickory-pine and 

floodplain forests. The Corridor also contains 

many pocosins. Needle-leaved evergreen forests 

predominate, followed by evergreen broadleaved forests. The specific cover types in these 

forests are mainly loblolly-shortleaf pine forests, 

longleaf-slash pine forests, and oak-gum-cypress 

forests. These cover types vary between the 

northern and southern portions of the Corridor 

as well as in distances from water resources. 

Some specific species include pond pine, water 

oak, laurel oak, swamp tupelo, sweetbay, bald cypress, pond cypress, sweetgum, live oak, red maple, 

and spruce pine (McNab et al. 1994). The Coastal Plain also contains numerous species of ferns, 

grasses, sedges, rushes, herbaceous wildflowers, and floating macrophytes. Some specific species 

include titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), pitcher plants, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha 

latifolia), orchids, lilies, and silky camellia (Stewartia malacondendron). 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

78 

Natural vegetation in the Corridor is threatened by commercial and residential development, road 

construction, logging, the introduction and proliferation of nonnative invasive species, flood control 

measures leading to erosion, inundation of brackish water, etc., and natural phenomena (flooding, 

hurricanes, etc.). 

WILDLIFE 

Common mammals within the Corridor include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black 

bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon 

lotor), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel 

(Sciurus niger), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), and many 

small rodents and shrews (McNab et al. 1994). 

Resident and migratory nongame bird species are numerous, as are species of migratory waterfowl. 

Ibises, cormorants, herons, egrets, and kingfishers are common in flooded areas. Songbirds include 

the red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), cardinal (Cardinalidae spp.), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus 

bicolor), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophtalmus), 

wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), blue-gray gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila caerulea), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus 

ludovicianus). Turkeys (Meleagris spp.), bobwhites (Colinus virginianus), and mourning doves 

(Zenaida macroura) are widespread throughout the Corridor, and the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and formerly endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) also 

inhabit this area (McNab et al. 1994). 

Some of the common reptiles and amphibians found within the Corridor include the box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), eastern diamondback rattlesnake 

(Crotalus adamanteus), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum), gopher frog (Rana capito), and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) (McNab 

et al. 1994). 

Some of the common aquatic species in the Corridor include blackbanded sunfish (Enneacanthus 

chaetodon), bluefin killifish (Lucania goodie), Suwannee bass (Micropterus notius), Atlantic pigtoe 

(Fusconaia masoni), and Suwannee moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri). Rare mussels such as the 

sqauwfoot (Strophitus undulates), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose), and Savannah Lilliput 

(Toxolasma pullus), also exist within the Corridor. 

The Corridor is home to 33 federal- and statelisted threatened or endangered species. For the 

full listing of threatened and endangered species in 

the corridor and their potential threats, please 

refer to appendix H. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change refers to any significant changes in average climatic conditions (average 

temperatures and precipitation) or seasonal variability (storm frequencies) lasting for an extended 

period of time. Recent reports by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the National Academy 

of Sciences, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) 

provide clear evidence that climate change is occurring and will accelerate in the coming decades. 

Although climate change is a global phenomenon, it manifests differently depending on regional and 

local factors. 

“But this fisherman scene goes on today, once again. 

There are men that go out with their nets on the wee 

hours of the night and fish, the black men.” 

Sherry Suttles 

Atlantic Beach, SC – May 2009 Meeting 
Natural Resources 

79 

Climate change could result in many changes to the Corridor, some of which may already be 

occurring— such as more intense hurricanes, higher water temperatures, coastal erosion, ocean 

carbon chemistry and its acid/alkali balance, as well as sea level rise. The Corridor’s Sea Islands and 

coastline are especially vulnerable to an eventual rise in sea level. Potential impacts from sea-level 

rise include coastal erosion, storm-surge flooding, coastal inundation, saltwater infiltration, loss of 

coastal properties and habitats, declines in soil and freshwater quality, loss of transportation routes, 

and the potential loss of life. 

The full extent of how climate change will influence the natural and cultural heritage of the Corridor 

is unknown. However, addressing this far-reaching and long-term issue will require both global and 

local initiatives. This management plan does not provide definitive solutions or direction on how to 

resolve these issues. Rather, this section is intended to recognize that the heritage of Gullah Geechee 

people and the Corridor is vulnerable to the influences of climate change, and vigilance is needed to 

ensure the long-term protection of the Corridor’s resources from this serious ecological threat. 
80 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

OVERVIEW 

This section presents an overview of the social and economic conditions within the Corridor. The 

purpose is to identify key characteristics of the Corridor population. Understanding the social and 

economic factors of Corridor residents is crucial to the development of an effective management 

plan. 

Due to the limits of the available data (see 

appendix C), only general features of the 

entire population are presented. Where 

possible, characteristics of specific groups, 

particularly African Americans, are 

highlighted. However, data limits do not 

permit a specific analysis of the Gullah 

Geechee population within the Corridor. 

An in-depth understanding of Gullah 

Geechee people cannot be implied from 

government data. The ultimate insights 

necessary for such understanding can only 

come from representations by the people 

themselves, or from auto-biographies, 

biographies, ethnographies, and surveys 

that have been conducted in Gullah 

Geechee communities for many years. As 

one observer stated: “The aggregate black 

experience emerges only from individual lives such as these” (Morgan 2010).

In general, the following information will reveal that the Corridor is an area where the population is 

growing more rapidly than the nation as a whole, and urbanization is increasing as well. While the 

trend in educational attainment is positive, school enrollment has not changed significantly. The 

racial composition of the Corridor has changed somewhat, but the data necessary to analyze and 

understand this pattern is not available at this time. The sources of employment suggest a movement 

toward an economy comprised of knowledge-based industries rather than the traditional 

foundations of a rural economy. 

DEMOGRAPHICS

Population  

Between 1990 and 2009, the Corridor population grew rapidly, particularly within the urbanized 

areas. As table 4 indicates, the total population of the Corridor increased from 1.7 million to 3.0 

million in 20 years. The overall rate of Corridor growth was 74%, higher than the national growth 

rate of 24% for the same period. By individual portions of states within the Corridor, North Carolina 

had the highest rate of growth (168%), followed by South Carolina (94%), Georgia (64%), and 

Florida (46%). The primary data used in this analysis are drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau for 

1990; 2000; the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2005–2009; and 2010. The detailed data from 

GULLAH GEECHEE SWEETGRASS BASKET STAND, HIGHWAY 17

NEAR MOUNT PLEASANT, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 
Socioeconomic Conditions 

81 

the 2010 Census will not become available until after the management plan is completed. When 

possible this analysis is based on U.S. Census block groups. For detailed explanations of the Census 

data see: www.census.gov. 

TABLE 4. TOTAL POPULATION OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR BY STATE, 

1990, 2000, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

State 1990 2000 ACS 

(2005–2009) 

North Carolina 138,456 306,325 371,337 

South Carolina 560,731 922,838 1,088,917 

Georgia 305,216 454,660 501,195 

Florida 741,398 952,270 1,080,928 

Total 1,745,801 2,636,093 3,042,377 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 & ACS (2005–2009) 

In addition to rapid growth, the Corridor population is becoming more concentrated in urban areas 

in each state. This is particularly true for the following cities: Wilmington, North Carolina; 

Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida. The total population of 

these four cities in 1990 was just under 909,000 people. By 2000, this increased to just over 1.0 

million, and almost 1.2 million by 2010. By 2010 these four cities contained more than a third of the 

population of the entire Corridor. 

In each state there was at least one county whose borders were co-terminous with those of the 

Corridor, thus permitting a different perspective on population characteristics. These were 

Brunswick and New Hanover counties in North Carolina; Beaufort, Charleston, and Georgetown 

counties in South Carolina; Chatham, Glynn, and McIntosh counties in Georgia; and St. Johns 

County in Florida. These nine counties lie entirely within the Corridor boundary. A review of these 

specific counties gives a little more insight into more general patterns within the Corridor. The 

population levels in each of the nine counties entirely within the Corridor (1990–2010) and their 

rates of growth are given in table 5. The counties varied considerably in their growth rates in the 

period under consideration. However, with the exception of Charleston County, South Carolina, 

these counties are much more rural than urban. 

A review of the general population data shows the Corridor is growing rapidly, much faster than the 

nation. Also noteworthy, more and more people are settling in the Corridor’s urban areas. The 

implications of these trends for the Corridor can only be a matter of speculation without much more 

detailed data. 

Racial/Ethnic Composition 

The racial composition of the Corridor remained fairly stable over the course of the past 20 years 

(figure 6). The white1 population comprised 70% of the Corridor population, whereas the black or 

African American2 population comprised 24% of the total population as of the most recent estimate. 

 

1 U.S. Census race category – White

2 U.S. Census race category – Black or African American
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

82 

Six percent of the current population is made up of other racial categories. The Hispanic or Latino3

population can be included in any of the racial categories. 

TABLE 5. TOTAL POPULATION OF COUNTIES ENTIRELY WITHIN THE

GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR, 1990, 2000, 2010* 

County 1990 2000 2010 

Growth

(1990–2010) 

(%) 

Brunswick County, NC 50,985 73,143 107,341 111% 

New Hanover County, NC 120,284 160,307 202,667 68% 

Beaufort County, SC 86,425 120,937 162,233 88% 

Charleston County, SC 295,041 309,969 350,209 19% 

Georgetown County, SC 46,302 55,797 60,158 30% 

Chatham County, GA 216,935 232,048 265,128 22% 

Glynn County, GA 62,496 67,568 79,626 27% 

McIntosh County, GA 8,634 10,847 14,333 66% 

St. Johns County, FL 83,829 123,135 190,039 127% 

_______________________________________________ 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, 2010 

* The decision to discuss only those counties with co-terminous boundaries is a consequence of the limits of time necessary to abstract 

census data for the Corridor boundaries in the other 18 counties. The counties that do not lie entirely within the Corridor include the 

following: North Carolina (Columbus, Pender); South Carolina (Berkeley, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, Marion, Williamsburg); 

Georgia (Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Effingham, Liberty, Long, Wayne); Florida (Duval, Nassau). Time constraints required, in some

instances, use of data that were more easily accessible.

Within each state the current racial composition varies from that of the Corridor as a whole. The 

white population within the portion of the Corridor in North Carolina is 79%, whereas that of 

Georgia is 64%. The black or African American population varies from 31% in Georgia to 15% in 

North Carolina. All other racial categories range from a high of 7% in Florida and a low of 4% in 

Georgia. Unlike the previously included data, table 6 includes the racial composition for the entirety 

of each state. 

A comparison of those counties entirely within the Corridor shows that the racial composition 

varied widely. The percentage of the population identifying themselves as black or African American 

in 2010 ranges from 6% in St. Johns County, Florida, to 40% in Chatham County, Georgia. Other 

 

3 U.S. Census race category – Hispanic or Latino
Socioeconomic Conditions 

83 

counties with large black or African American populations as a percentage of the total county 

population include Georgetown County (34%) and Charleston County (30%) in South Carolina and 

McIntosh County (36%) and Glynn County (26%) in Georgia. Table 7 includes the racial 

composition for the counties entirely within the Corridor. 

TABLE 6. RACIAL COMPOSITION BY STATE, 1990, 2000, 2010

Race 1990 2000 2010 

North Carolina 

White 76% 72% 68% 

Black 22% 22% 21% 

Other 2% 6% 10% 

South Carolina 

White 69% 67% 66% 

Black 30% 30% 28% 

Other 1% 3% 6% 

Georgia 

White 71% 65% 60% 

Black 27% 29% 30% 

Other 2% 6% 9% 

Florida 

White 83% 78% 75% 

Black 14% 15% 16% 

Other 3% 7% 9% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, 2010 

TABLE 7. RACIAL COMPOSITION BY COUNTY, 1990, 2000, 2010 

Race 1990 2000 2010 

Brunswick County, North Carolina 

White 81% 82% 83% 

Black 18% 14% 11% 

Other 1% 3% 6% 

New Hanover County, North Carolina 

White 79% 80% 79% 

Black 20% 17% 15% 

Other 1% 3% 6% 

Beaufort County, South Carolina 

White 69% 71% 72% 

Black 28% 24% 19% 

Other 7% 5% 9% 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

84 

TABLE 7. RACIAL COMPOSITION BY COUNTY, 1990, 2000, 2010 

Race 1990 2000 2010 

Charleston County, South Carolina 

White 64% 62% 64% 

Black 35% 34% 30% 

Other 2% 4% 6% 

Georgetown County, South Carolina 

White 56% 60% 63% 

Black 43% 39% 34% 

Other 0% 2% 3% 

Chatham County, Georgia 

White 60% 55% 53% 

Black 38% 40% 40% 

Other 2% 4% 7% 

Glynn County, Georgia 

White 74% 71% 68% 

Black 26% 26% 26% 

Other 1% 3% 6% 

McIntosh County, Georgia 

White 57% 61% 61% 

Black 43% 37% 36% 

Other 0% 2% 3% 

St. Johns County, Florida 

White 90% 91% 89% 

Black 9% 6% 6% 

Other 1% 3% 5% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, 2010 

Of the four major cities in the Corridor, Savannah, Georgia, has the highest percentage of the 

population identifying themselves as black or African American (55%), followed by Jacksonville, 

Florida (31%), Charleston, South Carolina (28%), and Wilmington, North Carolina (20%). The 

highest percentage of those identifying themselves as white in the four urban areas was in 

Wilmington, North Carolina (74%) and the lowest in Savannah, Georgia (38%). Table 8 includes the 

racial composition of these four cities over the past 20 years. 

TABLE 8. RACIAL COMPOSITION BY CITY 1990, 2000, 2010 

Race 1990 2000 2010 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

White 65% 71% 74% 
TABLE 8. R

Race 

Black 

Other 

White 

Black 

Other 

White 

Black 

Other 

White 

Black 

Other 

Source: U.S. C

S

FIGUR

RACIAL COMPO

19

34

1%

Charlesto

57

42

1%

Sava

47

51

2%

Jackso

72

25

3%

Census Bureau, 1

ource: U.S. Censu

Note: direct

RE 6. RACIAL CO

85 

OSITION BY CITY

90 20

4% 26

% 4

on, South Caro

% 63

% 34

% 3

nnah, Georgia

% 39

% 57

% 4

onville, Florid

% 66

% 30

% 4

990, 2000, 2010

us Bureau, 1990,

t comparison is no

OMPOSITION OF

Y 1990, 2000,

000 20

6% 20

% 7

olina 

3% 70

4% 25

% 4

a

9% 38

7% 55

% 4

a 

6% 59

0% 3

% 10

0

 2000 & America

ot possible; see U

F THE CORRIDO

Socioec

2010 

010 

0% 

7% 

0% 

5% 

4% 

8% 

5% 

4% 

9% 

1% 

0% 

an Community Su

U.S. Census Burea

OR

conomic Cond

urvey (ACS) (2005

au for more infor

ditions 

–2009) 

mation.
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

86 

Whereas the overall racial composition of 

the Corridor has remained stable since 

1990, a comparison of the overall 

situation to urban areas as well as distinct 

counties, the Corridor includes a diverse 

racial grouping that reflects unique 

historical circumstances as well as recent 

changes. What is more, the racial 

composition of the Corridor population 

diverges significantly from the national 

data. In 2010, the black or African 

American population comprised 13% of 

the national population as compared to a 

white population of 72%. 

More research is needed regarding the 

demographics of the Corridor and 

specifically about the Gullah Geechee 

population. For more information, see 

appendix N on the CD. 

Education  

Data on school enrollment and educational 

attainment provide a general understanding of the 

environment in which strategies aimed at 

increasing knowledge and awareness of Gullah 

Geechee history and culture, particularly for 

young people in academic settings, would be 

implemented. 

School Enrollment 

While the data on black or African American enrollment was not readily available, the data in table 6 

would indicate growth at the preprimary levels and stabilization at the college level. Further 

implications cannot be drawn from this limited information. 

School enrollment as a percentage of total Corridor population shows noteworthy patterns between 

1990 and 2010 (figure 7). Preprimary and College enrollment are increasing. This would indicate an 

increase in the grade school population, and a continuation of education beyond high school. 

Educational Attainment 

Educational attainment for the population 25 years and over 

shows the emergence of positive trends. The proportion of 

those with less than a high school education is declining, 

while those with a college degree is steadily increasing. 

Degree attainment at associate, baccalaureate, and graduate 

levels shows impressive growth (figure 8). 

NPS YOUTH EDUCATIONAL FIELD TRIP

MORRIS ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 

“You know people tend to think that we are backwoods 

and we don’t have any directions, but we do have good 

upbringing, which is very important. And as a result of 

that, we have been able to be educated and somehow 

teach what’s right to our youngsters.” 

Ray Funnye 

Georgetown, SC – May 2009 Meeting 

TABLE 9. BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICANS 

ENROLLED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

1990 2000 

Pre-primary [1] 30% 34% 

Elementary or 

High School 37% 36% 

College 23% 23% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 

[1] includes nursery school, preschool, and 

kindergarten 
Note: direct comparison is n

Source: U.S. C

ot possible; for m

FIGURE 7. S

Source: U.S. C

FIGURE 8. EDU

Census Bureau, 1

more information

SCHOOL ENROL

Census Bureau, 1

UCATIONAL ATT

87 

990, 2000 & Am

n see U.S. Census 

LLMENT IN THE 

990, 2000 & Am

TAINMENT IN TH

merican Communi

 Bureau (rounded

CORRIDOR

merican Communi

HE CORRIDOR

Socioec

ty Survey (ACS) (

d to the next who

ty Survey (ACS) (

conomic Cond

2005–2009) 

ole number). 

2005–2009) 

ditions 
CHAPTER 2

Househ

The incom

provides 

of househ

pattern o

[Note: data p

Housing

The infor

because a

developm

Geechee 

density an

the follow

in 2010 an

housing d

kilometer

two maps

Percen

Hous

: CONTEXT OF T

old Income

me distributi

additional pe

holds earn le

f household 

presented is in 20

g

rmation abou

a higher hous

ment pressure

people living

nd location a

wing pages, w

nd the projec

density, or m

r, is depicted

s. 

8

7

Less

$10

ntage of

eholds

HE GULLAH GEE

e

ion of househ

erspective fo

ss than $50,0

income simil

009 inflation adju

FIGUR

ut housing un

sing density r

e that will be 

g in the Corri

are shown in 

which depict 

cted density i

more housing 

d by darker co

8%

5%

7%

6%

than

0,000

$10,000

$14,99

House

ECHEE CULTURA

holds (Ameri

or understand

000 and abou

lar to the nat

So

usted values; Ame

RE 9. HOUSEHO

nits is include

reflects incre

felt by Gulla

idor. Change

the two map

housing den

in 2030. High

units per squ

oloration on 

11%

0 to

99

$15,000 t

$24,999

hold Inc

Corr

L HERITAGE COR

88 

ican Commu

ding the socia

ut 48.5% earn

tional distribu

ource: U.S. Censu

erican Community

OLD INCOME IN 

ed 

eased 

ah 

es in 

ps on 

nsity 

her 

uare 

the 

12%

11%

o $25,000 to

$34,999

$

Income Brac

come in

idor Un

“It’s 

don

their

pla

hope

RRIDOR

unity Survey 2

al environme

n more than $

ution (figure

us Bureau, Americ

y Survey (ACS) da

 THE CORRIDOR

15%

14%

$35,000 to

$49,999

$5

$

cket

the Corr

nited States

very unique to f

n’t look at home

r home. This is 

an to die. They

e my house app

it. The

Mount Pleasa

2005–2009) i

ent. In gener

$50,000. The

e 9). 

can Community S

ata represents su

R

19%

1

50,000 to

$74,999

$75,0

$99

ridor

find a communit

es as an investme

where they live 

y don’t look at it

preciates and on

ey look at it, this

to be my home

George Freem

ant, SC – June

in the Corrid

al, about 51.5

e Corridor ha

Survey (ACS) 200

rvey of past 12 m

12%

1

20%

000 to

9,999

$100,0

or mo

ty where . . .the p

ent, they look a

and this is wher

t to say, I’m goin

ne day I’m going

s is going 

e.” 

man 

e 2009 Meeting

dor 

5% 

as a 

5–2009 

months.] 

17%

%

000

ore

people 

t it as 

re they 

ng to 

g to sell 

g
The num

more urb

By 2000, t

estimates

Increasin

The most

Carolina,

ber of housin

ban landscape

that figure ha

s, a 90% incre

ng housing de

t notable cha

, and inland a

ng units in th

e. As of 1990

ad climbed to

ease since 19

ensities woul

anges are exp

and north of 

HO

ST

he Corridor h

, there were a

o over 1.2 mi

90. 

d continue to

pected to occu

Myrtle Beac

OMES IN THE H

T. SIMONS ISLAN

89 

has increased

approximate

illion and wa

o put pressur

ur between S

h, South Car

ARRINGTON CO

ND, GLYNN CO

d over the pas

ely 786,000 h

as almost 1.5 m

re on Gullah 

Savannah, Ge

rolina. 

OMMUNITY

OUNTY, GA 

Socioec

st few decade

ousing units 

million as of

 Geechee lan

eorgia, and C

conomic Cond

es, resulting i

in the Corrid

f the most rec

nd and resour

Charleston, S

ditions 

in a 

dor. 

cent 

rces. 

outh 
Myrtle Beach

20

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

95

26

40

85

77

16

10

75

95

Legend

Housing Density

Commercial/industrial

> 2,470 units / square km

1,235 - 2,470 units / square km

495 - 1,234 units / square km

146 - 494 units / square km

50 - 145 units / square km

25 - 49 units / square km

13 - 24 units / square km

7 - 12 units / square km

4 - 6 units / square km

1.5 - 3 units / square km

< 1.5 units / square km

Private undeveloped

No Data/Undeveloped

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012

Map 6: Housing Density 2010
Myrtle Beach

20

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

95

26

40

85

77

16

10

75

95

Legend

Housing Density

Commercial/industrial

> 2,470 units / square km

1,235 - 2,470 units / square km

495 - 1,234 units / square km

146 - 494 units / square km

50 - 145 units / square km

25 - 49 units / square km

13 - 24 units / square km

7 - 12 units / square km

4 - 6 units / square km

1.5 - 3 units / square km

< 1.5 units / square km

Private undeveloped

No Data/Undeveloped

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012

Map 7: Housing Density 2030
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

92 

Employment 

The industries employing the most people within the Corridor are shown in figure 10. The number 

of employed civilians 16 years and over within the Corridor increased by about 17% between 2000 

and the most recent estimate. The industry employing the most people in the Corridor has been the 

education, health, and social services sector, employing just over 19% of the Corridor’s population. 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining employ the lowest percentage of the working 

population. The combined category of arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food 

services saw an increase in the percentage of the Corridor population working in those industries 

over the past decade, whereas, the manufacturing industry decreased (figure 10). 

Demographic Summary 

In conclusion, the Corridor has experienced significant population growth and increasing 

urbanization in recent years, a trend that is expected to continue. The racial composition of the 

Corridor has remained relatively stable as a percentage of the total population. The distribution of 

household income in the Corridor is very similar to that of the nation. There have been only minimal 

changes to the percentage of the population within the Corridor enrolled in school, and educational 

attainment trends are positive. The percentage of the population not graduating high school is 

decreasing and the percentage receiving an associate degree or higher is increasing. 

ECONOMY 

The Corridor provides diverse economic opportunities, including market- and nonmarket-based 

activities. Tourism, particularly heritage tourism, plays a significant role in the economy and 

employment within the Corridor. 

Information about the market and nonmarket economy is provided to better understand economic 

trends over time to inform implementation of strategies aimed at enhancing quality of life and 

economic opportunity in the Corridor. 

Gross Domestic Product 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total value of all goods and services produced domestically 

during a year. Since 1990, GDP for the counties analyzed has increased. Data presented in figure 11 

are not based on the exact Corridor boundary, but counties entirely within the Corridor. Data was 

not available for Columbus, North Carolina, and Marion and Williamsburg counties in South 

Carolina and thus are not included in these figures. Although limited, these data show the value of 

the Corridor to the overall economy of the region as well as the individual states. The estimated GDP 

of those counties with available data was approximately $134 billion. 

As a percentage of each state’s economy, the Corridor counties of South Carolina have the largest 

percentage share of the state’s GDP at 28% (Marion and Williamsburg counties not included). The 

share of the state’s GDP represented by the Corridor counties for North Carolina is 3%, Georgia is 

5%, and Florida is 8% (National Ocean Economics Program 2011). 
93

FIGURE

Note:

10. EMPLOYMENT

 the manner in which 

 IN THE CORRIDOR 

Source: 

the two data points w

BY INDUSTRY

U.S. Census Bureau, C

were gathered differs a

ensu

nd st
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

94 

Based on the data available, the contribution of the African American population—and ultimately of 

Gullah Geechee residents—to the GDP of the Corridor is a matter of speculation. It is relatively safe 

to say that the economic sector employing the most people is the knowledge-based sector—

education, health and social services. Furthermore, these are the sectors that impact educational 

attainment and income the most. These developments are in the areas where rural, agriculturalbased and traditional economic activities have the least impact. 

One might assume the greatest social and economic changes over the past two decades—including 

urbanization—are the result of people moving to the Corridor to take advantage of employment 

activities and the general quality of life in coastal areas. 

Heritage Tourism 

The economic impact of the tourism industry is an important component of the economic health of 

the four respective states within the Corridor (table 10). Expenditures within the Corridor on travel 

and tourism contribute greatly to the tourism economy of the four states. This poses both an 

opportunity and a threat. One of many reasons people visit the Corridor is for the variety of 

resources it offers, particularly heritage resources. Heritage tourism is an increasingly lucrative 

segment of the tourism industry. According to the Travel Industry Association of America, “Heritage 

travelers typically stay longer, spend more money and... shop more, especially for unique items 

representative of the destination” (South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

2004). 

TABLE 10. TOTAL STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM

By State Economic Impact Details 

North Carolina 

Source: Tourism Economics 2009 

 The tourism sector represented 4.3% of the state’s GDP in 2008. 

 Total tourism expenditures of $22.2 billion in 2008. 

 8.6% of all wage and salary employment in the state is directly 

or indirectly dependent on tourism. 

South Carolina 

Source: South Carolina Department of 

Parks, Recreation and Tourism 2010 

 Spending on travel or on behalf of tourism totaled $15 billion in 

2010. 

 Tourism generated total wages and salaries of $4.7 billion in 

2009. 

 Travel and tourism supports the jobs of nearly 1 in 10 South 

Carolinians. 

Georgia 

Source: Georgia Department of Economic 

Development 2010 

 Total domestic and international traveler expenditures totaled 

$21 billion in 2010. 

 $7 billion in wages and salaries was paid to employees in 

Georgia’s travel industry in 2010. 

Florida 

Source: Visit Florida Research 2010 

 $62.7 billion in total tourism spending in 2010.

 974,700 people directly employed by tourism industry in 2010. 

The Corridor is home to a wide variety of historic, natural, scenic, cultural, and folklife resources, as 

well as traditional outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting and fishing. Through 

partnerships and culturally sensitive economic development strategies, Gullah Geechee people can 
Socioeconomic Conditions 

95 

claim a larger portion of the heritage tourism economy in the Corridor over time. For additional 

information, see appendix I. 

Tourism is already an important part of the economies within the Corridor. Further, the law 

designating the Corridor directed the Commission to develop a management plan that would 

“encourage by appropriate means economic viability that is consistent with the purposes of the 

Heritage Corridor.” Heritage tourism contributes significantly to overall tourism in the Corridor and 

tourism and visitor markets need to be understood and addressed as part of implementation of the 

management plan. Chapter 4 provides more details about the Corridor’s plan for interpretation, 

visitor experience, and the mechanisms by which to build relationships that would bolster smart, 

conservation-minded heritage tourism. 

Statistics specific to heritage tourism in the Corridor are not readily available at this time. In addition, 

specific visitation statistics and economic contributions of most individual sites are not known. The 

national parks in the Corridor do keep these statistics and they are included in appendix I to provide 

a sense for site-specific visitation and economic impact. 

Nonmarket Economy 

The nonmarket economy is a foundational component of the overall economy. Nonmarket values 

are those values that are important and valuable to society (environ-mental or recreation values), but 

that are not bought and sold in a typical marketplace. For example, the market price for fish can be 

easily determined, whereas the market price for environmental services, such as the value of barrier 

islands in protecting inland areas from storm damage, or clean water are much more difficult to 

determine. The nonmarket values along the Corridor have not been calculated for this document; 

however, the services they provide to residents and visitors increase the total economic value of the 

Corridor beyond the market value. More research in this area is needed. 

While many Gullah Geechee residents 

of the Corridor are employed within 

the mainstream economy, many are 

still economically tied to the land and 

water. The income and livelihood of 

farmers, sweetgrass basket makers, 

fishermen, and crabbers, to name just 

a few, are inextricably linked to the 

land and water. Therefore, the 

importance of healthy and functioning 

ecosystems is critical to maintaining 

the quality and way of life of Gullah 

Geechee people. Although the value 

of the nonmarket economy for the 

Corridor has not been estimated here, 

it is important to note that there is a 

monetary value to environmental 

services and recreational and other markets directly tied to a well-cared for environment. 

The economic prospects of Gullah Geechee people are tied to the nonmarket economy and heritage 

tourism, two areas in which they have been involved or are likely to be involved in the future. 

FRESH CONCH
CHAPTER 2

Note: D

all 27 C

countie

: CONTEXT OF T

Data based on Qu

Corridor counties 

es not represente

HE GULLAH GEE

uarterly Census o

in their entirety; 

d. See source for

FIGURE 11

ECHEE CULTURA

f Employment an

partial county da

r additional detail

1. GROSS DOM

TURNIP 

L HERITAGE COR

96 

Sourc

nd Wages and exc

ata was not readil

s.

MESTIC PRODUC

GREENS FOR SA

RRIDOR

ce: National Ocea

cludes certain ind

ly available; Colu

CT OF THE CORR

ALE

n Economics Prog

dustries; based on

mbus, Marion, an

RIDOR

gram, Market Dat

n a summation of

nd Williamsburg 

ta 
Socioeconomic Conditions 

97 

CONCLUSION 

It is not appropriate to draw broad conclusions from limited data; however some suggestions emerge 

from the overview presented above. The Corridor is changing toward an urban economy that relies 

on knowledge-based industries. This pattern indicates a Corridor that does not engage the current 

Gullah Geechee population to a significant degree. However, the changing economy can incorporate 

Gullah Geechee people as they take advantage of educational opportunities, as well as build on an 

economy based on the wealth of traditional patterns of life. This management plan provides a 

strategic and creative approach to building on historical as well as changing social and economic 

patterns. Effective implementation of the management plan would strengthen local economies and 

enhance the quality of life of Gullah Geechee people. 
98 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND COVER 

HISTORIC LAND OWNERSHIP AND HEIRS’ PROPERTY 

Today, heirs’ property is a critical land ownership issue affecting Gullah Geechee people, families, 

and communities. Heirs’ property is the name given to private land that is owned by a group of family 

members who are the descendants of the original purchaser (Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation 

2011). The issue of heirs’ property in Gullah Geechee culture could be partially attributed to the 

African tradition of communal land use that was continued in the Corridor in the form of family 

compounds. The issue is important because Gullah Geechee culture has been inextricably tied to the 

land throughout numerous generations and continues to be so today. Due to this interconnection 

between land and culture, the history of land ownership in the Corridor is important and described 

briefly. Gullah Geechee land ownership is largely the result of two congressional acts signed by 

President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. 

During the U.S. Civil 

War, numerous 

enslavers and plantation 

owners abandoned the 

south and, as a result, all 

of their property holdings were considered 

abandoned. President 

Abraham Lincoln signed 

the Confiscation Act of 

1861 in order to permit 

the property of those 

that were found disloyal 

to the Union to be seized 

by the government. 

However, the Direct Tax 

Act of June 1862 allowed 

the transformation of 

the property holdings so 

that the seceded states 

would have to pay 

federal taxes that had 

been levied on each state 

in 1861. The act provided for the assessment on individual parcels of land, which would be forfeited 

to the government if the owner failed to pay. By the end of 1862, Lincoln appointed direct-tax 

commissioners in South Carolina and Florida so that lands that are part of the Sea Islands—which 

today are within the Corridor—could then be auctioned. 

“As federal armies advanced into the South, they captured large amounts of private property, much 

of it abandoned by fleeing owners. The armies really could not do much with this property as it had 

little direct military use. But since a lot of it was cotton that had already been sold or seized by the 

Confederate government and that had value on the open market, something had to be done. So 

Congress passed the Captured and Abandoned Property Act on 3 March 1863” (Lee 2004). 

ROBERT SMALLS HOME

BEAUFORT, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
Land Ownership and Land Cover 

99 

As a result of the passage of these acts, many Gullah Geechee people purchased land for their family 

members to continue to dwell on. Many built homes on this land and used it to provide economic 

and physical sustainability for their families through faming, hunting, and harvesting from 

surrounding waterways. In many areas throughout the Corridor, this land is still privately owned by 

Gullah Geechee people. Their retention of the land, however, is often threatened as a result of a type 

of land ownership that has been defined as heirs’ property. A brief description of heirs’ property 

follows to provide context regarding this issue and how it threatens the retention of privately owned 

land by Gullah Geechee people in the Corridor and thus the culture itself. This summary is for 

informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. 

Under heirs’ property, all family members own the land as “tenants in common,” which gives each 

family member undivided property rights. If a family member dies, however, the ownership passes 

down to the living “heirs” who are determined by the probate laws according to the laws of most 

states. For the land to legally pass from the estate of the deceased ancestor, that deceased person’s 

estate must be probated to ensure the deceased person’s debts are paid before the property passes to 

the lawful heirs. Most states have a time limit to probate a deceased person’s estate without having to 

go to court. If the ancestor dies without a will, then he or she is said to have died “intestate,” and no 

will is required to probate the estate of the deceased ancestor. The probate process can usually be 

completed fairly inexpensively and the land is then transferred to the heirs, either the intestate heirs 

or those who are named in the will. Ancestors who have died with a will often include a clause that 

the land is not to be sold, so that the family will always have a “place.” 

When probate is not completed in the time required by the state, then the property becomes “heirs’ 

property,” for which one has to go to court to determine the owners and divide the land. This action, 

called a “quiet title action,” is usually very expensive, depending on how many generations have 

passed since the ancestor’s death. The land is usually divided on the generational level on which at 

least one heir is still alive. 

Traditionally, heirs’ property has been managed by families through “word of mouth” by verbally 

transferring interest to other family members without the benefit of a written deed. In some cases, a 

deed has been used in an attempt to transfer interest between family members. A quitclaim deed 

simply transfers one’s interest in land to another person without knowing if that person has an 

interest or what the interest percentage is. Quitclaim deeds are used when the title holder is deceased 

and the heirs then attempt to convey their interest to another person. Warranty deeds cannot be 

used to resolve land ownership because they cannot document who “owns” the land. 

Heirs’ property involves numerous other legal and financial issues that entangle property owners 

who don’t secure scrupulous legal representation, which can result in the loss of land ownership. 

Issues include: reimbursement for taxes, partitioning or dividing the property, appraisals, surveys, 

attorney fees, timber sales, easements, and paying those heirs that do not want to share the land the 

value of their interest. Another obstacle facing heirs’ property interest-holders is the added pressure 

from real estate developers to convince some heirs that do not have a very strong connection to the 

land to sell their interest to those outside the family. Any heir has the right to go to court and demand 

his/her share of the value of the land. However, if the heirs in possession of the land or those who 

want to keep the land within the family cannot pay those heirs for their interest, the court can sell the 

land, often at fire-sale prices. 

If a developer or other interested party convinces at least one family member to sell his or her 

interest, the action allows the developer to own a right in the property and then to have lawyers 

challenge the rights of the heirs to stop them from building on the family parcel or purchasing the 

entire thing. This has led to many families losing their land due to “forced partition sales” in which 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

100 

judges ask them to settle the matter among themselves and when that is not done, all parties are 

forced to have their land sold and the subsequent profit divided according to the interest that each 

party is entitled to. 

Recent progress has been made in slowing the loss of heirs’ property through forced partition sales 

by having all of the heirs convey their interest in a limited liability company or a family trust so that 

the family can still control the property and have input into the management of the land. The more 

difficult aspect of this approach is to get the family members to agree to this land retention strategy. 

Some of the heirs may have very different intentions. For example, some may live elsewhere and 

never have visited the parcel or have maintained an understanding about the cultural importance of 

retaining family land. 

A few nonprofit and public interest entities within the Corridor address the land-loss issue among 

heirs’ property interest-holders through a combination of mediation, litigation, and education. 

Whereas the legal view of land ownership as a commodity does not exist within Gullah Geechee 

culture; rather, land ownership is regarded as the essence of life, as having a “place” for which one’s 

ancestors have struggled and sacrificed. The ability of Gullah Geechee people to continue to live on 

their privately owned land within the Corridor is critical to the culture’s long-term survival. Family 

compounds remain the economic and spiritual centers in which Gullah Geechee culture thrives. 

CURRENT LAND OWNERSHIP 

The Corridor is the ancestral home of Gullah Geechee people, although today the land is both 

publicly and privately owned and managed and used for many diverse purposes. Given the 

importance of land and land ownership to the continuation of Gullah Geechee culture, a quick 

summary of the current land ownership in the Corridor has been provided as context and to identify 

potential partners—the agencies that manage the publicly owned land. 

The majority (82.5%) of land within the 

Corridor is either privately owned or 

unrestricted for development, or there 

is no known restriction. Private land use 

and development is largely controlled 

by counties and cities through 

comprehensive plans, zoning, and 

subdivision ordinances. The next largest 

landowner is the federal government, 

which owns 7.6% of the land within the 

Corridor. The federal agencies 

managing land within the Corridor 

include the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department 

of Defense, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. The 

four Corridor states own a combined 

5.7% of the land within the Corridor. This land is managed by a wide variety of state agencies, 

including state park and recreation departments, state fish and game, and cultural affairs. Over 4% of 

the Corridor is covered by water. Note: as a result of different source data, the total acreage used to 

determine land ownership in table 11 is slightly different from that identified in chapter 1, primarily 

as a result of the delineation of the coastline (table 12). 

SIGN ON ST. SIMONS ISLAND

GLYNN COUNTY, GA 
Land Ownership and Land Cover 

101 

The maps on the following pages identify large 

tracts of public lands within the Corridor, many of 

which have strong connections to Gullah Geechee 

history, culture, and people. The managers of 

these public lands are considered to be potential 

partners of the Commission. The tables following 

those maps show the basic land ownership 

breakdown within the Corridor as a percentage of 

the total Corridor acres per state. Although most of the land within the Corridor is privately owned, 

the amount of land within the Corridor owned by Gullah Geechee people is unknown. 

Please note: the data source used has categories that do not specifically match the exact state’s 

agency name. For example, in North Carolina, 7.2% of Corridor acres in the state are owned by the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the state’s equivalent of the more generic agency 

name “fish and game.” This is just one example, and other discrepancies may exist. 

As shown in the land ownership tables 11 to 13, the majority of land within the Corridor is privately 

owned. More than 80% of the land within the Corridor in each state is privately owned and almost 

90% in North Carolina. In North Carolina, the next largest landowner following private ownership 

is the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (state fish and game); in South Carolina it is 

the U.S. Forest Service; in Georgia it is the Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources 

Division (state fish and game); and in Florida it is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (State Department of Natural Resources). 

Many of these public lands protect traditional and nontraditional outdoor recreation opportunities 

such as paddling, hunting, and fishing, as well as scenic resources. As a result, there is a large range 

and breadth of opportunities available to tourists and residents alike within the Corridor. See 

appendix L for more information about recreational and scenic resources. 

LAND COVER BY STATE 

Generalized Land Cover 

Over two-thirds of the Corridor comprises wetlands and forest—10% is developed and another 10% 

is either grasslands or pasture. The remaining area that is not open water is primarily cultivated 

agriculture and scrub/shrub land. The land cover percentage differs within each state. For example, 

11% of the North Carolina portion of the Corridor is cultivated agriculture, 40% of the South 

Carolina portion is wetlands, 36% of the Georgia portion is forest, and 23% of the Florida portion of 

the Corridor is developed. 

“I think land retention is so important because without 

the lands there is no people, and without the people 

there is no culture.” 

Reginald Hall 

Georgetown, SC – May 2009 Meeting 
Fort Bragg 

Military Reservation

Camp Lejeune 

Marine Corps Base

Military Ocean Terminal 

Sunny Point

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

Holly Shelter Game Land

State Park

Huntington Beach State Park

Lake Waccamaw State Park

Carolina Beach State Park

Myrtle Beach State Park

40

95

Moores Creek 

National Battlefield

N O R T H C A R O L I N A

S O U T H C A R O L I N A

Myrtle Beach

Fayetteville

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 5 10 20 Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Legend

Capital

Major City

Major Highway

State Boundary

National Park Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

State Parks

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor

Map 8: Public Lands in North Carolina

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012
95

20

Charles Pinckney National Historical Site

Francis Marion 

National Forest

Sumter 

National Forest

Fort Stewart

Fort Jackson

Fort Bragg Military Reservation

Carolina Sandhills 

National Wildlife Refuge

Savannah 

National Wildlife Refuge

Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge Charleston Naval Weapons Station

ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge

Pee Dee 

National Wildlife Refuge

Parris Island U.S. Marine Corps

Hunter Army Airfield

Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Camp MacKall 

Military Reservation

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

Shaw Air Force Base

Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station

Charleston Air Force Base

Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge

Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge

95

Hunting Island State Park

Huntington Beach State Park

Lake Waccamaw State Park

Myrtle Beach State Park

Old Santee Canal State Park

Congaree National Park

Fort Pulaski National Monument

Fort Sumter National Monument

Fort Frederica National Monument

S O U T H C A R O L I N A

N O R T H C A R O L I N A

G E O R G I A

Myrtle Beach

Columbia

Savannah

Charleston

Fayetteville

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 10 20 5 Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Legend

Capital

Major City

Major Highway

State Boundary

National Park Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

State Parks

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor

Map 9: Public Lands in South Carolina

Denver Service Center Planning Division - April 2012
Fort Stewart

Savannah

National Wildlife Refuge

Townsend Range

Wassaw 

National Wildlife Refuge

Kings Bay Naval 

Submarine Support Base

Parris Island 

U.S. Marine Corps

Hunter Army Airfield

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station

Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge

Pinckney Island 

National Wildlife Refuge

Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge

Blackbeard Island 

National Wildlife Refuge

Laurel Bay Naval Area

Cumberland Island 

National Seashore

Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic National Preserve

Fort Pulaski 

National Monument

Fort Clinch State Park

Crooked River State Park

Skidaway Island State Park

Fort Frederica National Monument

G E O R G I A

S O U T H C A R O L I N A

F L O R I D A

Savannah

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 5 10 20 Miles

Atlantic Ocean Legend

Capital

Major City

Major Highway

State Boundary

National Park Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

State Parks

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor

Map 10: Public Lands in Georgia

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012
Castillo de San Marcos

National Monument

Fort Mose Historic State Park

Cecil Field Naval

Air Station (Closed)

Ocala National Forest

Kings Bay Naval Submarine 

Support Base

Jacksonville Naval 

Air Station

Whitehouse 

Field

Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge

Rodman Bombing 

Range

Mayport Naval Station

Cumberland Island 

National Seashore

Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic National Preserve

Guana River State Park

Big Talbot Island State Park

Faver-Dykes State Park

Little Talbot Island State Park

Anastasia State Park

Fort Clinch State Park

Crooked River State Park

Ft. George Island Cultural State Park

Frank B Butler State Park

Yellow Bluff Fort Historic State Park

Fort Matanzas 

National Monument

Fort Caroline 

National Memorial

F L O R I D A

G E O R G I A

Jacksonville

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 5 10 20 Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Legend

Capital

Major City

Major Highway

State Boundary

National Park Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

State Parks

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor

Map 11: Public Lands in Florida

Denver Service Center Planning Division - April 2012
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

106 

TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE OF LAND OWNERSHIP BY STATE

General 

Ownership Owner Percentage of Total 

North Carolina 

Private Private Unrestricted for Development/No Known Restriction 88.6% 

State State Fish and Game 7.2% 

Water Water 1.8% 

Private The Nature Conservancy 1.0% 

Federal Department of Defense 0.7% 

State State Cultural Affairs 0.3% 

State State Park & Recreation 0.2% 

State State Coastal Reserve 0.1% 

Federal National Park Service < 0.1% 

South Carolina 

Private Private Unrestricted for Development/No Known Restriction 80.8% 

Federal Forest Service 7.2% 

Water Water 4.0% 

Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2.0% 

Federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1.9% 

State State Cultural Affairs 1.5% 

State State Fish and Game 1.2% 

Federal Department of Defense 1.1% 

State State Park & Recreation 0.3% 

Federal National Park Service < 0.1% 

Private Private Conservation < 0.1% 

Georgia 

Private Private Unrestricted for Development/No Known Restriction 81.3% 

State State Fish and Game 6.6% 

Federal Department of Defense 4.3% 

Water Water 3.9% 

Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1.4% 

Federal National Park Service 1.4% 

State State Cultural Affairs 0.5% 

State State Coastal Reserve 0.4% 

State State Park & Recreation 0.2% 
Land Ownership and Land Cover 

107 

TABLE 11. PERCENTAGE OF LAND OWNERSHIP BY STATE

General 

Ownership Owner Percentage of Total 

Florida 

Private Private Unrestricted for Development/No Known Restriction 81.1% 

Water Water 7.7% 

State State Department of Natural Resources 3.6% 

Federal National Park Service 2.6% 

State State Department Land 1.6% 

State State Park & Recreation 1.1% 

State State Coastal Reserve 0.7% 

State State Fish and Game 0.6% 

Federal Department of Defense 0.6% 

Private Private Conservation 0.3% 

TABLE 12. LAND COVER AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR BY STATE

(HIGHEST TO LOWEST BY TOTAL LAND COVER) 

Land Cover Type North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Total Corridor 

Wetlands 36% 40% 41% 27% 38.0% 

Forest 28% 30% 36% 27% 31.0% 

Developed 8% 8% 8% 23% 10.0% 

Grasslands/Pasture 11% 9% 9% 11% 10.0% 

Open Water 2% 5% 4% 8% 5.0% 

Cultivated Agriculture 11% 4% 0.6% 2% 4.0% 

Scrub/Shrub 4% 4% 0.7% 0.4% 3.0% 

Barren Land 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 

Source: NPS-IMD 2009; Svancara and Story 2009 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Prime farmlands is of major importance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food 

and fiber. The acreage of high-quality farmland is limited and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

recognizes that government agencies and private landowners must encourage and facilitate the wise 

use of these lands. The soils that predominate in the Corridor are not considered prime farmland 

soils. Prime farmland soils comprise only about 7.4% of the agricultural lands within the Corridor. 

Most of the prime farmland areas are privately owned and used for agricultural purposes; however, 

there is a gradual trend in the Corridor toward the loss of prime farmlands primarily to residential 

subdivisions. 
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

108 

Of the agricultural lands within the Corridor, 22% are of statewide or unique importance. Farmland 

of statewide or unique importance is land other than prime farmland that has a good combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. Those characteristics are based on certain 

criteria for water (soil moisture regimes and availability of water), range of soil temperature, acidalkali balance, water table, soil sodium content, flooding, erodibility, and rock fragment content. 

Farmlands of statewide importance does not include publicly owned lands for which agricultural use 

is not allowed (NRCS 2004; USDA 2010c). 

TABLE 13. PRIME FARMLANDS IN THE CORRIDOR

FOR ALL CORRIDOR COUNTIES AS OF 2010 

Type of Farmlands Acres Percentage of 

Total 

Prime farmlands 603,132 7% 

Farmlands of statewide or unique importance 1,803,374 22% 

Prime farmlands if drained, irrigated, or protected 

from flooding during the growing season 624,527 8% 

Not prime farmlands 5,074,158 62% 

Not surveyed 47,689 1% 

Total amount of farmland within the Corridor 8,152,879 100% 

_________________________ 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey 2001 

Note: No farmland data were available for Brantley County, Georgia; the best data available was used, but 

data were missing from the USDA soils data. This information came from a variety of different survey 

sources and dates. For additional information, please visit: 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/7cfr657_00.html and 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html (Part 622.04). The following Web site lists 

the source dates of each soil survey by county: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/ 
Myrtle Beach

20

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

G e o r g i a

F l o r i d a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Gastonia

Columbia

Savannah

Greenville

Wilmington

Charleston

Gainesville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

Daytona Beach

Charlotte

Jacksonville

95

26

40

85

77

16

10

75

95

Legend

Land Cover (2001)

Barren Land

Cultivated Agriculture

Deciduous Forest

Developed High Intensity

Developed Low Intensity

Developed Medium Intensity

Developed Open Space

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

Evergreen Forest

Grassland/Herbaceous

Mixed Forest

Open Water

Pasture/Hay

Scrub/Shrub

Woody Wetlands

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

State Boundary

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior 

0 25 50 100 Miles

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Denver Service Center Planning Division - March 2012

Map 12: Land Cover

3

Chapter 3

Management of the

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Chapter 3 divider photos (top to bottom) 

 Cultural Days, Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA (Photo Credit: Diedra Laird, Charlotte Observer) 

 Winnowing Hands, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: Sweetgrass Cultural Arts 

Festival Association) 

 Bottle Tree in South Carolina (Photo Credit: Brookgreen Gardens) 
113 

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 

INTRODUCTION 

The overall management approach for the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (the 

Corridor) is described in this chapter. The Corridor’s management direction provides a 

comprehensive blueprint for how to meet the Corridor’s goals and realize its mission and vision. It 

provides a framework for implementation; it is not intended to be a step-wise approach, but rather a 

flexible guide for capitalizing on opportunities as they become known and actionable through 

partnership agreements and funding. 

Implementation would be undertaken with the utmost flexibility and adaptation to changing 

circumstances, partners, funding sources, and successes. Each year the Commission is required to 

develop and submit a work plan and budget to the NPS Southeast Region National Heritage Area 

Office. Annual work plans are a mechanism used to identify the most appropriate strategies and 

actions for the upcoming year, in accordance with available and expected funding. 

Through the ideas presented in this chapter, Corridor managers would seek to meet the vision, 

mission, and goals of the Corridor. 

The priorities for the Corridor over the life of the plan are contained here, along with other 

information about how implementation would be achieved in cooperation and consultation with 

partners. The Commission would monitor and measure their progress in implementing the strategies 

and actions outlined in the implementation framework and to more effectively meet the Corridor’s 

vision, mission, and goals. Through monitoring, the Commission would adjust annual work plans to 

reflect and capitalize on successes, challenges, funding sources, and partners. This cycle of 

adaptation throughout implementation would ensure that the Commission continues to operate as 

efficiently as possible given ever-changing circumstances on the ground. 

Implementation of this management plan will require collaboration and cooperation among myriad 

partners and members of the public. This document provides a vision that communities, agencies, 

organizations, individuals, and businesses can join together to achieve. This plan can only be 

effectively implemented through cooperation and collaboration among people and groups with 

complementary or shared goals. 

The vision, mission, purpose, goals, and primary interpretive themes form the foundation on which 

management and implementation would be built. See chapter 1 for a description of these statements. 

THE MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

The basic management approach, entitled Enlighten and Empower Gullah Geechee People to Sustain 

the Culture, describes the overall concept of how the Corridor would be managed over the life of the 

plan. The Commission would focus its implementation efforts on three interdependent pillars: (1) 

education, (2) economic development, and (3) documentation and preservation. The three pillars, as 

identified by public and stakeholder input, are designed to sustain and preserve the land, language, 

and cultural assets of the people that make up the Corridor. Education and documentation/ 

preservation initiatives would nurture pride and facilitate a deeper understanding, awareness, and 

appreciation for the value and importance of the culture. These initiatives would assist in identifying 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

114 

and preserving the significant tangible and intangible resources within the Corridor and recognizing 

and sustaining Gullah Geechee people’s contributions to American history and culture. 

Economic development initiatives would work in concert with education and preservation initiatives 

to enhance the quality of life for current and future generations within the Corridor. Celebration and 

interpretation of the culture would be interwoven throughout implementation of this management 

plan. 

The following three pillars and bulleted list of objectives for each form the core of the management 

approach. 

Education 

Increase understanding and awareness of Gullah Geechee people, history, and culture. 

 Promote knowledge and awareness of Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

 Communicate Gullah Geechee history, culture, and heritage through interpretation within 

Gullah Geechee communities and throughout the Corridor. 

 Encourage research and other activities designed to expand the body of knowledge on the 

culture and history of Gullah Geechee people. 

 Develop and enhance links, associations, and connectivity between Gullah Geechee 

communities, resources, themes, and cultural traditions. 

Economic Development 

Support heritage-related businesses and promote preservation of the land and natural resources 

needed to sustain the culture. 

 Promote Gullah Geechee community-supported industries and businesses that have positive 

consequences for Gullah Geechee culture. 

 Promote and assist Gullah Geechee communities in preserving Gullah Geechee land and 

waterways through economic development. 

 Advocate for immediate cleanup of contaminated sites in Gullah Geechee communities. 

Documentation and Preservation 

Preserve Gullah Geechee resources, primarily through documentation. 

 Document tangible and intangible resources to provide a foundation for preservation of 

assets, educational opportunities, and increased heritage tourism. 

 Preserve tangible and intangible resources for the benefit of current and future generations. 

Linking Planning Issues to the Management Approach 

Throughout the planning process, the Commission has based its decisions about the management 

approach on how best to address the issues identified during the public scoping process. See chapter 

5 for more information about public scoping. Table 14 outlines the planning-related issues that were 

identified at meetings with the public and potential partners and how each is addressed in this plan. 
An environment 

that celebrates the 

legacy and continuing 

contributions of 

Gullah Geechee people 

to our American 

heritage. Economic Education

Development

Documentation 

and Preservation 

Figure 12. The Management Approach
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

116 

TABLE 14. LINKING PLANNING ISSUES TO THE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Planning Issues 

(see “Planning Issues” in Chapter 1) How the Management Approach Addresses Planning Issues 

Cultural Resources; Natural Resources 

Lack of understanding and awareness 

about cultural and natural resources

Fostering public awareness and facilitating greater understanding and 

awareness of the significance of Gullah Geechee history and culture within 

Gullah Geechee communities and educating the public on the value and 

importance of Gullah Geechee culture are integral elements of this plan. The 

development of comprehensive education and interpretation programs and 

products in cooperation with the public and partners would be a key 

element of implementation. 

Cultural Resources 

Lack of documentation of cultural 

resources and historical inaccuracies 

A key component of implementation is additional research about and 

documentation of Gullah Geechee cultural resources (ethnographic 

resources, archeological resources, structures and districts, cultural 

landscapes, and museum collections) both by Gullah Geechee people and by 

cultural resource professionals. 

Cultural Resources; Natural 

Resources; Development and 

Urbanization 

Loss or degradation of historic, cultural, 

and natural resources

The Commission encourages preservation of resources through increasing 

the understanding and awareness of the significance and value of the 

resources, as well as through more direct methods, in cooperation and 

collaboration with partners. Education and training opportunities about how 

to retain land would also help preserve resources at risk to being lost due to 

development and urbanization. 

Land Issues 

Lack of access to traditional areas 

The Commission is committed to working with the public and partners in 

innovative ways to promote reasonable access to traditional areas. 

Land Issues; Development and 

Urbanization 

Property ownership and land retention 

(heirs’ property) 

Educating is a key method by which the Commission can assist in sustaining 

land within the Corridor. The Commission would work with communities, 

stakeholders, and partners to provide education and training opportunities, 

including information and tools for how to retain land. 

Economic Development 

Lack of economic opportunities and the 

challenge of balancing economic 

development with retention of cultural 

identity 

One of the three pillars of the management approach is to support Gullah 

Geechee heritage-related businesses and promote preservation of the land 

and natural resources needed to sustain the culture, with the goal of 

enhancing the quality of life for current and future generations. A critical 

component of enhancing quality of life is ensuring economic opportunities. 

The Commission would work in cooperation with the public and partners to 

develop innovative ways to reach this goal during implementation. 

Education to Build Awareness; Visitor 

Experience/Facilities 

Lack of coordinated interpretation and 

visitor opportunities 

The Commission has developed a process to develop and formalize 

relationships with partners and partner sites. This process would effectively 

implement programs and projects in a fair manner that could be monitored 

and tracked over time. See appendix E. 

Management Structure and Oversight 

Plan for addressing long-term 

management of the Corridor given that 

the federally appointed Commission is set 

to terminate in 2016 

Prior to termination of the Commission in October 2016, the Commission 

will seek the passage of new legislation reauthorizing the Commission as the 

“local coordinating entity” of the Corridor. In addition, the Commission 

would seek out a cooperating agreement with the Gullah Geechee 

Sustaining Fund to serve as the Commission’s fiscal agent. 
Management and Organization 

117 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 

The organizational structure for management of the Corridor would consist of, (a) the Commission 

as the “local coordinating entity”; (b) local advisory committees composed of members of the public; 

(c) the National Park Service National Heritage Area program, which would provide limited 

financial and technical assistance; and (d) a fiscal agent to manage and account for Commission 

funds. 

The Commission 

The Commission would continue to operate as the “local coordinating entity” until its termination 

date on October 12, 2016. The overall management of the Corridor would be the Commission’s 

responsibility, including implementation of the management plan and compliance with the 

designating law. 

To further the purposes of the Corridor, the Commission’s duties until the point of termination 

would continue to be the following: 

 Assist units of local government and other persons in implementing the approved 

management plan by 

– carrying out programs and projects that recognize, protect, and enhance important 

resource values within the Corridor 

– establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and programs within the Corridor 

– developing recreational and educational opportunities in the Corridor 

– increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the historical, cultural, natural, and 

scenic resources of the Corridor 

– protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings in the Corridor that are consistent 

with the themes identified in this plan 

– ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs identifying points of public access 

and sites of interest are posted throughout the Corridor 

– promoting a wide range of partnerships among governments, organizations, and 

individuals to further the purposes of the Corridor 

 Consider the interests of diverse units of government, business, organizations, and 

individuals in the Corridor in the implementation of the management plan. 

 Conduct meetings open to the public at least quarterly regarding implementation of the 

management plan. 

 Submit an annual report to the Secretary of the Interior for any fiscal year in which the 

Commission receives national heritage area funds, setting forth its accomplishments, 

expenses, and income, including grants made to any other entities during the year for which 

the report is made. 

 Make available for audit for any fiscal year in which it receives national heritage area funds, 

all information pertaining to the expenditure of such funds and any matching funds, and 

require all agreements authorizing expenditures of federal funds by other organizations, that 

the receiving organization make available for audit all records and other information 

pertaining to the expenditure of such funds. 

 Encourage, by appropriate means, economic viability that is consistent with the purposes of 

the Corridor. 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

118 

In addition, the Commission would 

 Enter into a cooperative agreement with 

the Gullah Geechee Sustaining Fund, or 

another suitable fiscal agent, outlining the 

manner and processes by which the two 

entities would work together to effectively 

implement the management plan. 

 Enter into agreements with partners. 

 Develop an annual work plan and distribute to NPS Southeast Region NHA Office for 

concurrence. 

 Ensure the fiscal viability of the organization, including raising funds for implementing 

programs and projects in accordance with the matching requirement in the designating law. 

 Realize the vision, mission, and goals of the Corridor. 

Reauthorization 

The Commission is scheduled to terminate on October 12, 2016. Termination of the Commission 

would eliminate a named entity that can legally receive national heritage area funds distributed by 

the National Park Service. As such, the Commission would seek the passage of legislation to 

reauthorize the Commission as the “local coordinating entity.” The Commission’s duties, terms of 

service, and bylaws could be adjusted in the reauthorizing law. 

Local Advisory Committees 

To enhance its connection to the pulse of the public, the Commission would establish local advisory 

committees. The committees would be developed in a manner that would give voice to all portions of 

the Corridor, from north to south and east to west. They would not make policies for the 

Commission, but rather would facilitate the flow of communication and information between the 

public and the Commission. They would be composed of local citizens—preference would be given 

to Gullah Geechee people. Duties of the local advisory committees are to 

 keep the Commission apprised of local issues, events, activities, etc. 

 serve in accordance with the bylaws established for the committees 

National Park Service, National Heritage Area Program 

The NHA program would continue to provide limited financial and technical assistance according to 

the requirements of Public Law 109-338, based on congressional appropriations and program 

stipulations. Duties of the NHA program are to 

 Distribute NHA program funds, as authorized by Congress. 

 Provide technical assistance. 

 Review and approve annual work plan.

 Enter into agreement with the Commission and Gullah Geechee Sustaining Fund, as 

appropriate, to effectively facilitate all aspects of implementation.

 

“What we need from the Gullah Geechee Corridor 

Commission are two things: We need resources and we 

need a repository. We have the stories, but we don’t 

have a place to put them.” 

Barbara Fordham Collier 

Mount Pleasant, SC – June 2009 Meeting 
Management and Organization 

119 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

BURGAW, PENDER COUNTY, NC, AUGUST 2011 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC, MAY 2010 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

BRUNSWICK, GLYNN COUNTY, GA, NOVEMBER 2010 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL, FEBRUARY 2009 

Fiscal Agent 

The Commission would seek a cooperative agreement with the Gullah Geechee Sustaining Fund, or 

another suitable fiscal agent, to serve as the Commission’s fiscal agent. The basic duties of the fiscal 

agent working on behalf of the Commission would be the following: 

 Be responsible for receiving, accounting for, and safeguarding national heritage area funds, 

grant monies, and donations. 

 Establish separate revenue and checking accounts for Commission funds and expenditures. 

 Maintain and retain appropriate financial records, including: 

– Maintain separate records of disbursements of the funds by fund type. 

– Keep receipts for all funds received for at least three years. 

 Make available all financial records upon request. 

 Disburse funds received for the Commission solely at its request. 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

120 

 Maintain and make available to the Commission, upon request, all books, records, 

documents, and other evidence of funds received and distributed in the event of an audit. 

 Maintain and make available to the Commission, upon request, all books, records, 

documents, and other evidence pertaining to the costs and expenses related to serving as 

fiscal agent. 
Figure 13. Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Organizational Chart

Gullah Geechee 

Cultural Heritage 

Corridor 

Commission

NPS National 

Heritage Area 

Program

Partners

Public

&

Stakeholders

NC

Local 

advisory 

Committees

sc 

Local

advisory 

Committees

ga 

Local

advisory 

Committees

fl 

Local

advisory 

Committees

Executive

Staff

&

Office Staff

Fiscal 

Agent
122

TABLE 15.

ORGANIZATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT

Initial Actions

Through 2013 

Mid-term Actions 

2014–2016 

Long-term A

2017–20

1. Seek the passage of 

legislation reauthorizing the Commission as the “local coordinating entity” after October 2016. 

 Work with congressional 

delegation to prepare draft legislation. 

 Seek passage of new legislation 

reauthorizing the Commission. 

 No long-term ac

2. Secure funding to match 

federal appropriations via partners and stakeholders. 

 Identify and apply for 

applicable grants. 

 Utilize partnership and partner 

site application process to identify appropriate funding sources. 

 Develop cooperating 

agreement between the Commission and Gullah Geechee Sustaining Fund to serve as the Commission’s fiscal agent. 

 Commission to develop five-year 

fundraising plan. 

 Identify and apply for applicable 

grants each year. 

 Continue to utilize partnership 

and partner site application process to identify appropriate funding sources. 

 Identify and app

applicable grant

 Continue to utili

and partner site process to identfunding sources

3. Secure office space, hire 

staff, and develop volunteer program. 

 Secure executive level staff to 

carry out Commission operations. 

 Secure office space.  Begin developing a Corridor 

volunteer program. 

 Secure key staff to implement 

mid- and long-range strategies. 

 Continue to enhance the 

volunteer program to leverage the work of paid staff. 

 Continue to enh

volunteer prograthe work of paid 

4. Develop a 

comprehensive, consistent marketing and outreach strategy for the Corridor. 

 Enhance Web site – hierarchy, 

design, features, and content. 

 Work with partners to 

establish legal protection for a logo and Corridor graphics to authenticate and validate the work of the Corridor. 

 Hold public outreach events 

and activities to increase understanding of and interest in the Corridor. 

 Reach out to partners to 

garner implementation commitments. 

 Begin identifying projects and 

efforts that can be undertaken immediately by volunteers. 

 Develop a comprehensive 

community outreach strategy. 

 Work with partners to develop a 

media outreach strategy. 

 Continue to enhance the Web 

site. 

 Continue to refi

outreach strateg

 Continue to dev

methods to reaccommunities witoutside the Corr

 Continue to enh

site. 
123 

TABLE 15. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Initial Actions

Through 2013 

Mid-term Actions 

2014–2016 

Long-term A

2017–20

5. Develop a Commissionsponsored grant 

program. 

 No initial actions identified.  Develop guidelines and criteria 

for grant distribution. 

 Develop topical areas for priority 

funding (i.e., genealogy, land preservation, etc.). 

 Distribute grants to qualifying 

organizations and individuals. 

 Continue to dist

qualifying organindividuals. 

6. Create local advisory 

committees. 

 Determine the number of local 

advisory committees and geography covered by each. 

 Develop bylaws, structure, 

roles, and responsibilities, etc., of the local advisory committees. 

 Local advisory committees are 

seated and begin to serve in the capacity outlined in the initial actions. 

 Continue to wor

advisory commiteffectively implestrategies in the implementation 
124 

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS 

Some of the strategies and actions identified in the management plan would be implemented by the 

Commission itself; however, given that the Commission does not own or have regulatory authority 

over land within the Corridor, much of the implementation would be accomplished through 

partnerships. 

The Corridor has identified a long list of potential agencies and organizations with which it intends 

to seek partnership agreements. These include all levels of government agencies, Native American 

tribes, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and businesses. Please see appendix K. 

In addition to potential governmental partners with which the Commission would make individual 

agreements, the Commission has also developed a process by which to formalize relationships with 

organizations, businesses, and individuals. Throughout implementation, the Commission would 

work to develop a network of sites and other partners to assist in implementation. This network of 

partnerships would be composed of entities designated as either a partner site or a partner. See 

chapter 4, part 2 for more information about interpretive partners. 

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW 

The Commission developed a broad framework to guide future decision making about how to 

prioritize actions and whether to get involved with other local/community efforts across the 

Corridor. The framework is designed to ensure that implementation is effective and focused on the 

three management plan goals (see table 17). 

Nine partnership programs have been developed to guide implementation. Applicants completing 

the partner site or partnership applications would need to identify one or more programs under 

which the project best fits. Specific projects and actions would then be filtered through the following 

principles for implementation, project selection criteria, and best management practices. Meeting 

the goals of the Corridor would be achieved by leading or partnering on projects identified in the 

annual work plan, by promoting the efforts of partners, and/or by providing technical assistance. 

Assistance would also be provided to other significant efforts by distributing grant funding. 

Priority would be given to strategies or actions that are specifically recognized in the implementation 

matrix, which outlines actions currently identified for implementation over the life of the plan. 

Implementation principles and project criteria would be evaluated and updated, as appropriate, to 

ensure effective execution of this plan. Actions would primarily be accomplished in collaboration 

with partners. 

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 

The nine partnership programs developed by the Commission are directly aligned with the three 

pillars of the overall management approach for the Corridor—education, economic development, 

and documentation/preservation (see table 16). Implementation of these programs would support 

the protection, preservation, and restoration of tangible and intangible community resources with 
Implementation Framework 

125 

historical and cultural significance, and would enhance the quality of life within the Corridor. 

Partnership programs would also foster public awareness and appreciation of the history and 

contributions of Gullah Geechee people in the United States and their connections to the African 

diaspora and other cultures. 

TABLE 16. PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS

Program Description 

Education This program educates all age groups across the Corridor about Gullah Geechee history and 

culture. 

Research This program builds upon the existing research about Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

Interpretation This program enhances interpretation and awareness of Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

Business Development This program enhances existing businesses and generates new ones. 

Explore the Corridor This program develops and promotes visitor and resident opportunities to experience the 

Corridor. 

Community Outreach 

and Training 

This program enhances public engagement, involvement, and participation in sustaining 

Gullah Geechee culture. 

Environmental 

Sustainability 

This program promotes environmental conservation, education, and awareness within the 

Corridor. 

Cultural Documentation This program documents Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

Preservation This program preserves tangible and intangible Gullah Geechee resources. 

COMMISSION PLANNING WORKSHOP

DENVER, CO, SEPTEMBER 2009 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

126 

PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

The Commission has identified four overarching 

principles to guide implementation of the 

management plan. These principles (table 17) are 

intended to guide the Commission and partners 

throughout implementation. All program-level 

implementation or project-specific implementation, 

whether direct or in cooperation and collaboration 

with partners, should adhere to the following four 

principles. 

PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA 

The five criteria in table 18 would assist the 

Commission in selecting projects that best meet the 

management plan’s goals. The criteria would be 

given equal weight in evaluating potential projects. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Throughout implementation of this plan, the most 

current best management practices in many subject 

areas would be followed by the Commission. These 

subject areas include, but are not limited to, general 

project implementation, historical education, and resource preservation (a preliminary, 

nonexhaustive list can be found in table 19), as well as heritage tourism development (included in 

chapter 4), interpretation, and visitor use. 

TABLE 17. PRINCIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Principle Description 

Consistency with 

Vision and Mission 

Projects receiving the support of the Commission should be consistent with the foundation 

of the Corridor, including the vision, mission, purpose, goals, and primary interpretive 

themes. 

Authenticity and 

Sense of Place 

The Corridor has a distinct history and culture that contribute to a unique sense of place. 

While the Corridor continues to evolve, its identity should remain intact. Priority would be 

given to projects that enhance the sense of place in the Corridor through preservation of 

both tangible and intangible resources. A focus on authenticity contributes to cultural 

preservation, which both benefits local communities and makes a lasting impression on 

visitors. 

Regional Impact 

Projects would be given priority if they (a) beneficially impact more than the immediate area 

in which they are implemented, (b) enhance the identity of the Corridor as a whole, and (c) 

demonstrate a broad base of support from public and private entities. 

Connections 

Projects should promote connections among sites, attractions, and resources within the 

Corridor. Projects connecting geographic locations through one or more of the six primary 

interpretive themes (see chapter 4, part 2) would be given priority. 

COMMISSION PLANNING WORKSHOP

CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 

MAY 2010 
Implementation Framework 

127 

TABLE 18. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA

Project Criteria Implementation Process 

1. Quality and 

Authenticity 

All projects and programs should demonstrate a high degree of quality and professionalism 

and strive to retain the authenticity of the heritage resources of the Corridor through: 

 operating transparently and in the public arena to benefit Gullah Geechee people first 

 adhering to professional standards and best practices (archeology, anthropology, 

ethnography, engineering, architecture, planning, design, etc.) 

 evaluating and understanding the existing conditions, integrity, and significance of 

resources prior to acting, and ensuring that mitigation measures are utilized to limit any 

potential impacts on resources 

2. Realistically 

Achievable 

A project or program would be considered to be realistically achievable if it has demonstrated 

the following characteristics: 

 already planned, approved, or underway 

 in need of additional funds, technical expertise, services, or attention to complete 

 proposed by an organization(s) that has demonstrated the ability to implement projects of 

similar scope or complexity 

 involving individuals with expertise appropriate to the project or program 

 the ability to be achieved in a reasonable timeframe 

3. Funding 

and Local 

Investment 

In order to make the most effective use of the Commission’s available funding, projects would 

be given priority if they demonstrate: 

 an available funding stream that would make a significant contribution to overall funding 

needs 

 the ability to leverage in-kind contributions, including volunteer commitments 

 plans to utilize services of local individuals and businesses 

 plans to employ traditional cultural skills and use local materials 

 ability to accurately account for, track, and report on the specific use(s) of all funds 

4. Visibility 

To effectively promote awareness of the Corridor, emphasis would be placed on projects or 

programs that: 

 highlight the Commission as a valuable partner 

 demonstrate the ability to inspire participation by others 

 provide a key investment for creating momentum for future projects 

 create Corridor-wide systems or programs 

 attract sustained public interest and local or regional participation 

5. Other Project 

Considerations 

On an ad-hoc basis, projects or programs would be prioritized to respond to immediate needs 

that are not identified in the annual work plan or typical project review cycle. These needs 

could result from immediate threats, natural disasters, catastrophic events, or other crises. 

Projects and programs could be supported that: 

 protect or restore threatened Corridor resources 

 create immediate economic benefits to Gullah Geechee communities in crisis as a result of 

such events 

 can be equitably distributed to a variety of organizations in the threatened or affected 

area, to the extent practicable 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

128 

TABLE 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

General Project Implementation, Historical Education, and Resource Preservation 

General Project Implementation 

 Identify the specific problem or need the project is designed to address. 

 Ensure that the project plan (schedule, cost, participants, roles, responsibilities, etc.) is clear and understood by all 

parties and meets the principles for implementation and project selection criteria above. 

 Develop a clear and measurable goal(s) and time line for evaluating success for each project. 

 Identify information needs to monitor, track, and evaluate performance. 

– Develop standard forms to monitor and track progress. 

– Establish check-in dates as needed based on complexity of project, dollar amount of project, and risk level. 

– Maintain a record of all applications, supporting documents, agreements or contracts, screening process, type 

and amount of assistance, and other pertinent documents, in the event of an audit or need for information at 

a later date. 

 Establish clear guidelines or requirements regarding actual or perceived conflicts of interest for staff and others 

providing services or funding. 

 Identify what steps, if any, need to be taken to secure funding (loans, etc.), if necessary. 

 Ensure that a signed contract or agreement is in place with all relevant parties. 

– Identify a process for dealing with noncompliance. 

 Establish project closeout process based on the initial project plan. 

 Identify lessons learned and adjust guidelines and policies as necessary. 

Historical Education 

 Immerse learners in “historical thinking”—allow them to learn from the perspective of historical figures. 

– Use primary sources to the extent possible. Teach interactively and provide for first-person involvement. 

– Provide learners of all ages the opportunity to experience history first hand through service learning (e.g., The 

Journey Through Hallowed Ground, “Of the Student, By the Student, For the Student TM) programs. 

 Bring the learners to the community and the community to the learners. 

Resource Preservation 

 Base decisions about cultural resources on scholarly research and scientific information, and consult with the state 

historic preservation officer, other organizations, and members of Gullah Geechee communities, as appropriate. 

Note: the historic integrity of properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

would be protected. 

 Base decisions about projects that could impact natural resources on scholarly research and scientific information, 

and consult with the state departments of natural resources, wildlife and fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

other agencies, and members of Gullah Geechee communities, as appropriate. 

 Encourage resource management that balances preservation and conservation needs with sustainable economic 

uses. 

 Encourage adaptive use of historic structures, when appropriate. 

 Encourage partners to consult the state historic preservation office and members of Gullah Geechee communities 

when implementing projects affecting historic buildings or in historic districts. 

 Base decisions about digital resource preservation on current industry standards, with regard to organization, 

storage media, digital formats (including lifespan assessment), metadata, resource discovery (identification and 

verification of authenticity), and intellectual property rights. 
Implementation Framework 

129 

IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX 

Three Pillars 

Actual on-the-ground implementation would be guided by the management approach in 

conjunction with implementation framework. In addition, implementation of any action would have 

to meet one of the objectives and goals established for the Corridor. The Corridor’s implementation 

matrix is organized around the goals and objectives of the Corridor (table 20). A separate table is 

provided for each of the following three pillars: 

1. Education 

2. Economic Development 

3. Documentation and Preservation 

Objectives, Strategies, and Phasing 

The objectives associated with the three pillars in each table are included in the left-hand column 

and identified by roman numerals. The strategies and actions associated with each objective are 

included from left to right according to the approximate time frame in which they are expected to be 

implemented. Although these strategies and actions are organized into a specific time frame for 

completion, flexibility may be needed in their implementation in order to capitalize on opportunities 

that may be presented by potential partners or funding opportunities. 

Initial Actions 

The implementation of initial actions would be an essential step in achieving Corridor goals. Many of 

these actions focus on developing the organizational structure and establishing strong working 

partnerships with various partners throughout the region. These are the strategies and actions that 

are a priority for the Commission to achieve through 2013. 

Mid-term Actions 

The mid-term actions would build on the initial actions. The time frame for the implementation of 

these mid-term actions would be 2014–2017. 

Long-term Actions 

The long-term actions identified in the implementation matrix represent the final stage of the life of 

this plan. These actions are intended to lead to a self-sustaining and empowered organization 

equipped with the tools for continued management and success in the future. Implementation of 

long-term actions would take place between 2018 and October 12, 2021, at which point funding from 

the Secretary of the Interior would terminate. 

COASTAL HERITAGE CENTERS 

To comply with the requirements in the law that designated the Corridor and to provide an 

interpretation and experiential anchor, one or more Coastal Heritage Centers would be developed in 

each state, per the phasing in table 21. The center(s) would be sited and developed in the future 

based on adequate funding, partnerships, and community support. 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

130 

A Coastal Heritage Center is “a community anchor that focuses on a living group of people and 

connects the past and the present through interaction and outreach across generations; a physical 

space that embodies the vision and mission of the Corridor.” The physical space, combined with the 

knowledge and ideas of the community, would instill pride, understanding, and awareness; sustain 

and preserve language and cultural assets; and serve as a vehicle to tell the Gullah Geechee story to 

the American people and the world.

The criteria for site selection, the management entity, and facility construction for Coastal Heritage 

Centers are included in table 21. 

POTENTIAL PARTNERS AND RELATED PLANS 

Given that the Corridor spans four states along the Atlantic coast, there are numerous partnership 

opportunities with a diverse group of federal, state, county, and local agencies, as well as with Native 

American tribes and nonprofit organizations. Appendix K highlights potential partners and related 

plans. The Commission has considered many planning documents and has consulted with many 

potential partners throughout the planning process. Due to the vast number of potential partners 

and planning documents related to areas within the Corridor, not all are included in appendix K. 
TABLE 20. IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

EDUCATION: Increasing Understanding and Awareness of Gullah Geechee People, Culture, and History 

Initial Actions 

Through 2013 

Mid-term Actions

2014–2017 

1. Promote knowledge and 

awareness of Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

 Begin developing partnerships with post-secondary institutions to provide 

programs related to Gullah Geechee culture. 

 Work with partners to establish “Cultu

promote/share Gullah Geechee history, traditions. 

 Inventory existing K-12 curriculum, by s

Geechee history, culture, people, tradit

 Work with partners to develop a “teac

program. 

 Develop curriculum guides for use in K- Distribute curriculum guides (first phase 

be to teachers that have participated in teachers” program). 

 Develop a Gullah Geechee Corridor Fie Develop scholarship program guideline Work with partners to develop a Cultu

focused on arts, crafts, language, etc. (program would focus on transgeneratiomeans of preservation). 

 Work with partners to develop interact

(arts, crafts, language, music, dance, et

 Continue working with partners to inst

classes on Gullah Geechee history and 

2. Communicate Gullah Geechee 

history, culture, and heritage through interpretation within the Gullah Geechee community and throughout the Corridor. 

 Begin the process of reaching out to potential partners and partner sites by 

distributing information about how to formalize a relationship with the Corridor (see appendix E). 

 Continue to reach out to potential part

and formalize relationships. 

 Work with partners and partner sites to 

interpretation of Corridor’s themes and 

the Corridor. 

 Use diverse media to share primary inte Work with partners to develop, promot

interpretive exhibits (fixed or traveling). 

 Work with key partners to develop “Ga

such as museums or visitor centers that regional audience and have high visitatinterpretation and understanding of Guculture, and people. 

3. Encourage research and other 

activities designed to expand the body of knowledge on the culture and history of Gullah Geechee people. 

 Inventory locations where Gullah Geechee research is currently performed.  Identify community-based research opportunities. 

 Review historical concepts of Gullah Geechee culture to more clearly articulate its 

historical evolution and contemporary manifestations. 

 Establish internship and fellowship path

Research Program. 

 Develop Gullah Geechee post-seconda Raise money to fund interns and fellow Work with partners to institute commu

efforts in the Corridor. 

4. Develop and enhance links, 

associations, and connectivity between Gullah Geechee communities, resources, themes, and cultural traditions. 

 Distribute requests for proposals to develop a signage plan.  Identify existing facilities that could pot

Coastal Heritage Center. 

 Develop a Coastal Heritage Center Plan 

scope, interpretation needs, equipmentcommunity outreach strategy, etc. 

 Develop agreements with partners to in

Heritage Centers. 

 Award contract and complete signage  Work with partners to begin erecting s

locations. 

 Partner with state and local transportat

explore obtaining scenic byway designa

TABLE 20. IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Supporting Heritage-related Businesses and Promoting the Preservation of the Land and Natural Resources Needed to Sustain the Culture 

Initial Actions

Through 2013 

Mid-

2

1. Promote Gullah Geechee community-supported industries and 

businesses that have positive consequences for Gullah Geechee culture. 

 Identify all relevant festivals and list them on the Corridor Web 

site. 

 Begin process of reaching out to potential partners and partner 

sites by distributing information about how to formalize a relationship with the Corridor (see appendix E). 

 Consult with appropriate partners in each state about a Gullah 

Geechee heritage tax credit program for culturally appropriate businesses/industries. 

 Compile and distrib

supported agricultumarkets, best practiand dining establish

 Continue to reach o

relationships. 

 Consult with approp

creation of heritage 

 Work with partners 

tax credit program i

2. Promote and assist Gullah Geechee communities in preserving 

Gullah Geechee land and waterways through economic development. 

 Consult with partners on appropriate methods to retain property 

ownership. 

 Work with partners to develop training curriculum about 

property ownership and retention (especially heirs’ property). 

 Work with partners to hold listening sessions in conjunction with 

elected officials. 

 Advocate for the pro

resources for cultura

 Work with partners 

retaining access to i

 Develop educationa

of the impact of dev

 Work with partners 

about property own

 Promote traditional 

waterways through 

3. Advocate for rapid cleanup of contaminated sites in Gullah 

Geechee communities. 

 Identify contaminated sites in the Corridor.  Begin development of an “action alert” tool to distribute 

information about environmental issues impacting Gullah Geechee people and communities. 

 Implement and cont

action alert tool. 

 Consult with partne

contamination issuesolutions. 

TABLE 20. IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

DOCUMENTATION AND PRESERVATION: Preserving Gullah Geechee Resources, Primarily Through Documentation 

Initial Actions

Through 2013 

Mid-term 

2014–2

1. Document tangible and intangible Gullah Geechee resources 

to provide a foundation for the preservation of assets, educational opportunities, and increased heritage tourism. 

 Continue to expand the resource inventory geodatabase 

developed during early implementation. 

 Develop evaluation criteria to assist in identifying Gullah 

Geechee properties, sites, facilities, and programs. 

 Establish a working group to document suggested 

revisions to national register/national landmark criteria to facilitate protection of Gullah Geechee resources. 

 Consult with partners to establish an oral history program. 

 Develop a draft report tha

revisions to national registand rationale for the sugg

 Distribute draft report to a Finalize report and distribu

and National Trust for His

 Continue to expand the re

developed during early im

 Implement an oral history 

recording, and archiving o

 Develop and distribute “M

Geechee Resources” list . 

2. Preserve tangible and intangible resources for the benefit of 

current and future generations. 

 Consult with partners on logistical requirements to establish 

an online archive. 

 Develop an online digital 

conjunction with Corridor links to existing digital rep

 Develop one or more phys

Implementation Framework 

137 

TABLE 21. COASTAL HERITAGE CENTERS GENERAL DECISION CRITERIA

Criteria for Site Selection, The Management Entity, and Facility Construction 

Site Selection Criteria: 

The following criteria would guide the Commission in choosing the most appropriate locations for Coastal Heritage 

Centers. 

 The center(s) must be within the Corridor. 

 The center(s) location(s) must have a strong connection to Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

– Factors to consider in determining a strong connection to the history and culture include, but are not limited to: 

 the historic presence of Gullah Geechee people in the area 

 reliable documentary evidence of rice production 

 discernible evidence of the spoken Gullah Geechee language 

 evidence of historic connection to Gullah Geechee culture 

 family and personal narratives supporting the connection to Gullah Geechee history and culture 

 comments and testimony from public meetings supporting the connection to Gullah Geechee history and 

culture 

 aspects of Gullah Geechee culture are taught, practiced, and celebrated on a regular basis 

 Land and structures utilized would be publicly owned, donated, or purchased from a willing seller. 

– Preference would be given to existing buildings. 

– Joint use facilities would be encouraged. 

– Preference would be given to sustainable buildings, landscapes, and processes that have a minimal impact on 

the environment. 

 Nearby Gullah Geechee communities would be supportive of a center in their area. 

 Local/state governmental entities would be supportive of a center in the identified area. 

 The center(s) would have ample space for learning about and experiencing Gullah Geechee culture. 

 Preference would be given to locations outside major metropolitan areas. 

 Preference would be given to sites able to interpret, present, and share the culture. 

 The center(s) would be geographically spaced to allow visitation, access, and exposure of the broadest geographical 

range within the Corridor boundary. 

 The center(s) would have access to major highways and/or transportation hub(s) with sufficient volume to ensure the 

center(s) are easily accessible and fully utilized. 

Management Entity Criteria: 

The following criteria must be met by the management entity of the facility(ies) selected to be Coastal Heritage Center(s): 

 Demonstration of the ability to contribute to the vision, mission, and goals of the Corridor, as identified in the 

management plan. 

 Demonstration of a commitment to the longevity and sustainability of Gullah Geechee culture. 

 Demonstration of the technical capacity to appropriately interpret all of the themes identified in the interpretation 

framework and provide for cultural experiences. 

 Willingness to engage and involve the local Gullah Geechee community in Coastal Heritage Center programs. 

 Demonstration of compliance with federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines. 

 Demonstration of a high-quality, strategic plan to assist the Commission in attracting residents and visitors interested 

in Gullah Geechee history, culture, stories, and resources to the center(s). 

 Willingness to sign a memorandum of agreement (or similar agreement) to promote the Corridor, in partnership with 

the Commission, as well as to: 

— utilize the Corridor logo and other marketing materials produced by the Commission or partner 

organizations/agencies/entities 

— distribute interpretive and/or promotional materials 

 Willingness to place and maintain visible Corridor-specific signage on or near the facility that is easily viewable by 

passersby and those entering the Coastal Heritage Center. 

 Willingness to assist the Commission in evaluating the effectiveness of interpretation and interpretive materials used 

or distributed at the facility (i.e., development and distribution of visitor surveys, etc.) on a limited basis, on the 

request of the Commission. 

 Demonstrate proof of financial viability. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

138 

TABLE 21. COASTAL HERITAGE CENTERS GENERAL DECISION CRITERIA

Criteria for Site Selection, The Management Entity, and Facility Construction 

 Willingness and ability to provide documentation of continuous visitor services and hours of operation (must be or 

agree to be open to the public more than 1,560 scheduled hours per year (approx. 30 hours/week), operating 

budget, and safety record over the past three years. 

 Proof of liability insurance ($1,000,000 per occurrence) or letter stating self-insured. 

Facility Construction Criteria: 

The Commission’s preference is to use existing structures within the Corridor. New construction would only be 

considered as a last resort, if partnership options do not materialize in a viable manner. If new construction becomes 

necessary, appropriate legal compliance would be completed. New construction considerations include the following: 

 The building design must meet professionally accepted, high-quality design standards, including green building 

practices and processes. 

 Appropriate legal compliance (National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, etc.) must be 

followed. 

 Land utilized must be publicly owned, donated, or purchased from a willing seller. 

 The local Gullah Geechee community must be engaged in the conceptual and physical design and layout of the 

Center. 
139 

FUNDING AND EARLY IMPLEMENTATION 

PAST FUNDING 

The Commission’s budget since inception is based on receipts from the National Park Service NHA 

program and in-kind contributions. Initial allocations were to provide technical assistance to 

establish the Commission. Actual funding received from the NHA program has been approximately 

$150,000 per year. 

The Commission used allocations in fiscal year 2008 before beginning the planning process. The 

National Park Service provided technical assistance regarding the components of a successful 

national heritage area management plan and legal compliance needs. Allocations from fiscal year 

2009 to 2011 were used to develop the management plan in accordance with the designating law, 

National Environmental Policy Act, and other relevant laws and policies. 

TABLE 22. PAST CORRIDOR FUNDING

Funding Years 

Income 2008 2009 2010 2011 

National Heritage Area Program Funds $148,000 $148,000 $150,000 $147,000 

Public Support $0 $0 $100 $0 

Other (previous year balance) $0 $51,542 $29,976 $6,660 

Totals: $148,000 $199,542 $180,076 $153,660 

Expenditures

Management Planning $45,000 $90,000 $115,000 $115,000 

Quarterly Business Meetings, Public Meetings, Other 

Meetings/Conferences $48,075 $57,578 $41,666 $26,956 

Administration and Operations (Alliance of National Heritage 

Area dues, admin assistance, office supplies, postage, bank 

charges, legal fees, etc.) $3,383 $21,988 $16,750 $11,704 

Others (outstanding accounts payable) $0 $0 $0 $0 

Totals: $96,458 $169,566 $173,416 $153,660 

Balance $51,542 $29,976 $6,660 $0 

*all figures rounded to the nearest dollar 

EARLY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 

During the development of the management plan, the Commission accomplished a number of early 

implementation actions. These actions were based on best practices for heritage areas developed by 

the Alliance for National Heritage Areas and to address specific issues that arose during the planning 

process. See appendix F for more information. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

140 

2009 

McLeod Plantation, James Island, South Carolina. One of the key early implementation actions 

of the Commission was to formally express the need for McLeod Plantation and the associated slave 

cabins on James Island to be preserved. The College of Charleston was considering purchasing the 

plantation for academic and recreational activities in 2009–2010, but through the efforts of the 

Commission and others, the College of Charleston withdrew its offer. The Commission wrote a 

letter to the president of the college, met personally with college officials, and issued a statement that 

said McLeod should be preserved, protected, and interpreted because of its importance to the 

history and culture of Gullah Geechee people. 

The Commission collaborated with 

the college, the Friends of McLeod 

Plantation, Historic Charleston 

Foundation, and others to preserve 

this piece of history. In the spring 

of 2010, the Charleston County 

Park and Recreation Commission 

finalized a proposal to acquire 

McLeod Plantation from the 20-

year owner, Historic Charleston 

Foundation. In late February 2011, 

the Charleston County Park and 

Recreation Commission acquired 

the historic site. See appendix F to 

view the letter to the president of 

the College of Charleston and the 

Commission’s position statement 

about this issue. 

Resource Inventory GIS Database. The Commission was the recipient of special funding from the 

NPS Heritage Documentation Program, Cultural Resource GIS Facility (CRGIS). CRGIS staff 

worked with the Commission to develop a GIS database to document known resources related to 

Gullah Geechee culture. The CRGIS staff used inventory lists developed by the Commission (in part 

based on comments from public meetings), the National Register of Historic Places, the Geographic 

Names Inventory System and other sources to verify the items on the inventory, the level of 

confidence in the geographic information, and the strength of the connection to Gullah Geechee 

culture. This database would eventually be used to share nonsensitive place data on maps and on the 

Corridor’s Web site. The initial database was completed in the fall of 2010, yet can be easily updated 

throughout implementation as more information is gathered and more research is completed. 

During implementation of this plan, the Commission could again partner with the CRGIS to enhance 

the initial database. 

2010 

International Heritage Development Conference. From June 27 to July 1, the Commission cosponsored the 2010 International Heritage Development Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, 

with the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor and Alliance of National Heritage Areas. This 

biennial conference is put on by the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and provides a venue for 

MCLEOD PLANTATION

JAMES ISLAND, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 
Funding and Early Implementation 

141 

education and information sharing about best practices and innovations related to heritage 

preservation and development. 

 The Commission co-sponsored “A Dialogue on Diversity” at the conference. 

 The Commission sponsored the Gullah Geechee Culture & Traditions Pre-Conference 

Tour. The tour provided conference attendees a “taste of our history” and served to educate 

and raise awareness of Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

2011 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Web Site. The Commission partnered with The Art 

Institute of Atlanta to develop a comprehensive, interactive Web site that serves as the virtual portal 

to the Corridor. The Web site can be accessed online at www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org. 

Interstate 526 Resolution. At its quarterly business meeting (August 19, 2011), the Commission 

unanimously passed a resolution expressing its opposition to the proposed extension of South 

Carolina Interstate (I) 526. The Commission is opposed to the proposed extension because it would 

devastate the already threatened Gullah Geechee culture and would be inconsistent with the 

management plan’s emphasis on protecting and preserving Gullah Geechee culture. The letter sent 

to the Charleston County Council chairman and the resolution is included in appendix F. 

Francis Marion National Forest Land Protection. The Commission sent a letter to the supervisor 

of the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests in support of their request for Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies in fiscal year (FY) 2013 to protect portions of Fairlawn Plantation. 

Fairlawn Plantation is an important Gullah Geechee resource. The site includes the original 

plantation house site and outbuildings, slave settlements, a rice mill, and canal. The letter is included 

in appendix F.

South Carolina Longleaf Landscape, Longleaf Focal Area. The Commission sent a letter to 

Secretary Ken Salazar (Department of the Interior) and Secretary Tom Vilsack (Department of 

Agriculture) in support of the Francis Marion National Forest and Cape Romain National Wildlife 

Refuge in their request for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies in FY 2013 to support the 

Longleaf Pine restoration efforts and America’s Great Outdoors. The letter is included in 

appendix F.

Lorenzo Dow Turner Exhibit. The Commission, along with the College of Charleston’s Avery 

Research Center for African American History and Culture, the City of Charleston’s International 

African American Museum, and the National Park Service partnered to bring the Word, Shout, Song: 

Lorenzo Dow Turner Connecting Communities through Language exhibit to the Avery Research 

Center in January 2012. Turner’s work examined connections between Gullah Geechee and other 

cultures of the African diaspora. 

The Commission assisted in bringing the exhibit to the Corridor to bring to life the story of Dr. 

Lorenzo Dow Turner, a pioneer in the study of Gullah Geechee language and culture. This early 

implementation effort on the part of the Commission is directly aligned with two of the Corridor’s 

management pillars—Education and Documentation and Preservation. This first visit of a 

Smithsonian Institution exhibit to the Corridor serves as a testament to Turner’s legacy. The exhibit 

highlights the significance of Gullah Geechee culture to the American experience and underscores 

the importance of the establishment of the Corridor in 2006. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

142 

Support for the Harris Neck Land Trust Proposal. In 1942, the U.S. government condemned 

lands in the Harris Neck community in McIntosh County, Georgia, for strategic military defense 

purposes, which resulted in the construction of the Harris Neck Army Airfield. As a result, 

approximately 75 families living on the property were dislocated from their homes, land, and access 

to sacred sites for traditional spiritual practices. Although the families had expected to return to their 

land after the war, the War Assets Administration (the federal agency that dealt with surplus 

property after World War II) gave the property to McIntosh County in 1947 for guardianship and 

use as a municipal airport. As a result of county mismanagement, the land was later transferred to the 

Federal Aviation Administration. Then on May 25, 1962, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife (forerunner of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) acquired the property and established the 

area as a migratory bird refuge—the Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge. 

In December 2011, the Commission sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 

Natural Resources in support of the Harris Neck Land Trust’s recent proposal (see appendix F). 

Under the proposal, the Harris Neck Land Trust (the Trust) would acquire and exclusively own the 

2,687 acres, but would partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would maintain its presence on Harris Neck and continue certain activities such as 

monitoring water levels in the ponds and ensuring wildlife and habitat protection. Throughout 

development of the proposal and the Trust’s Community Development Plan the Trust has reached 

out to a large number of individuals, organizations, government agencies, businesses, and 

universities. Implementation of the Community Development Plan for Harris Neck would be 

completed with the assistance of the Trust’s partners, including the McIntosh County 

Commissioners. 

The Commission supports this proposal because it would preserve this area of importance to Gullah 

Geechee people, an area that embodies critical cultural and environmental assets. It would ensure 

that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to play a critical role, yet would allow for each 

of the surviving families to return to their land. In addition, the Community Development Plan has 

outlined a future development approach that would minimize the community’s environmental 

impact and simultaneously contribute to the “green” commercial sector and generate tax revenue. 

ESTIMATED START-UP COSTS 

The Commission recognizes the need to plan operating costs for the first five years after this plan is 

approved. The amount of money required in 2013 and 2014 would truly be start-up costs, but from 

2015 to 2017, these costs represent the baseline operational costs that the Commission would build 

on to ensure effective implementation of this plan. The estimated costs include direct operational 

costs such as staff (salaries and benefits), office space, and furnishings. These costs also address 

publicity needs—Web site maintenance, marketing, and other public outreach costs. Initial legal fees 

are estimated as well. 

The low end of the Commission’s estimated start-up cost range in 2013 is expected to be about 

$92,000. The projected costs in 2014 are expected to be higher, primarily because of the expectation 

that one staff member would be hired in 2014 to assist the executive director and the need for more 

office space to accommodate the new staff member. Although some of these costs may be covered by 

future NHA program funds received, the Commission would use funds raised to leverage the basic, 

foundational outlays for staff, office space, and public outreach to begin to implement more specific 

efforts. 
Funding and Early Implementation 

143 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 

The estimated administrative, nonprogrammatic expenses in table 23 do not reflect the total amount 

of funding that would be required to successfully implement the management plan and ensure 

financial sustainability and self-sufficiency. Rather, table 23 is a conservative figure that only 

incorporates estimated start-up and administrative costs. 

The implementation matrix (see table 20) serves as a blueprint for implementation. It outlines the 

objectives, strategies, and phasing for implementation efforts related to each of the three pillars. 

Specific cost estimates for items in table 23 and future plans, studies, and research needs are not 

included in this document. The specific cost of individual implementation efforts would be 

determined in the future, in conjunction with partners. 

TABLE 23. ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE, NONPROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES

Expense 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Executive Director 

Salary/Benefits 

$50,000 to 

$85,000 

$55,000 to 

$85,000 

$55,000 to 

$90,000 

$55,000 to 

$90,000 

$60,000 to 

95,000 

Staff (1) $ 0 $30,000 to 

$50,000 

$30,000 to 

$50,000 

$30,000 to 

$50,000 

$30,000 to 

$55,000 

Office Space $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 

Web site Enhancements and 

Maintenance 

$2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 

Marketing $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

Public Outreach $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

Graphic Identity $10,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 

Legal Fees $10,000 $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 

TOTAL $92,000‒

$127,000 

$130,000‒

$180,000 

$126,000‒

$181,000 

$126,000‒

$181,000 

$131,000‒

$191,000 

________________________________________________ 

2013 Office Space = donated, but includes cost of furniture, computer, phones, etc. 

2014 Office Space = based on 1,000 square feet 

Web site ‒ maintained by staff 

Marketing/Public Outreach ‒ could include small levels of financial assistance for one or more culturally appropriate events, etc. 

Legal Fees ‒ assumes a combination of paid and pro bono legal work 

Staff ‒ one staff member from 2014 to 2017 

Once the management plan has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission 

would continue to be eligible for NHA program funds. These funds are intended to be seed money 

that would be leveraged during implementation. 

The amount of overall NHA program funding is subject to congressional appropriations and NHA 

program distribution formulas. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

144 

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING 

In addition to any funds received through the NHA program, the Commission would seek sources of 

funding from a variety of entities, including government agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

foundations, private businesses, and individuals to not only match the NHA program funds, but to 

effectively implement the strategies and actions in this plan and other opportunities that arise. 

The potential universe of funding sources is too large to include here. It is important to note that “inkind” services can be documented and used to satisfy the federal matching requirement. 

Therefore, table 21 is included to showcase a sample of potential funding sources that the 

Commission or partners could seek to obtain. The Commission may or may not be the primary 

applicant on grants, they may only serve in a technical advisory role. 

Some of the potential funding sources listed in table 24 are only available to individual artists, 

fellows, or property owners; the Commission would work with partners and individuals, to the 

extent possible, to obtain funding that would meet the mission and goals of the Corridor. Not all of 

the potential funding sources included here are distributed on an annual basis. The due date may be 

for the most recent, or known, application deadline as of the printing of this document. 
145 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

Federal PTT Grants Program National Park Service: 

National Center for Preservation Technology & Training (NCPTT) 

September 1 to October 15 

$25,000 The PTT Grants Program funds projects that 

develop new technologies or adapt existing technologies to preserve cultural resources. NCPTT does not fund bricks and mortar projects or straight-forward documentation projects using well-established methods. 

h

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) 

National Park Service August 1 (assistance 

the following fiscal year) 

Negotiable The mission of the RTCA is to assist communityled natural resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation initiatives. RTCA staff provides guidance to communities so they can conserve waterways, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. RTCA does not provide financial assistance to support project implementation. 

h/

Environmental Justice Small Grant Program 

Environmental Protection Agency 

January to March Negotiable The purpose of the Environmental Justice Small 

Grants Program is to support and empower communities that are working on local solutions to local environmental and/or public health issues. 

hc

The Gerald E. & Corinne L. Fund Award 

American Folklife Center Library of Congress 

Applications accepted annually 

$2,000 The purpose of the fund is to increase awareness 

of the ethnographic collections at the Library of Congress and to make the collections of primary ethnographic materials housed anywhere at the library available to the needs and uses of those in the private sector. Awards may be made either to individuals or to organizations in support of specific projects 

h

The Henry Reed Fund American Folklife 

Center Library of Congress 

Applications accepted annually; Henry Reed Fund awarded every other year 

$2,000 The Henry Reed Fund Award subsidizes folklorists 

programs and workshops. The purpose of the fund is to provide support for activities directly involving folk artists, especially when the activities reflect, draw upon, or strengthen the collections of the American Folklife Center. 

h
146 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

North Carolina Federal Historic Preservation Grants 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 

November through end of January 

Unknown Most federal historic preservation grants have 

been made to local governments that are designated as Certified Local Governments by the National Park Service and to organizations, for architectural and archeological surveys, national register nominations, and preservation planning. 

h

Tax Credits for Historic Preservation 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office: Restoration Services Branch 

 Up to 40% tax 

credit against project costs 

Federal income tax incentives for the rehabilitation of historic structures of 20% credit for the qualifying rehabilitation of income-producing historic properties, combined with 20% credit from the State of North Carolina for those taxpayers who receive the federal credit. In addition, the state provides a 30% credit for the rehabilitation of nonincome-producing historic properties, including private residences. 

h

Artist Fellowships North Carolina 

Arts Council 

November $10,000 The program operates on a two-year cycle; 

choreographers and visual, craft, and film/video artists are eligible one year, and songwriters, composers and writers are eligible the next. Fellowships support the creative development of North Carolina artists and the creation of new work. Fellowship funds may not be used to support academic research or formal study toward an academic or professional degree. 

w
147 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

South Carolina Tourism Advertising Grant 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation Tourism 

Mid-April $6,000 for a 

festival or event; $40,000 for an attraction; $90,000 for a destination 

The Tourism Advertising Grant (TAG) is a reimbursable, matching funds grant program whose mission is to expand the economic benefits of tourism across the state by providing competitive, matching grant funds to qualified tourism marketing partners for direct tourism advertising expenditures. TAG offers three categories in which qualified partners may apply for grant funding: festivals and events, attractions, and destinations. 

hp

Destination-specific Tourism Marketing Grant Program 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation Tourism 

July to August Minimum of 

$250,000 

The Destination-specific Tourism Marketing Grant Program is a matching funds grant for marketing programming. 

hp

Federal Historic Preservation Grants; Technical Assistance 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History: State Historic Preservation Office 

February $30,000 The office administers historic preservation grants 

and offers assistance in meeting standards for eligibility for federal, state, and local tax incentives for historic preservation. Historic preservation grants are available for the following types of projects: survey and planning, planning for historic districts and multiple properties, preservation education, planning for individual historic properties, and stabilization projects. 

ht

Federal and State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History: State Historic Preservation Office 

 20% federal 

tax credit, 10% state tax credit, 10% federal tax credit 

20% Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, 10% State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. Owners of historic buildings in South Carolina who meet the requirements for the 20% Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit may also qualify for a state income tax credit. Taxpayers do not have to go through a separate SHPO application process. Successfully completing the federal application process qualifies them for the state credit. There is also a 10% federal tax credit for nonhistoric building preservation for buildings put into service before 1936. 

hn
148 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

State Tax Credit 25% of Rehabilitation Expenses 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History: State Historic Preservation Office 

 25% state 

income tax credit 

State income tax credit equal to 25% of allowable historic building rehabilitation expenses.

h

Local Property Tax Abatement 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History: State Historic Preservation Office 

 Local property tax abatement. The property is 

assessed on the pre-rehabilitation fair market value for the length of the special assessment (up to 20 years, length set by the local government). 

h

Folk Life & Traditional Arts Grant 

South Carolina Arts Commission 

March 15 $6,000 The Folklife & Traditional Arts grant supports 

nonprofit organizations that seek to promote and preserve the traditional arts practiced across the state. Priority for funding is given to projects that provide recognition and support for South Carolina's traditional art forms and their practitioners. 

ht

Georgia State and Federal Historic Preservation Grants; State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation; Federal Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Historic Preservation Division 

 25% federal 

tax credit, 25% state income tax credit, 8-year property tax freeze 

State and federal tax incentives are available to private property owners to encourage the adaptive use of historic buildings and the revitalization of historic neighborhoods and commercial areas. 

hg

Georgia Heritage Grant Program 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Historic Preservation Division 

Unknown Unknown Eligible projects include both development and 

predevelopment projects. Development projects may include bricks and mortar activities, such as roof, window and foundation repair, or brick repointing. Predevelopment projects may include construction documents, feasibility studies, historic structure reports, or preservation plans. 

hdT
149 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

Historic Preservation Fund Grant 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Historic Preservation Division 

February $15,000 The Historic Preservation Division receives funds 

annually from the National Park Service to carry out a statewide historic preservation program in participation with state and local governments, organizations, and the citizens of Georgia. Each year, 10% of that federal allocation is given out in the form of the grants to Georgia's Certified Local Governments. 

hd

Florida Historic Preservation: Special Category Grants 

Florida Department of State: Division of Historical Resources 

July to August $350,000 The purpose of special category grant funding is 

to assist major site-specific archeological excavations, the major restoration or rehabilitation of historic buildings or structures, and major museum exhibits involving the development and presentation of information on the history of Florida. 

ho

Historic Preservation: Small Matching Grants 

Florida Department of State: Division of Historical Resources 

October through December 15 

$50,000 The purpose of small matching grants is to assist 

in the identification, excavation, protection, and rehabilitation of historic and archeological sites in Florida; to provide public information about these important resources; and to encourage historic preservation in smaller cities through the Florida Main Street program. 

ho

Individual Artist Fellowship 

Florida Department of State: Division of Cultural Affairs 

 June $5,000 The Individual Artist Fellowship Program 

recognizes the creation of new artworks by individuals of exceptional talent and demonstrated ability. Fellowship awards support the general artistic and career advancement of the individual artist. Discipline categories include choreography, interdisciplinary, literature, media arts, music composition, theater, and visual arts. 

hao
150 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

Nonprofit and Other America's Historical and Cultural Organizations: Implementation Grants Program 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

January 12 and August 17, depending on project start date 

 $400,000 The America’s Historical and Cultural 

Organizations: Implementation Grants program support projects in the humanities that explore stories, ideas, and beliefs in order to deepen our understanding of our lives and our world. The Division of Public Programs supports the development of humanities content and interactivity that excite, inform, and stir thoughtful reflection upon culture, identity, and history in creative and new ways. 

hA

Documenting Endangered Languages Grant Program 

National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation 

September 15 Unknown This program seeks to develop and advance 

knowledge concerning endangered human languages. Awards support fieldwork and other activities relevant to recording, documenting, and archiving endangered languages, including the preparation of lexicons, grammars, text samples, and databases. 

he

Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections Grant Program 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

 December $50,000 for 

planning $350,000 for implementing 

Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections helps cultural institutions meet the complex challenge of preserving large and diverse holdings of humanities materials for future generations by supporting preventive conservation measures that mitigate deterioration and prolong the useful life of collections. 

hC

Digital Humanities Start-up Grants 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

September $25,000 for 

Level I; $50,000 for Level II 

This program is designed to encourage innovations in the digital humanities. By awarding relatively small grants to support the planning stages, National Endowment of the Humanities aims to encourage the development of innovative projects that promise to benefit the humanities. 

hi
151 

TABLE 24. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Grant Program or 

Technical Assistance 

Agency or 

Organization 

Application Period 

and/or Due Date Max Amount Description 

National Trust Preservation Fund 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Unknown $5,000 National Trust Preservation Funds provide two 

types of assistance to nonprofit organizations and public agencies: (1) matching grants for preservation planning and educational efforts, and (2) intervention funds for preservation emergencies. Matching grant funds may be used to obtain professional expertise in areas such as architecture, archeology, engineering, preservation planning, land-use planning, fund raising, organizational development and law as well as to provide preservation education activities to educate the public. 

hu

Johanna Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Unknown $10,000 The fund aims to save historic environments in 

order to foster an appreciation of our nation’s diverse cultural heritage and to preserve and revitalize the livability of the nation’s communities.

hud

Partnership-inScholarship Grants for African American Historic Places 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

April Negotiable The program is designed to improve public access 

to African American historical and cultural resources at historic places, strengthening teaching and education at colleges and universities through historic places, and promote research related to African American history and culture. 

huP

Museum Grants for African American History and Culture 

Institute for Museum and Library Services 

January 17 $150,000 The program is intended to enhance institutional 

capacity and sustainability through professional training, technical assistance, and other tools. Eligible applicants include museums whose primary purpose is African American life, art, history, and/or culture. 

hp
152 

ONGOING AND FUTURE ACTIONS 

ONGOING PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT 

The Commission is committed to continuing to engage with and learn from the public throughout 

implementation of the management plan. The Commission understands that true implementation of 

this plan requires broad engagement of various segments of the public with divergent interests. The 

Commission cannot implement this plan on its own and urges community engagement outside of 

meetings or activities organized by the Commission, which at a basic level requires neighbors to talk 

to neighbors and friends to talk to friends about the plan and ways to assist in its implementation. 

Public engagement formally began with the distribution of a newsletter and public meetings across 

the Corridor in 2009. Throughout the planning process, the public was kept apprised of Corridor 

developments, planning-related or otherwise, at quarterly public business meetings, through press 

releases, radio and television interviews, and with the distribution of Newsletter 2. 

A number of ways in which the Commission intends to continue to rely on and engage the public in 

the short-, mid-, and long-term are included here. Actual implementation and continued 

involvement of and interaction with members of the public and partners would present additional 

opportunities that are unforeseen at this time. The Commission intends to remain flexible and 

capitalize on new ideas and ways to effectively reach out to and engage the public. This topic could 

be revisited during the mid-term phase of implementation to develop a comprehensive community 

outreach strategy based on successes and opportunities identified during the initial actions phase. 

Initial Actions 

The Commission would continue 

to hold quarterly business 

meetings, with an opportunity for 

public comment at each meeting. 

One meeting would be held in 

each state annually; meeting 

dates, locations, and times would 

be posted on the Web site at 

www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org 

in advance of meetings. Initially, 

the Commission would use these 

meetings as an opportunity to 

discuss and explain the management plan and answer questions about the plan. 

The Commission could also use initial public meetings to gather additional information from the 

public to facilitate implementation. Such topics could include: (a) specific and immediate threats to 

Gullah Geechee resources, which would assist in developing the “Most Endangered Gullah Geechee 

Resources List,” (b) shovel-ready projects that could use the support of partners, which would assist 

in prioritizing scarce resources, (c) identify volunteers, (d) identify community-based research 

opportunities, and (e) other related topics such as upcoming festivals, events, and learning 

opportunities. In the mid- and long-term, business meetings and/or other Commission meetings 

could also be used to discuss or focus on these and other topics. 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL, FEBRUARY 2009 
Ongoing and Future Actions 

153 

The Commission would hold public outreach events and activities in addition to the Commission’s 

quarterly business meetings. Events and activities would be arranged and/or promoted to increase 

understanding and interest in the Corridor. 

The existing Corridor Web site (www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org) would continue to be enhanced 

throughout implementation. Enhancements could include new and more effective means of 

communicating with and engaging the public, including new social networking tools and 

applications. In the short term, the Commission would continue to upload content developed during 

the planning process or from events. 

Mid-term Actions 

In the mid-term, the Commission would develop a comprehensive public outreach strategy to 

include meetings, events, Web site, and other media publications. During this time period the 

Commission would continue to enhance the Corridor Web site. 

The Web site would continue to provide content about Gullah Geechee history and culture as part of 

the ongoing enhancement of online material associated with the primary interpretive themes. 

Interactive engagement would be possible on the Web site once the story board is finalized. The 

story board would allow people to post their story or stories of their relatives to the Web site; would 

serve as a digital repository for such stories; and would allow for quick and easy dissemination to a 

wider audience—those that visit the story board. The Web site would also eventually include a 

calendar of events and have a built in action alert tool to notify people of important issues and/or 

meetings, etc., in their neighborhood or town. The Web site would have photos, videos, and maps 

that would provide additional means by which the Commission can engage and interact with the 

public. 

Another means of engaging the public would be through the development of local advisory 

committees, described earlier in chapter 3. The local advisory committees would begin to be 

developed during the initial actions phase. They would serve as another vehicle for the public to 

engage with the Corridor and feed information, ideas, concerns, and suggestions to the Commission. 

Long-term Actions 

Public outreach and engagement would remain a long-term focus of the Commission. The 

Commission would continue to refine and enhance the media outreach strategy, adjusting the 

strategy based on both needs and results. Innovative methods of community outreach and 

engagement would continue to be developed within and outside the corridor boundary. The Web 

site would continue to evolve; enhancements would be ongoing, based on need. 

Upon the potential establishment of one or more Coastal Heritage Centers, these centers would be 

expected to provide space and opportunities for community meetings and story-telling sessions, 

among many other community-related opportunities. They would serve as a community gathering 

space. 

The possible universe of engagement and outreach strategies during implementation of this plan has 

not been included here. In order to meet the goals and work toward realizing the vision and mission, 

the Commission would continue to strive to provide as many opportunities for as many people as 

possible to assist in implementing this plan. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

154 

FUTURE PLANS, STUDIES, AND RESEARCH 

One of the three pillars of Corridor management is documentation and preservation of both tangible 

and intangible resources. The list of potential future plans, studies, and research to document and 

preserve resources is long. The following list is not intended to be comprehensive, but is included to 

highlight the fact that much more work is needed and to provide guidance to all potential partners 

about known needs. 

Ethnographic Research 

 Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

 Cultural Affiliation Study 

 Critical Social Research 

 Socioeconomic Conditions and Trends 

 Ethnographic Landscape Study and Ethnographic Resource Inventory 

 Traditional Use Study (tangible and intangible) 

 Genealogical Research 

Historical Research 

 Oral Histories 

 Historical Events and People 

 Historical Process 

 Cross-Sectional Comparative Research 

 Cultural Landscape Reports 

 Other Historical Research 

 Archeological Research 

 Prehistoric Archeology 

 Archeological Surveys 

 Early Settlement 

 Other Archeological Research 

Linguistic Research 

 Phonological Research 

 Morphology 

 Syntax Research 

 Semantics, Pragmatics, and Sociolinguistics Research 
Ongoing and Future Actions 

155 

Heritage Tourism Research 

 Heritage Tourism Market Research 

 Cultural Heritage Travelers Research 

MONITORING PROGRESS 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The Commission would assess the management plan’s effectiveness on an ongoing basis and track its 

progress in meeting the goals and implementing the programs and actions in this plan. The 

Commission would use conventional planning, budgeting, and benchmarking tools to monitor 

progress toward achieving plan goals and long-term sustainability. The implementation plan allows 

for adjustments to be made along the way. These adjustments, along with any federally legislated 

modifications, would be called out in an annual work plan and in the annual report submitted to the 

NHA program coordinator in the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office. 

Annual Report 

The Commission would prepare an annual report that would describe and evaluate the progress 

toward achieving its implementation plan, and the overall effectiveness of the management plan’s 

strategies for 

 carrying out programs and projects that recognize, protect, and enhance important resource 

values within the Corridor 

 establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and programs within the Corridor 

 developing recreational and educational opportunities in the Corridor 

 increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the historical, cultural, natural, and 

scenic resources of the Corridor 

 protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings in the Corridor that are consistent with 

the primary interpretive themes 

The annual report may include a spotlight on success stories, such as completed projects, innovative 

programs, and key partnerships contributing to plan implementation. The annual report would be 

prepared in conjunction with the Commission’s recurring and nonrecurring federal appropriations 

requests, and would specifically address how its performance is affected by budget changes. Annual 

reports would be made available to the Secretary of the Interior and Congress upon request, and to 

the public on the Corridor’s Web site. 

Tracking Progress 

Tracking progress in meeting the Corridor’s goals and working to realize the vision and mission is 

extremely important to future success. The evaluation criteria in table 25 would be used to monitor 

and track success and make more informed decisions on an annual basis, which would be included in 

the annual work plan. In so doing, the Commission would be able to document success over time 

and adjust the annual work plan as needed to ensure the effective use of resources. By monitoring 

and tracking progress, the Commission would be able to remain flexible, able to adjust to changing 

partners and funding sources, and able to capitalize on opportunities as they arise. Tracking progress 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

156 

on an annual basis as part of the annual report would also provide documentation for evaluation of 

the success of the Commission. 

FIGURE 14. IMPLEMENTATION IS A FLEXIBLE, ADAPTABLE PROCESS

The Commission would monitor those supporting implementation efforts, such as designated 

partners or partner sites and the number of volunteers and volunteer hours. The effectiveness of 

outreach efforts such as the Web site (number of hits), media exposure, and progress toward the 

overall outreach strategy, as well as progress toward financial self-sufficiency, including 

contributions and ongoing funding would also be tracked and reported. Grants and other 

contributions from the Commission to support Corridor efforts would be accounted for. 

Regarding economic development, the Commission would report the number of states or 

communities with tax credit programs, and number of Gullah Geechee guidebooks distributed. Land 

retention training, partners, and related efforts would also be tracked. 

To demonstrate progress in the area of education and interpretation, the Commission would report 

items such as the number of partner sites interpreting one or more primary interpretive themes and 

the number of teachers, youth, and others participating in Corridor education opportunities. Other 

important items to track include the number of interns, researchers or fellows; interpretive exhibits 

supported by the Commission; community meetings and listening sessions held; scholarship funding 

distributed; research projects supported by the Commission; existing facilities serving as gateway 

sites; and the number of Coastal Heritage Centers established. 

Vision, Mission,

Goals, Purpose,

Primary Interpretive

Themes

Management

Approach

Implementation

Framework

Monitor and

Measure Progress

Adjust Annual Work

Plan Based On

Progress
Ongoing and Future Actions 

157 

Documentation and preservation efforts would be monitored, including updates to the resource 

inventory, the progress toward digital and physical repositories, the creation of a “Most Endangered 

Gullah Geechee Resources List” and a “Formerly on the Endangered Gullah Geechee Resources 

List,” along with how this list is being shared across the Corridor. These documents would be 

provided on the Corridor Web site. 

Evaluation 

While the Corridor designation is permanent, the enabling legislation only authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to provide assistance to the Corridor until October 2021. As this date approaches, the 

Commission or its successor would conduct an evaluation or sustainability study of its operations 

and work to date with an eye toward options for the future. 

This analysis would include a review of the accomplishments of the Commission and partners to 

date; an assessment of how effective federal funds invested in the heritage area have been leveraged; 

an evaluation of the local coordinating entity; and identification of further actions and commitments 

needed to fulfill the legislative intent. The evaluation would include the following assessments set 

forth in Public Law 110-229, May 8, 2008, Section 462, the NPS evaluation criteria for heritage areas 

in the Heritage Partnerships Program: 

 Progress of the local management entity (the Commission) in accomplishing the purposes of 

the authorizing legislation and in achieving the goals and objectives in the approved 

management plan. 

 Analysis of the impact of investments by federal, state, tribal, and local government and 

private entities. 

 Identification of critical components for heritage area sustainability. 

This information would be used to help determine the best option for continued operations after 

2021. 

Table 25 outlines the evaluation criteria for each implementation action. All strategies would be 

implemented in cooperation and collaboration with partners, and tracking would occur on an 

ongoing basis and documented as least annually. 
CHAPTER THREE: MANAGEMENT OF THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

158 

TABLE 25. TRACKING PROGRESS THROUGHOUT IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation Action Evaluation Criteria 

Develop a Corridor endowment that would eventually be 

self-sustaining  Annual interest earned 

Develop a volunteer program to leverage the work of paid 

staff  Number of volunteer hours per year 

Develop and enhance a comprehensive Corridor 

marketing/outreach strategy

 Number of Web site hits per month/year; web 

content/design/functionality updates completed 

per year 

 Number of partners/locations identified by the 

Commission as Gateway sites 

 Documented media exposure (number of official 

Commission media interviews, speaking 

engagements, appearances in published articles, 

etc.) 

Develop a comprehensive community outreach strategy  Number of documented formal partnerships 

 Number of meetings held 

Develop a Commission-sponsored grant program 

 Annual grant funding distributed by goal 

(education, economic development, 

documentation/preservation) 

Develop formal partnerships with agencies, counties, 

municipalities, and organizations across the Corridor 

 Number of documented, formal partnerships by 

goal (education, economic development, 

documentation/preservation) 

 Number of advisory councils/boards served 

Open one Coastal Heritage Center in each Corridor state  Number of Coastal Heritage Centers established 

Develop a Teach the Teachers Program  Number of teachers having participated in the 

program; participant feedback 

Develop and distribute Gullah Geechee Curriculum Guides 

and Field Trip Guides throughout the Corridor 

 Number of Curriculum Guides and Field Trip 

Guides developed and/or distributed 

 Documented media exposure about these guides 

Develop interactive youth programs  Number of programs developed and/or number 

of youth participants; participant feedback 

Develop a Cultural Training Program  Number of program participants per year; 

participant feedback 

Develop, promote, and distribute interpretive exhibits (fixed 

or traveling) 

 Number of interpretive exhibits promoted, 

developed, and/or distributed 

Develop internship and fellowship programs 

 Number of Corridor interns and/or fellows 

 Amount of funding raised to hire/support interns 

and/or fellows 

 Amount of scholarship funding distributed to 

interns and/or fellows 

Institute community-based research and post-secondary 

research in the Corridor 

 Number of Corridor research projects promoted 

and/or funded 

 Amount of research funding raised and/or 

received 

 Participant feedback 

Install signage in appropriate locations  Number of signs installed (target would be those 

locations identified in cooperation with partners) 

Establish a Corridor partner and partner site process  Number of designated partners and partner sites 
Ongoing and Future Actions 

159 

TABLE 25. TRACKING PROGRESS THROUGHOUT IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation Action Evaluation Criteria 

Establish a Gullah Geechee heritage tax credit program in 

one or more states 

 Number of heritage tax credit programs instituted 

 Number of participating businesses 

Develop and distribute a Corridor business and event guide 

book—hard copy or digital—could include farmers 

markets; local shopping/dining establishments; Gullah 

Geechee businesses, events, festivals, etc. 

 Number of Gullah Geechee guide books 

distributed (eventually including new editions and 

updates) 

 Number of businesses, events, festivals, etc., 

linked to via the Web site 

Develop and distribute property ownership and retention 

curriculum and information (could include training 

sessions/events 

 Number of partners worked with to develop 

information and curriculum 

 Number of training sessions/events 

organized/held/sponsored 

Promote ideas for demonstration and creation of 

traditional recreational activities on land and waterways 

 Number of partners worked with 

 Documented publicity of traditional recreational 

activities 

Continue to expand the resource inventory  Number of inventory items documented per year 

Develop a Corridor oral history program  Number of oral history program participants; 

documented media exposure 

Develop an online digital repository for resources in 

conjunction with the Corridor Web site 

 Number of inventory items added to the online 

digital repository per year 

Develop and distribute the Most Endangered Gullah 

Geechee Resources list 

 Number of agencies, organizations, and 

individuals distributed to 

 Documented media exposure 

Develop one or more physical repositories for resources 

 Number of objects, artifacts, etc., displayed, 

contributed, donated 

 Number of partners/locations participating in the 

Corridor physical repository network (including 

Coastal Heritage Centers) 
160 

OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDING 

Partners receiving federal or state funds for Corridor projects are required to comply with the 

following laws and policies, as applicable: 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (www.achp.gov/work106.html) 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra) 

 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties 

(http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm) 

 National Environmental Policy Act (www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html) 

 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars. The Commission would be required to 

follow circulars as applicable (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html) 

States, local governments, and Native American tribes follow: 

 A-87: Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; Relocated to 2 CFR, 

Part 225 

 A-102: Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments, and 

Nonprofit Organizations 

 A-133: Audits of State, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations 

Educational institutions (even if part of a state or local government) follow: 

 A-21 for Cost Principles, Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 220 

 A-110 for Administrative Requirements, Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 215 

 A-133 for Audit Requirements 

Nonprofit organizations follow: 

 A-122 for Cost Principles, Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 230 

 A-110 for Administrative Requirements, Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 215 

 A-133 for Audit Requirements 

A nonprofit organization, if it received federal funds to assist with an implementation project, would 

be required to comply with: 

 OMB Circular A-110: Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements 

with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations 

 Davis-Bacon Act for construction contracts over $2,000 (http://davisbacon.fedworld.gov/) 

 Department of the Interior 43 CFR 12 (Subpart F for Nonprofit Organizations) 

 State Coastal Management Plans 
Other Requirements of the Commission 

161 

ALLOWABLE COSTS 

The Commission would have to meet the following allowable cost criteria throughout 

implementation: 

 Demonstrate a clear tie to Corridor authorizing legislation, management plan, and annual 

work plan and budget. 

 Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply to both federally financed and other 

activities of the organization. 

 Be reasonable (not exceed the fair market value). 

 Be given consistent treatment with other costs incurred for the same purpose in like 

circumstances. 

 Be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 

 Meets OMB and NPS program requirements (i.e., cannot use the NHA program funds to 

acquire real property). 

 Not be included as a cost to meet matching requirements of any federally financed program. 

 Be adequately documented and verifiable from Corridor records. 

 Be incurred during the period of the cooperative agreement (unless an exception has been 

approved by the National Park Service to allow “pre-award costs” or “pre-agreement costs”). 

MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENTS 

The basic rule for federal matching funds is that the nonfederal matching share must equal the 

federal contributions. The matching share must also be: 

 directly related to the project 

 necessary to achieve the project objective as outlined in the work plan, the legislative 

mandate of the Corridor and/or management plan 

 reasonable for the proper and efficient accomplishment of project objectives 

The nonfederal matching share can be cash and needed noncash donations of services, equipment, 

or supplies. Cash is defined as donations, nonfederal income, local or state government 

contributions, and foundation grants or corporate contributions. In-kind contributions are 

calculated at the value of donated services or goods. 

 

4

Chapter 4

“Tellin We Story”:

An Interpretation Framework for the 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Chapter 4 divider photos (top to bottom) 

 James Bullock– historian and re-enactor – Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, St. Augustine, 

St. Johns County, FL (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Charles “CC” Williams, Jr. – net making – Awendaw, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: Diedra 

Laird, Charlotte Observer) 

 William Saunders – storytelling – John’s Island, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: NPS) 
165 

PURPOSE OF THE INTERPRETATION FRAMEWORK 

This chapter outlines the process by which the Commission would develop comprehensive, 

meaningful interpretation across the Corridor. It includes the Corridor’s primary interpretive 

themes, audiences, and identifies various strategies for reaching the many audiences within and 

beyond the Corridor boundary. In addition, this document includes information about the process 

by which the Commission would formalize relationships with partners and partner sites that are 

already interpreting, or would like to interpret, Gullah Geechee history and culture. 

This chapter is split into four sections. 

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 

Part 1 is an introduction that answers the question, “What is Interpretation?” and includes the 

opportunities and challenges inherent in interpretation across such a large landscape. 

PART 2: GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 

Part 2 highlights the primary interpretive themes and identifies audiences and strategies for 

interpretation that the Commission would pursue. Part 2 concludes by outlining the process by 

which the Commission would work with partners to enhance and link site-specific and partnerspecific interpretation across the Corridor. 

PART 3: HERITAGE TOURISM AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Part 3 discusses heritage tourism, its application to the Corridor, and best practices for balancing 

visitation with resource protection. It also covers the type of visitor experiences that the Commission 

wishes to provide. 

PART 4: SIGNAGE FRAMEWORK 

Part 4 outlines the signage framework that would be the basis for sign implementation. 

Lastly, the resource inventory, partnership, and partner site applications and supporting documents 

are included in appendices C and F, respectively. 

The overarching goal of interpretation throughout the Corridor is to raise awareness, understanding, 

and appreciation for the history of Gullah Geechee people, their contributions to the development 

of the United States, and connection to the African diaspora and other international cultures. 
166 

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 

USE OF THE INTERPRETATION FRAMEWORK 

This interpretation framework is intended to serve as a structure that the Commission can use to 

effectively implement comprehensive interpretation of Gullah Geechee history and culture across 

the Corridor. It is designed to outline a process by which the Commission would work with partner 

sites and other organizations, businesses, and individuals to interpret the Gullah Geechee story in 

many ways and to direct those efforts toward the various audiences identified. The applications and 

supporting explanatory documents included in appendix E have been developed for use by 

organizations, businesses, and individuals interested in participating as a partner or partner site of 

the Corridor. 

WHAT IS INTERPRETATION? 

In its most simple form, interpretation can be 

defined as the art of telling a good story. It is, 

however, a term that means many things to many 

people. It can mean the translation of languages, 

perceptions about poems or other written works, 

how a person feels about a historic building, or the 

appreciation someone gains for a culture. The 

listing of facts about a resource, for example, does 

not mean that it is being interpreted; only that it is 

being described. 

Interpretation lies in a deeper connection with resources and stories. In the National Park Service 

and in other contexts around the world, interpretation is the process of providing each visitor an 

opportunity to personally connect with a place. Interpretation seeks to answer the question “so 

what?” by illustrating the deeper meaning and facilitating a connection between the visitor and the 

subject. That is the essence of a good story. Stories make a connection between tangible things and 

intangible ideas by giving visitors an opportunity to experience something with their mind, heart, and 

soul, which is the essence of interpretation. Explaining the physical characteristics of a resource, 

such as the materials used to construct a building, the type of construction, architectural style, etc., is 

relatively easy to do. The more difficult task is to link the tangible elements that can be experienced 

with one’s senses to the intangible ideas and emotions that lie beyond simple description. The 

opportunity inherent in interpretation is to engage visitors’ senses in such a way as to elicit thoughts 

about a deeper meaning—encouraging visitors to look at history, resources, and stories in entirely 

new ways. Interpretation should seek to provide opportunities for visitors to care about places on 

their own terms. 

Each individual may connect to a place in a different way; some may connect immediately, while 

others may realize the connection at some point in the future. The overall objective of interpretation 

is to provide everyone an opportunity to explore how that special place is meaningful to them, with 

an understanding that what is meaningful to one person may not be meaningful to another. Thus, 

using diverse strategies to reach a variety audiences is key to providing a range of ways to reach 

people and for them to experience a place and story on their own terms. 

“The Gullah Geechee Heritage Corridor Act 

provides an opportunity for all of us to have direct 

contribution and input into telling the story of our 

foreparents, of our lives, of our family, of our community, 

of our heritage and traditions. . . no one else can tell our 

stories.” 

Thomasena Stokes-Marshall 

Mount Pleasant, SC – June 2009 Meeting 
Part 1: Introduction 

167 

For one person, a tour guide’s effective use of a metaphor in the discussion of a historic plantation 

might inspire an emotional connection. For another, an interpretive sign describing the traditional 

use and importance of a praise house may provoke a meaningful connection to the place and an 

understanding of the deeper history. 

Effective interpretation is not easy; it takes effort. If done thoughtfully and intentionally, visitors 

would come away with not only an understanding of the resource, but also a personal connection to 

the stories associated with it.

ROLE OF INTERPRETATION IN THE CORRIDOR 

The role of interpretation within the Corridor is to use diverse interpretation strategies to create 

meaningful connections and understanding amongst visitors and residents; it is intended to connect 

people with the stories, past and present, of a dynamic, living, ever-evolving culture. Connecting 

both residents and visitors alike to the intangible meanings, expressions, viewpoints, and spirituality 

of the Gullah Geechee people—all of which are inherent to tangible places within the Corridor—is 

vital to the purpose of interpretation. Without a deep understanding of the people that live within 

the Corridor (including their history, culture, and traditions), the often distorted, one-sided 

description of history will continue to be perpetuated, resulting in continued misunderstanding. 

Implementation of this interpretation framework provides an opportunity for Gullah Geechee 

people to tell their own stories and to accurately communicate their culture to visitors and 

community members. 

The Opportunities 

There are many opportunities inherent in 

developing a long-term interpretation framework 

for the Corridor. A few specifics are included here. 

When effectively implemented, there is an ability 

to provide visitors and residents with 

opportunities to connect with resources, while 

simultaneously conserving those resources. When 

managed appropriately, revenue can be generated for organizations, businesses, and individuals 

across the Corridor; the ability of governments to provide necessary public services through 

additional tax revenue can also be enhanced through increased visitor spending. 

Examples of opportunities are: 

 The Commission has a unique opportunity to develop Gullah Geechee-specific 

interpretation across the Corridor. Current interpretation within the Corridor is often either 

site specific or solely based on a historical period of time or event. For example, current 

interpretation at many historic plantations focuses on the institution of slavery and life on the 

plantation. It may or may not discuss the plantation economy and its significance to the 

development of the United States. If the plantation economy is discussed, it is often not 

expressed in terms of Gullah Geechee history or culture. The opportunity that is inherent in 

the congressional designation of this area as the Corridor is to raise the understanding and 

awareness of the history and culture of Gullah Geechee people, past and present, and to 

provide ways for people of varied backgrounds and life experiences to connect with and 

experience the multitude of resources within the Corridor. 

“Who am I? And in order to answer that you have to 

recognize where you came from, the land you came from, 

and your ancestors that did all that they could do to 

help you to be who you are.” 

Dr. Anita Hammond 

Jacksonville, FL – February 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

168 

 The Commission has an opportunity and the ability to link individual resources within the 

Corridor boundaries to the larger primary interpretive themes. Creating thematic 

relationships across the Corridor has not yet been accomplished in a way that is 

approachable and understandable by the public. 

 The Commission has an opportunity to work with partners and partner sites to ensure that 

sites associated with Gullah Geechee history and culture are protected and preserved for 

future generations. The Commission would work to ensure that designated partners and 

partner sites are adequately and appropriately planning for and mitigating the potential for 

resource impacts. 

 The Commission has an opportunity to increase visibility of the resources within the 

Corridor. Increased exposure can lead to increased visitation which, when managed in a 

responsible and thoughtful manner, has the potential to generate more revenue for 

individual sites. Not only would the individual site benefit, but the surrounding community 

would as well. 

The Challenges 

Although interpretation can create memorable and meaningful experiences for residents and visitors 

alike and leave them inspired and eager to learn more, there are inherent challenges involved. The 

Commission is committed to working with all partners, to the extent practicable, to find innovative 

ways to collaborate, despite the challenges that exist. 

Examples of such challenges are: 

 The Corridor spans all or portions of 27 counties within four states, and includes a wealth of 

significant resources that are tied to the six themes identified by the Commission. Developing 

a long-range, comprehensive strategy to link resources to themes across this broad 

geography requires close coordination amongst the Commission, partners and partner sites. 

 The Commission does not own, manage, or have regulatory control over land, sites, or 

resources. Therefore, developing comprehensive interpretation across the Corridor requires 

time and effort to organize disparate organizations, businesses, and individuals around a 

common objective. 

 Developing meaningful interpretation in cooperation with partners and partner sites requires 

time, effort, and expertise, which means that significant financial resources have to be raised. 

Raising adequate funds to employ staff and implement this effort poses an ongoing challenge 

to partners, partner sites, and the Commission. 

 Some resources are not easily accessible by the public. Safe public access is important and 

would be a necessary element for any partner or partner site offering public visitation. 

 Some resources are difficult to interpret for a variety of reasons. For instance, the story of 

certain resources may be perceived as less dramatic than those of surrounding Gullah 

Geechee resources, or the location may not be as enticing as those of nearby sites. Visitors 

often have limited time to explore the Corridor, and as a result, must prioritize which 

resources they will visit. Developing and delivering strong interpretation that reflects 

enthusiasm for a resource and its significance is often more challenging at particular sites, 

however, that does not diminish the importance of the resource. 
Part 1: Introduction 

169 

GRAPHIC IDENTITY 

The Commission would use a consistent graphic identity for all interpretation and marketing 

materials. The graphic identity would include the logo, color, format, fonts (letter styles), and other 

aspects of the visual identity of the Corridor. The graphic identity of the Corridor would be applied 

comprehensively to all Corridor publications, materials, and signage, to the extent practicable. 

Through a coordinated graphic identity, visitors and residents would recognize Corridor 

interpretation or marketing products regardless of the medium used. For example, print 

advertisements would have a similar graphic identity as the Web site. The signage system would have 

a similar graphic identity to rack cards and interpretation panels. A consistent graphic identity would 

reinforce the visitor’s and resident’s sense of place, whether online or within the Corridor. 

FIGURE 15. OFFICIAL GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR LOGO
170 

PART 2: GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Primary interpretive themes are the key ideas through which the nationally significant resource 

values are conveyed to the public. They connect resources to the larger ideas, meaning, and values of 

which they are a part. They are the building blocks—the core content—on which the interpretive 

program is based. Each theme may connect to a number of specific stories or subthemes. These 

elements are helpful in designing individual services and in ensuring that the main aspects of themes 

are addressed. 

The primary interpretive themes of the Corridor are ideas, concepts, or stories that are central to the 

area’s purpose, significance, identity, and visitor experience. Themes provide the framework for 

interpretation and education programs, influence the visitor experience, and provide direction for 

planners and designers of exhibits, publications, and audiovisual and interpretive programs. 

Tangible and intangible resources in the Corridor are associated with each of the heritage area’s six 

primary interpretive themes. 

I. Origins and Early Development 

II. The Quest for Freedom, Equality, Education, and Recognition 

III. Global Connections 

IV. Connection with the Land 

V. Cultural and Spiritual Expression 

VI. Gullah Geechee Language 

These six primary interpretive themes are represented by a myriad of resources, most of which are 

associated with one or more of the following five categories of cultural resources: 

1. Ethnographic Resources 

2. Archeological Resources 

3. Structures and Districts 

4. Cultural Landscapes 

5. Museum Collections 

Each of the six primary interpretive themes convey the broad stories to be shared with all audiences. 

Included within each of the broad primary interpretive themes are a myriad of stories about 

significant events, people, and periods of time. Therefore, specific key thematic topics have been 

developed for each interpretive theme to provide readers, potential partners, and partner sites with 

more information about the range of topics that comprise the overall theme. A pull-out box 

identifying the key thematic topics is included for each of the six primary interpretive themes. 

Additionally, primary interpretive themes would focus on other ways of linking the past to the 

present including the incorporation of descendent voices as sites of knowledge (Jackson 2011). 

Theme I. Origins and Early Development 

The Corridor preserves and protects many elements essential to understanding the plantation 

economy such as the archeology of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, environmental particulars of sea 

island localities, the important challenges of areas of geographic isolation, processes of culture and 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

171 

identity formation, traditions in heritage preservation, the technology of rice cultivation and other 

cash crops, and systems of work control and time management such as the task system. 

Discussions about plantations evoke a variety of 

images, feelings, and memories; however, from the 

beginning it was enslaved human labor on which 

the entire structure of plantation agriculture and 

cash crop production rested (Jackson, A. 2004 and 

2008a). The land was made valuable and remained 

valuable only through and by human labor. The 

following is an excellent summary of the situation: 

. . . before the intensive application of labor 

and system to the land in staple crop agriculture, the coastal plain yielded only those 

resources that could be extracted with little management and processing: timber and 

deerskins, for example. Sea island cotton and tidewater rice cultures, however, 

required shaping the land to enhance its productive potential. The land itself was 

made a valuable commodity by producing crops for sale and profit. 

On the rice plantations, the land was engineered and shaped according to a scheme 

that streamlined the environment for a specific purpose. 

Here the natural environment was not shaped primarily to the aspirations of moral 

purpose and community, nor was it seen as having a multitude of purposes, all 

revealing divine handiwork. Rather it was manipulated for its potential for profitable 

exploitation and to enhance the reputation of masters. Nature was simplified, and an 

artificial ecosystem was created by a massive application of human energy (Stewart 

2002). 

Sea Island rice plantations off the coast of the Corridor were a compilation of communities 

composed of Africans, primarily West Africans, and descendants of Africans. Public discourse about 

plantations at heritage sites typically provide one perspective—focusing on the culture, traditions, 

and life experiences of plantation owners and their families, while offering only generic sketches and 

interpretations of the lives of enslaved Africans. In such representations and interpretations, the 

complex and comprehensive role played by the majority of African communities in all aspects of 

plantation operation and management goes unrepresented. 

Interpretations of plantations and the plantation economy in the context of the Corridor serve to 

broaden representations of enslaved Africans in antebellum plantation environments in the United 

States. These interpretations give much needed primacy to the labor, ingenuity, and expertise of 

enslaved African people and the role they played in plantation agriculture in the United States and 

the role they played in the global rice, indigo, and cotton economies throughout the 17th, 18th, and 

19th centuries. In addition, interpretations of the Corridor underscore the role many enslaved 

Africans played in constructing and preserving rice ecosystems considered of international 

significance today on plantations such as Jehossee Island in South Carolina. 

Africans and their descendants have left reminders of the reality of their daily life and 

labors embedded within coastal plantation landscapes and surrounding 

communities, which today remain forever altered by their presence. However, 

visitors to many of the these plantation landscapes and post-bellum plantation tourist 

attractions are provided with limited information and typically no written 

“Our ancestors who came to this country from various 

nations in Africa came here, lived here, worked here, 

bled here, died here. So we respect the land. We 

respect what they did here.” 

Rosalyn Browne 

St. Helena Island, SC – June 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

172 

documentation (i.e., pamphlets, brochures, maps, and posters) about the historical 

significance of African presence on sea island plantations, including the significant 

role they played in all aspects of plantation life and economy (Jackson, A. 2008b). 

I. Origins and Early Development 

Key Thematic Topics 

 The role of Gullah Geechee people in the plantation economy (agricultural production and 

knowledge systems) 

 Rice production techniques/technology (development of U.S. rice economy) 

 Tidal irrigation to improve efficiency of rice production (tidal rice agriculture) 

 Inland floodplain swamp rice production 

 Planting methods/techniques (hole and heel planting technique; open-broadcast seed 

sowing) 

 Indigo production techniques/technology 

 Sea Island cotton production 

 Inland cotton 

 Extraction of forest products 

 Culinary knowledge/techniques 

 The role of Gullah Geechee people in the plantation economy (skilled labor/crafts and 

management techniques/systems/methods) 

 The task system: how it fostered Gullah Geechee culture 

 Wide range of plantation jobs and skilled labor applications (coopers, mechanics, boat 

builders, sailors, trunk minders, blacksmiths, brickmakers, cooks, sawyers, basketmakers) 

 The role of Gullah Geechee people in the plantation economy (global market/worldwide sales of 

Sea Island rice) 

 Post emancipation economy 

The growth of the plantation as an agricultural unit of production and commercial enterprise on a 

global scale was built upon and fueled by a massive dispersion of African people, primarily West 

Africans. From the late-15th to the mid-19th century, enslaved Africans became an increasingly 

significant factor in Europe’s (i.e., Britain) and U.S. growth and development (Walvin 2000). St. Clair 

Drake provides a good description of the historical reality under which plantations were formed and 

organized. He writes: 

The complexities of the African Diaspora into the Western Hemisphere that began 

during the sixteenth century can only be understood if placed in the context of vast 

movements of people from many European areas journeying to the Americas as 

indentured servants or adventurous free men and women seeking expanded political 

and economic opportunity. For many of these Europeans, their interests and those of 

investors were best served having a sector in the new socioeconomic system where 

essential labor could not participate in the scramble for free land on the frontiers and 

could be bound permanently to the plantations that were growing sugar, indigo, rice, 

and other profitable commodities (Drake 1990). 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

173 

For Europe, slavery became the solution of choice for advancing economic and social ambitions. 

Plantation owners and their families, such as Aiken (Jehossee Island Plantation, South Carolina), 

Kingsley (Kingsley Plantation, Florida), and Pinckney (Snee Farm Plantation, South Carolina), 

prospered under a socioeconomic system of power organized within the context of agricultural land 

units known as plantations (Jackson 2004). 

Theme II. The Quest for Freedom, 

Equality, Education, and Recognition 

The Corridor provides opportunities for 

examining the evolution and development of 

significant institutions, events, and issues from 

the Colonial period to the present, including the 

period of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 

religious and spiritual development, education, 

the Civil War and Reconstruction, civil rights 

and quality of life issues. 

From the outset, many enslaved Africans found 

active or passive ways to resist their 

enslavement or regain their freedom; this 

continued throughout the antebellum period. 

Some quietly ran away by escaping to free 

territory in the north or west. Others fled 

southward to Florida, where they established 

maroon colonies or communities and were given sanctuary by the Spanish and Native Americans, 

especially the Seminoles. Enslaved Africans within the Corridor also saw the domestic turmoil 

generated by colonial and various Indian wars as opportunities to escape from bondage. 

During the American Revolution, enslaved Africans served in both the British and American armies 

in return for promises of freedom, and when the British withdrew from the United States, they were 

accompanied by many formerly enslaved Africans from North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Georgia. Some, like Thomas Peters, a formerly enslaved African from Wilmington, North Carolina, 

were among the founders of Freetown, Sierra Leone. 

Free and enslaved African Americans participated 

in more extreme measures to gain freedom for 

their race. David Walker, a native of Wilmington, 

North Carolina, authored the Appeal in 1830,

which caused consternation throughout the slaveholding south. The Stono Rebellion (1739) and 

Denmark Vesey’s alleged insurrection (1822) 

demonstrated that overt physical violence were 

options in securing freedom. Enslaved Africans, 

free people of color, and formerly enslaved 

Africans and their descendants knew that the 

outcome of the Civil War was the difference between slavery and freedom, and they wholeheartedly 

supported the Union. 

STONO REBELLION HISTORICAL MARKER

CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 

“My grandfather fought during the Civil War, was a 

Civil War veteran. The land that all of us, my mother 

and her siblings was born on, was in his name, 

Captain C. Gibbs. . . We got together and 

made that property a family cemetery.” 

Sam White 

Johns Island, SC – July 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

174 

Territory within the Corridor was among the first that 

fell under Union control, and enslaved persons, 

contrabands, and refugees supported the Union by 

serving as spies, informants, guides, pilots, and laborers. 

They also furnished a significant number of recruits for 

the Union armed forces, especially the colored 

volunteers and the U.S. Colored Troops, many of whom 

participated in combat, combat support, and occupation 

missions throughout the Corridor. 

The Union Army, U.S. government officials, and 

northern civilians sought to reconstruct the existing 

social and economic order within the Corridor. They 

provided freedmen with access to land, security, and 

assistance as they experimented with free education, 

market economy systems, and newly instituted social, 

fraternal, and religious institutions, as well as the 

Freedmen’s Bureau. 

With the institution of 

military/congressional 

reconstruction in 1867, African 

Americans became the base and a 

significant element within the 

Republican Party, where they 

continued to press their demands 

for land, control over families, 

education, and civil and political 

equality, and protection from 

violence. With the end of 

Reconstruction, Redeemers (a 

conservative, pro-business, 

political coalition that sought to 

regain power in the southern 

United States) conspired against 

the advancement of the freedmen. 

Many of their gains were reversed 

and they ultimately were 

confronted with legalized 

segregation, disfranchisement, debt peonage, and racial violence. Some Gullah Geechee people 

migrated out of the Corridor, while others attempted to create a meaningful life within the confines 

of Jim Crow (a racial caste system that relegated African Americans to the status of second-class 

citizens; Jim Crow laws allowed legal racial segregation in public facilities) by establishing business 

and professional services and recreation and leisure outlets that catered to the African American 

community. There were African American “main streets” or business districts in many communities, 

particularly in urban areas. 

BENJAMIN BENNETT HEADSTONE

PARKER ISLAND CEMETERY

CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC 

ROBERT SMALLS NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK

BEAUFORT, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

175 

During the antebellum period, a 

few private or denominational 

schools for free African 

Americans existed, primarily 

within urban areas of the 

Corridor, but most of these were 

closed on the eve of the Civil 

War. Access to education at all 

levels was a major priority of 

freedmen who believed that 

knowledge was power and 

education was the major route to 

upward mobility. 

With emancipation, freedmen’s 

schools, supported by northern 

religious denominations or the 

Freedmen’s Bureau, sprang up 

throughout the Corridor, and 

public school systems were instituted during Reconstruction. These schools were later augmented by 

Rosenwald Schools and institutions of higher learning. Collectively, they provided opportunities for 

basic education, industrial and vocational education, and post-secondary education, and prepared 

students for successful careers. Quite often these schools were the most important institution in a 

community and they were the only institutions that cut across all lines of economic and class status, 

and religion. But in their attempt to prepare students for entry into polite society and success in the 

modern world, these schools at times also attempted to strip students of their traditional culture, 

especially their language and speech patterns. The Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954) 

effectively ended legalized segregated schools and Jim Crow. However, the practical effects of the 

decision would not be realized unless they were implemented at local levels, and this was a major 

impetus for the modern Civil Rights Movement. 

The Civil Rights Movement unfolded at different times in different places, and people within the 

present-day boundary of the Corridor made some original tactical or strategic contributions. On 

February 1, 1960, Joe McNeil of Wilmington, North Carolina, was one of the four students at North 

Carolina A&T College in Greensboro who initiated the modern “Sit-In.” Esau Jenkins, a community 

leader, and Septima Clark, a public school teacher, both from Johns Island, South Carolina, 

conceptualized and developed the concept of “Freedom Schools,” which were widely used to 

prepare potential black voters to pass literacy tests. The Civil Rights Movement, like the first 

Reconstruction, brought fundamental changes to the social and political structure, and provided 

Gullah Geechee people with increased opportunities for success. 

 

ST. LUKE’S ROSENWALD SCHOOL

SAPELO ISLAND, MCINTOSH COUNTY, GA 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

176 

II. The Quest for Freedom, Equality, Education, and Recognition 

Key Thematic Topics 

 The Quest for Freedom and Equality 

 Colonial wars 

 American Revolution 

 The Civil War 

 Reconstruction 

 Military and politics 

 Freedmen/Maroon Colonies/Underground Railroad 

 Civil Rights Movement 

 Up to and beyond development of the Corridor 

 Education 

 Public and private schools 

 Segregation and post-Brown v. Board of Education impacts 

 Private schools before and after the Civil War 

 Education on the Sea Islands 

 Freedom schools 

 De-culturalization of Gullah Geechee in educational institutions 

 Schools and upward mobility – social/civic awareness

Theme III. Global Connections 

The Corridor offers opportunities to examine and understand the development and evolution of 

Gullah Geechee identity as part of a larger, global Creole cultural identity linked to diverse regions of 

the world, including Africa, primarily West Africa, the Caribbean, and Pacific Islands. 

The Gullah Geechee story is one of human endurance, adaptation, reinvention, and survival on new 

ground. What happened along the coastal regions and Sea Islands of the Corridor is part of a larger 

story replicated in other places around the globe by African peoples responding to displacement and 

enslavement. 

John Henrik Clarke’s announcement that “the survival of African people away from their ancestral 

home is one of the great acts of human endurance in the history of the world” bears testimony to 

Gullah Geechee societies that developed and survived. These societies began to form whenever and 

wherever various African ethnic groups were enslaved together in large numbers, confined in 

isolated areas, when they were in the majority, and where there was a practice of “mixing” newly 

enslaved Africans with the existing slave population. Under these conditions, Gullah Geechee 

communities like those in and along the Corridor also formed in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and in 

South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Moreover, they thrived and persist to this day. 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

177 

The story began early in 

the 15th century when 

many Africans found 

themselves enslaved and 

displaced, regarded and 

sold as human property, 

and an integral part of the 

Transatlantic Slave Trade 

that dominated the world 

economy from the 15th 

through the 19th century. 

This world of buying and 

selling humans was 

composed of slave 

captors/dealers, the 

traders who transported 

them out of Africa to 

colonies in North and 

South America, and their 

eventual enslavers. Their 

labor was sought on 

coffee, tobacco, cocoa, 

sugar, and cotton plantations; in gold and silver mining; in rice cultivation; construction; timber; and 

shipping. 

The other key players were the Portuguese, British, French, Spanish, Dutch, and North Americans. 

Of the 12 million people taken out of Africa, primarily West Africa, 38% went to South America, 

18.4% British America, 17.5% to the Spanish Empire, and 13.5% to French America. As in the case of 

Gullah Geechee communities that were established along the Corridor, other societies like it 

distinguished themselves from this larger population and cropped up as pocket communities 

wherever the right geography and living conditions prevailed. 

Like those within the Corridor, these global communities maintain a strong memory of attachment 

and allegiance to African practices and beliefs, which sit at the center of their way of life. Wherever 

they reside, their influence on foodways, art forms, religious practices, music, language, beliefs, 

values, customs, and law is recognized by all who live around or among them. Their presence then 

and now is evidence of their persistence, survival, and endurance. 

III. Global Connections 

Key Thematic Topics 

 Gullah Geechee diaspora (internationally and domestically) 

 movement of people and culture 

 Influence of ancestors 

 Connection to Africa, particularly West Africa 

 “Down Home” connection 

FIGURE 16. MAP OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

178 

Theme IV. Connection with the Land 

Gullah Geechee people have influenced the natural and cultural landscapes of the region, and their 

cultural identity is connected to a particular geographical setting. The ownership and retention of 

land and built environments, as well as access to significant cultural sites, are crucial to the 

continuation of Gullah Geechee culture. 

Settlement in the Corridor. The Corridor 

includes the area designated in 1865 by Special 

Order No. 15. This order, proposed by General 

William Tecumseh Sherman, promised that the 

land area, including the islands from Charleston, 

South Carolina, to the St. Johns River in 

Jacksonville, Florida, and 30 miles from the coast, 

would be set aside “for the settlement of Negroes” 

who had been emancipated. Because the focus of 

the order was on heads-of-families, the hopes of the affected people to become stable families were 

raised to the extent that most of them began seeking their ambitions like ordinary free people. A 

substantial number of formerly enslaved people streamed to the Sea Islands and other parts of 

lowcountry South Carolina and Georgia. 

Special Field Order No. 15 was rescinded in 1866. 

Even though hopes were dashed and ambitions 

severely curtailed, the quest for land within the 

proposed area continued. Eventually, a substantial 

number of families succeeded in acquiring acreage 

through donations, set-asides, and purchase, 

which promoted self-sufficiency, perhaps the most 

important factor in sustaining the Gullah Geechee 

culture. 

Traditional Land Tenure and Function. In 

Gullah Geechee culture, a sense of self has 

depended largely on a sense of place and vice 

versa. Family land ownership has provided a sense 

of place (Jackson 2011). The land has held the 

family together because the family has always 

owned and worked the land together. 

For generations, Gullah Geechee families have 

used the same parcels of land that were purchased 

soon after the Civil War to provide living space 

and to produce food. This created a substantial 

amount of ancestral land and promoted a kinship 

economy, meaning that bartering goods and 

services among family members was and continues 

to be common practice. 

“I'm not prepared to have plantation life celebrated, 

and people coming up and down this corridor 

to look at people weaving baskets and playing out a 

plantation play. “ 

Elaine Brown 

Savannah, GA – June 2009 Meeting 

“We are proud of our Gullah Geechee heritage. We 

rejoice in our Gullah Geechee family. We want to enjoy 

a future that reflects our past. We need to uphold our 

legacy by protecting our land. This is our most urgent 

quest. To protect the land.” 

Dwayne Blake 

Johns Island, SC – July 2009 Meeting 

TRADITIONAL GULLAH GEECHEE HOME

HOG HAMMOCK COMMUNITY

SAPELO ISLAND, MCINTOSH COUNTY, GA 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

179 

Families have grown crops that relate to their 

West African ancestry, including okra, sweet 

potatoes (yams), watermelon, and benne 

(sesame). Gullah Geechee language; skills in 

blacksmithing; and boat, fishnet, and basket 

making, and other cultural norms were easily 

passed on from one generation to the next as a 

result of living in family compounds. 

Land is widely considered the most valuable of 

all Gullah Geechee cultural assets. It has always 

been the base for economic and social 

development. Small family farms are often the 

source of income for those who live on the Sea 

Islands in isolation of employment centers. 

Churches, schools, and burial grounds have 

traditionally been on land that was oftentimes 

benevolently transferred for the good of Gullah 

Geechee people. 

Thus, the relationship between land and Gullah 

Geechee culture is plainly reflected in the 

landscape of the Corridor, where a number of 

Gullah Geechee families began settlements after 

Special Field Order No. 15. These lands are where 

many of the family compounds exist today. Heirs’ 

property is currently a critical land ownership 

issue affecting Gullah Geechee people, families, 

and communities. For more information, see 

chapter 2, “Land Ownership and Land Cover.” 

Theme V. Cultural and 

Spiritual Expression 

The influence of Gullah Geechee people has made 

a lasting impact in all areas of society throughout 

the country, including music, the arts, handicrafts, 

foodways, and spirituality. Gullah Geechee 

festivals are annual events where entertainment is 

often enhanced by storytellers who share Gullah 

Geechee folktales that are passed on through 

generations. These festivals are also venues where 

Gullah Geechee foodways are showcased. Gullah 

Geechee dishes, such as smoked mullet and other rice-based dishes, as well as fish or shrimp ’n grits, 

are among the favorite foods at festivals—in some Gullah Geechee communities the cuisine is served 

in restaurants. 

FRAMED IMAGE IN GULLAH GRUB RESTAURANT

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 

“You know, it’s heartbreaking. I look at my children and I 

think about my grandchildren, and we’re not going to 

have a place to call home. I’m not going to be able to 

bring my children home. I’m going to bring them to some 

subdivision, not the land that my grandfather plowed, 

not the cotton that my great grandmother 

lost her fingers picking.” 

Wanda Gumb 

Wilmington, NC – June 2009 Meeting 

“I remember having a serious conversation 

with a friend of mine from Indiana, who said I went into 

the, you know, airport and I bought all this 

Gullah cuisine. And it’s in this bag, and all you have 

to do is add water, and you stick it on the stove and you 

cook it. And I said, there is no such thing as instant 

Gullah food; that does not exist.” 

Zenobia Washington 

Georgetown, SC – May 2009 Meeting 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

180 

Sweetgrass Basketry. Sweetgrass basketry is an 

African art form that has existed since 

enslavement. The baskets were commonly used on 

plantations to harvest rice and had other uses in 

slave quarters and plantation houses. Baskets are 

woven by hand with sweetgrass that grows 

naturally in marshes and tidal areas. Sweetgrass 

production has been adversely impacted in the 

Corridor, where development has disturbed 

ecosystems. The tradition has been passed on by 

generations of Gullah Geechee people who 

continue to make baskets today for many 

household uses. Sweetgrass baskets are artifacts in 

the permanent collections of many museums and 

cultural centers and are exhibited in the United 

States at the Smithsonian, and internationally. 

Sweetgrass basket stands are an integral part of the cultural landscape that today lies along US 17 in 

the Corridor. Sweetgrass basket making is a cultural expression, and the stands reflect the individual 

styles of the family artists who make them. Many of the artists live in Mount Pleasant, where each 

year a Sweetgrass Festival celebrates the tradition, and artists exhibit their work. Sweetgrass basket 

stands are popular venues at Gullah Geechee festivals. 

IV. Connection with the Land 

Key Thematic Topics 

 The impact of Gullah Geechee ancestors on the coastal landscape 

 The built environment 

 Unique architecture (tabby houses) 

 Protection of natural environment 

 Spatial patterns of development

 Land gained and lost 

 Not consistent across the four states (South Carolina Land Commission; Florida was first-come/first served; 

Union Army land distribution) 

 Include cemeteries, praise houses 

 Education regarding preservation of family land (heirs’ property) 

 Moving toward sustainable development patterns

SEWING HANDS, VERA MANIGAULT
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

181 

The Ring Shout. The ring shout is a 

musical folk tradition that evolved from 

former enslaved Africans who lived and 

worked on rice and cotton plantations 

that flourished throughout the barrier 

islands and coastal regions. The tradition 

has been passed down to current 

generations who help to keep it alive as a 

worship practice as well as through 

demonstration. 

During enslavement, the ring shout 

began along the coast as a clandestine 

religious activity in brush arbors 

throughout many plantations that once 

encompassed the Corridor, particularly 

in the coastal communities of South 

Carolina and Georgia. Later, it was 

practiced in praise houses, and after emancipation and up to today, at churches. The ring shout folk 

tradition can also be observed at concerts and Gullah Geechee festivals. The ring shout is performed 

most frequently on Watch Night, the evening leading up to New Year’s Day. 

During the ring shout, the song is set in a call-and-response format by the lead singer. Rhythm is 

applied to the song by the “stickman” who beats a wood stick on the floor or uses a washboard. 

“Basers” accompany the lead singer by responding to the song while adding vigorous handclapping. 

The women in the group, who are often primarily referred to as the “shouters,” move counterclockwise in a ring. The ring shout differs from dancing because the feet are never crossed while 

responding to the song. During demonstrations, shouters pantomime the song or make gestures in 

response to the basers and the stickman. 

Today, the ring shout as well as Gullah Geechee spirituals are demonstrated at festivals and special 

events, and are part of the religious experience at churches.

V. Cultural and Spiritual Expression 

Key Thematic Topics 

 Spirituality 

 Foodways 

 Music, dance, arts 

 Traditional skills and crafts – basket weaving 

 Festivals 

 Importance of family 

 Revitalization of culture 

MARY JENKINS PRAISE HOUSE

ST. HELENA ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

182 

VI. Gullah Geechee Language 

Prominent among the distinguishing characteristics of Gullah Geechee identity is a unique form of 

speech that has traditionally been referred to as “Gullah” or “Geechee,” a distinctive Creole 

language. While the Gullah Geechee language has been developed, adapted, and spoken over the 

past, roughly 250 years, from an outsider’s perspective it has historically been derided as 

substandard, or “broken” English. Beginning with Lorenzo Dow Turner’s groundbreaking work, 

Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect (Turner 1949), the language has increasingly come to be 

appreciated, even by outsiders, as a legitimate and remarkable language in its own right. 

Unfortunately, it is also an endangered language due to the encroachment of English. 

Awareness of Creole as a distinctive language type has only been developed over the past several 

decades. Gullah Geechee as an English Creole has much in common with similar Creole languages 

that developed in Jamaica, Haiti, and other parts of the Caribbean, and in West Africa and the 

Pacific. Rather than being interpreted in terms of English, Gullah Geechee should be understood in 

terms of creolization and decreolization processes, language diffusion, and a continuum of linguistic 

forms from the “deepest” Gullah Geechee to standard English. 

Gullah Geechee has had an influence on American English in general, and a particular influence on 

African American English. Words like gumbo, yam, tote, biddy, and nanny have come into English 

from Africa through Gullah Geechee. The rules of grammar and the sound system are not the same 

as English, and what might sound to cultural and linguistic outsiders as bad English may be good 

Gullah Geechee, as in ‘E done cyaa um ta de sto’ (“He/she has already taken it to the store”). Besides 

words of African origin like tote, which means “carry,” Gullah Geechee speech has many distinctive 

idioms, such as day clean for “morning.” Expressions also used are: someone da rake straw (is getting 

ready to give birth), someone broke e leg (gave birth), and someone ain crack e teet (isn’t opening his 

mouth to smile or isn’t acting pleasantly). 

There is a widespread interest in developing a better understanding of Gullah Geechee language, and 

a concern, especially among those who claim a Gullah Geechee heritage, that a precious linguistic 

legacy is in danger of fading into oblivion. When asked which features of Gullah Geechee culture 

must be protected, preserved, or continued, respondents in the Corridor consistently specified the 

Gullah Geechee language, including its vocabulary, idioms, and folklore. 

IDENTIFYING AUDIENCES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR 

Different audiences would look for different experiences in, and would have different expectations 

of, the Corridor. Those living in the Corridor would expect something different from outside 

visitors; youth would expect something different than the elderly. In order to develop interpretive 

programs that meet and exceed these diverse expectations, it is necessary to gain an understanding of 

the various audience groups that the Commission would seek to inform. Recognizing the 

relationship between potential audiences and the interpretation strategies of the Corridor is an 

important step in connecting people to Gullah Geechee history and cultural resources. By identifying 

audiences, the Commission can develop interpretive opportunities with various partners that meet 

the needs of diverse audience groups throughout the region and enhance their experiences. 

The Commission has identified nine audience groups: residents, youth, the elderly, homecoming 

groups, heritage tourists, pass-through tourists, virtual visitors, international visitors, and the 

scholarly community. These audiences are not mutually exclusive; an individual could fall into more 

than one group. Broad interpretation strategies have been developed to reach these various groups 

based on their respective expectations and needs (see table15 for strategies related to each audience 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

183 

group). Interpretation would be particularly focused on those who identify with the Gullah Geechee 

culture in an effort to perpetuate the cultural heritage. Strategies differ in terms of the medium used 

and the depth of information conveyed. 

Residents 

Local residents living within and near the Corridor make up one of the largest and most critically 

important audience groups. Developing programs in connection with Gullah Geechee community 

members to promote an understanding of Gullah Geechee heritage creates a positive impact on local 

communities. Cultivating local partners in sharing the primary interpretive themes of the Corridor is 

an important part of the effort to engage residents. Interpretive efforts that focus on residents can 

foster local pride, build community support, and develop lasting partnerships between different 

community groups. Creating greater understanding, awareness, and appreciation for the themes 

empowers local communities and residents. 

Youth 

Youth, especially students, are an important audience for interpretive programming and educational 

outreach within the Corridor. Building understanding and awareness among Gullah Geechee youth 

in particular is needed to perpetuate the culture. Field trips, immersive experiences, learning craft 

skills, and group excursions create an opportunity for youth to engage directly with the tangible 

resources in order to understand and appreciate their intangible themes. Sharing the legacy and 

heritage of Gullah Geechee people with younger audiences would develop long-term stewardship 

and appreciation for the history and cultural resources within the Corridor. 

Elderly 

The elderly are also a critically important audience group that provides a direct connection to the 

history and culture of the Corridor. Engaging this audience group through all of the established 

primary interpretive themes is a vital step in preserving cultural traditions and connecting directly to 

the past. Developing programs that encourage sharing of knowledge as well as personal stories and 

histories is a critical part of cultivating a relationship between this audience group and the work of 

the Commission. 

Homecoming Groups 

Members of the Gullah Geechee community who live outside the Corridor, but who come back 

home to visit relatives, attend family reunions, weddings, funerals, festivals, and events, as well as 

those returning permanently, are important to Gullah Geechee history and culture. Their stories are 

vital to comprehensive interpretation because they connect the Corridor to areas outside the 

Corridor boundary; taking a broad view of interpretation means incorporating history and culture 

beyond the geography of the Corridor. Those who have left—to seek jobs elsewhere, to escape 

violence, or for any number of other reasons—carried the culture with them to other parts of the 

country. The reasons why people left the Corridor is a key part of the Gullah Geechee story and 

needs to be part of the overall interpretation effort. Although many people left the Corridor, their 

cultural “home” remained within the Corridor and the reverse migration that has been occurring for 

decades should be celebrated as a homecoming. For those who return, reconnecting with their 

history and culture is important to perpetuating the culture. Encouraging sharing of stories and 

histories between those who have stayed and those who have left and returned, whether for a few 

days or for extended periods of time, enhances the breadth of the primary interpretive themes and is 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

184 

an important component of the Corridor’s effort to share these themes within and outside the 

Corridor. 

Heritage Tourists 

Heritage tourism is a growing trend within the tourism industry. Heritage tourists are generally well 

informed and center their visitor experiences on specific resources and events. They traditionally 

spend more time and money visiting the historic resources of a community than other tourists. This 

audience is primarily interested in cultural resources such as historic buildings, local traditions, and 

folklife. Developing deep connections to tangible and intangible resources through clear primary 

interpretive themes and strategies is an important step in reaching out to this audience group. 

Engaging this audience with the Corridor’s primary interpretive themes would focus primarily on 

historic sites, museums, and cultural events. 

Pass-through Tourists 

Pass-through tourists are people who have come to the Corridor without any knowledge of Gullah 

Geechee history or culture; they may just be driving through the region on their way to another 

destination, or they may be visiting friends or relatives. Pass-through tourists are an important 

audience for the interpretive programs within the Corridor. Given the overall geographic length and 

scale of the Corridor, opportunities for reaching pass-through tourists abound. Numerous strategies 

can be implemented to engage this audience while they are traveling within the Corridor. Strategically providing information at welcome and visitor centers throughout the region, creating 

brochures and regional maps, and developing a consistent signage program are all ways to expose 

this large audience group to the primary interpretive themes and resources of the Corridor. 

Virtual Visitors 

In order to reach a larger audience and connect Gullah Geechee history and culture to the American 

public and the global community, there is a need to engage the virtual visitor—a very important 

audience for this interpretation framework. Achieving this would require using interactive, contentrich, ever-evolving online strategies. Through the creation of a well-maintained and interactive Web 

site, the interpretive message of the Corridor would be shared with a truly global audience. A strong 

Web-based presence would not only facilitate knowledge sharing, but also serve as a means to 

capture and archive Gullah Geechee resources and traditions in the form of text, audio, photo, and 

video. The virtual visitor would be able to interact with the Corridor in engaging and continuously 

evolving ways. Although this audience group may not physically visit the Corridor, the cultivation of 

a strong virtual visitor audience is a critical component of continuing the dialogue and improving 

understanding of the Corridor. 

International Visitors 

The African diaspora is global in nature, extending from Africa across the Atlantic to the Caribbean 

basin, the southeastern United States, and elsewhere in Europe and South America, among other 

areas of the world. Individuals and groups from all over the world have an interest in learning about 

and experiencing Gullah Geechee history and culture. Sharing the themes with these visitors and 

engaging them through various strategies would broaden the reach of the Corridor’s interpretation 

efforts beyond the Corridor boundary. Interpretation provides a mechanism to tell complete, 

comprehensive stories—rather than just pieces and parts—across continents. 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

185 

Scholarly Community 

The scholarly community is composed of educators, researchers, and students. This community may 

or may not be familiar with Gullah Geechee history and culture; however, many would likely be 

wholly immersed in it. This audience is well educated and seeks out details and specific types of 

information. Engaging this audience with the Corridor’s primary interpretive themes would require 

developing meaningful connections across many academic disciplines. Making connections with this 

audience in a way that inspires them to share the primary interpretive themes with the academic 

community, including students, would expand the reach of interpretation of the Corridor. 

CONNECTING STRATEGIES TO AUDIENCES 

Table 20 illustrates the relationship between the interpretation strategies that would be used to reach 

out to and engage with the various audiences identified. It provides a greater understanding of the 

relationship between the strategies and audience groups. Linking the intangible themes of the 

Corridor to tangible interpretive services provides insight into how audiences would engage and 

connect to local resources. This connection is fundamental to the success of the Commission in 

meeting its goals, and ensures that the unique values and primary interpretive themes reach their 

target audiences. 

REACHING ALL AUDIENCES 

Although audiences have been identified, the interpretation objective is to effectively communicate 

the primary interpretive themes to all audiences. Part of effectively communicating the themes is 

linking the sites, locations, and areas of the Corridor to the themes in such a way that every group 

would be able to access and understand the broad themes of the Corridor in their own way and 

according to their interests and needs. Each individual would have opportunities to be exposed to 

and learn about all of the primary interpretive themes of the Corridor. An understanding and 

awareness of all of the themes is important because they are all interconnected—one theme cannot 

be fully understood without the others. 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

The interpretive strategies listed below support Corridor goals and provide visitor opportunities to 

connect to the primary interpretive themes inherent in the resources throughout the Corridor. 

When all recommendations are integrated in a seamless manner, residents and visitors would be able 

to experience, interact with, and learn about Gullah Geechee people and their history and culture. 

Electronic Media Strategy 

The Commission would capitalize on existing and new electronic media platforms in reaching the 

varied audiences. One prime example would be the Corridor Web site (www.gullahgeecheecorridor. 

org), which would provide opportunities for the general public to learn about, interact with, and 

virtually explore the Corridor. The Web site would serve as a platform to raise awareness of the 

Corridor and its themes. The Commission would incorporate social media technologies and other 

popular online tools into the Web site or utilize them as stand-alone tools. Examples include virtual 

tours, audio and video podcasts, theme-related flash movies, and locations of Gullah Geechee 

resources, events, activities, programs, tours, etc. Beyond the Web site, the Commission would utilize 

new digital information technologies as they are developed and become viable. 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

186 

Resource Inventory Strategy 

Appendix C includes the existing resource inventory developed throughout the management 

planning process. This inventory serves as a starting point for documentation of the resources within 

the Corridor. Additional work is needed to add to this inventory and to identify the location, 

historical significance, and existing conditions of resources as they become known. The ongoing 

effort to enhance the resource inventory would provide a deeper awareness and understanding of 

the resources themselves, as well as assist in linking tangible resources to the broader intangible 

themes of the Corridor. 

Audience Strategy 

The Commission would work with partners to learn more about Corridor audiences, including the 

various types of visitors. The objective of this effort would be to use effective strategies for engaging 

and informing audiences over time in a way that is comfortable for them. This is particularly 

important given the ever-changing tools and mechanisms for engaging people. People’s preferences 

and needs surrounding how they receive information are also ever-changing and the Commission’s 

efforts would remain flexible to ensure that effective strategies are employed. 

Signage Strategy 

The Commission would work with partners in all four states to ensure the implementation of 

consistent signage across the Corridor. More details about the categories of signs to be installed in 

the Corridor are included in part 4 of this chapter. 

Publication Strategy 

The Commission would work with partners to develop a Corridor Publication Plan. Examples of 

items that might be included in this plan are site bulletins, brochures, trail and/or road maps, and 

rack cards on specific themes. In addition, the Web site could be used as a digital repository for these 

interpretation materials. As an initial step, a rack card would be produced and distributed at 

welcome centers, designated partner sites, chambers of commerce, and other appropriate locations. 

Education Strategy

The Commission would develop curriculum-based education and outreach programs. Specific 

efforts (such as development of a curriculum guide, field trip guide, and Teach-the-Teachers 

program) would be developed to connect with state curriculum standards, and would be implemented at the grade level with the most direct relevance to state standards. In addition, efforts such 

as a culture forum would provide a mechanism to reach out to diverse audiences throughout the 

Corridor, including youth. Working with partners to develop and distribute traveling exhibits within 

and outside the Corridor would also be a way of enhancing education and interpretation. 

Public Relations Strategy 

The Corridor Web site would have, among other tools, a calendar of events. The calendar would 

provide information about upcoming events, activities, programs, opportunities to volunteer, etc. In 

addition, press releases, newspaper articles, radio and television interviews, and newsletters would 

be used to share information. 
Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

187 

LINKING STRATEGIES TO AUDIENCES 

These strategies rely on various media types and communication methods in order to reach diverse 

audience groups. Through implementation of this plan, the Commission would share its rich legacy 

and primary interpretive themes with numerous audiences throughout the region in a variety of 

ways, including at Coastal Heritage Centers. Although Coastal Heritage Centers do not neatly fit into 

one of the strategies identified, they would serve as interpretation hubs within the Corridor. Multiple 

strategies could be used in various combinations at Coastal Heritage Centers. Signage, for example, 

would direct visitors and residents to Coastal Heritage Centers. Publication and educational material 

would be available within Coastal Heritage Centers and interpretation would be geared toward all 

ages, using digital and print formats. The centers would have ample space for interpretive exhibits 

and interactive experiences. 

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH INTERPRETATION PARTNERS 

As mentioned in the “Implementation Framework” section of chapter 3, although some of the 

strategies identified would be implemented by the Commission, implementation of interpretation 

strategies would be primarily employed by, or in cooperation with, partners. Therefore, the 

Commission has developed a process to develop formal relationships with organizations, businesses, 

and individuals throughout the Corridor and beyond its boundaries. Throughout implementation, 

the Commission would work to develop a network of partners and sites that are either (1) actively 

interpreting Gullah Geechee history and culture, or (2) establishing plans to interpret Gullah 

Geechee history and culture. 

This network of partners would be composed of either (1) partners or (2) partner sites. These two 

categories of partners have been developed by the Commission to effectively formalize relationships 

and to facilitate efficient implementation of interpretation programming and services across the 

Corridor. The basic differences between the two categories is the following: 

 Organizations, businesses, or individuals not associated with a physical location, but wishing 

to be involved with interpretation of the Corridor, would be considered part of the “partner” 

category. 

 Organizations, businesses, or individuals that are associated with a physical location (a site) 

and are interested in incorporating and/or enhancing the interpretation of Gullah Geechee 

history and culture at their site would be considered part of the “partner site” category. 

In order to effectively develop and facilitate a network of partners that interpret Gullah Geechee 

history and culture, the Corridor has developed a process to gather information from potential 

partners and partner sites. The basic process is: 

 A representative of a potential partner or partner site would complete one of the applications 

in appendix E, to the extent practicable. 

 The Commission would review and evaluate the information provided and other 

information obtained through phone conversations, face-to-face meetings, etc. The 

evaluation of proposals would be based primarily on the principles for implementation and 

project selection criteria described in the “Implementation Framework” section of chapter 3. 

 The Commission would designate qualified applicant(s) as either a partner or partner site. 

The relationship would be solidified through a basic voluntary agreement. 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

188 

The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that the process of building relationships with 

partners and partner sites across the four states and beyond is not overly burdensome, but mutually 

beneficial. This process is intended to be collaborative in nature and not bureaucratic. The 

Commission is committed to reaching out to as many potential partners as possible throughout the 

implementation process. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the Commission at any time to 

discuss ideas or ways to meet shared interests and goals. The Commission would welcome informal 

discussions about ways to partner and work together. 

The first step is for a potential partner to determine the partner category that most accurately reflects 

the applicant’s situation. Again, the two categories are: (1) partners, and (2) partner sites. 

Interpretation is a common element within the partner and partner site designations. In the case of a 

partner site, it is a basic requirement for designation. In the case of partnerships, interpretation is just 

one of the many programs identified by the Commission. 

The following is a list of examples to help determine who should apply to be a partner site versus 

partner. The list is not exhaustive, but a basic guide. 

Given not only the large number of potential partners and partner sites across the Corridor, but also 

the varying types of applicants, staff levels, work histories, interpretation experience, etc., the ability 

to complete the applications in appendix E would also vary. The Commission is sensitive to 

differences among applicants and that is one of the reasons why the application form contains so 

many questions. By clearly understanding the nominated organization, business, or site, the 

Commission can make a more informed decision about whether a designation is appropriate at that 

time. 

TABLE 26. PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTNER SITES

Apply for a Partnership if 

you are or represent a... 

Apply as a Partner Site 

if you represent a... 

Historical Society or 

Conservation Organization 

Building or Structure 

(open to the public) 

Theatrical Performer or 

Storyteller 

District, Neighborhood, or 

Community 

Festival or Special Event Landscape or Natural 

Feature 

Artist or Artisan Restaurant, Art Gallery, or 

Theater 

Historian or Researcher Museum or Archive 

Tourism Agency or Tour 

Guide 

Visitor Facility or Welcome 

Center 

Chamber of Commerce Place of Worship 

Please see appendix E on the CD for more information about how to become a partner or partner 

site. 
189 

PART 3: HERITAGE TOURISM AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

INTRODUCTION 

There are many definitions of cultural heritage tourism. A key point in all definitions is that cultural 

heritage tourism describes a type of tourism activity aimed at attracting visitors or tourists to a host 

location resulting in contact between visitors and hosts. However, contact between tourists and the 

local community represents one part of the tourism experience. The other defining aspect recognizes 

tourism as being a highly mediated/managed experience focused on attracting visitors typically 

unfamiliar with the site being visited. Resources associated with heritage tourism are sites, places, or 

experiences that are open to the public for interpretation of historical/cultural themes. They include, 

but are not limited to, tangible and intangible resources in the following categories: Archeological 

Resources, Structures and Districts, Cultural Landscapes, Ethnographic Resources, and Museum 

Collections. 

The idea of tourism, with different names under the concept of travel, has been present in humanity 

for centuries, spanning all cultures worldwide, regardless of race or ethnicity, religion, level of 

development or education, gender, or geographic location. The relationship between culture and 

tourism is fundamental, as these two concepts are inextricably intertwined. 

The Corridor is full of historical and cultural resources that, through interpretation by current 

members of Gullah Geechee communities, can support heritage tourism. Effective interpretation 

would illustrate the link between the historic origins of Gullah Geechee culture with modern-day 

practices. 

FRIENDFIELD PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK

GEORGETOWN, GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SC 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

190 

CULTURE, TOURISM, AND DEVELOPMENT 

On almost every level imaginable, tourism is a highly mediated activity. It is mediated 

by representatives of an industry that is among the largest in the world—ranging from 

government officials, tourism planners, advertising and marketing agencies, 

associated “hospitality” industries such as the hotel and transportation companies, 

travel agents and guides, travel writers and publishers, preservationists, and even 

people who study tourism. Neither hosts nor guests in any tangible way, these 

individuals and agencies play important roles in determining where tourists go as well 

as what they see and do when they arrive at their destinations (Chambers 2010). 

The rapid development of tourism in the past 50 years has positioned the industry as one of the 

major global economic activities. Tourism is now either the main source or an important subsidiary 

source of revenue for many destinations and their surrounding communities. Not only does tourism 

bring with it economic power, but it is also a powerful industry influencing local culture. If tourists 

are drawn by a living culture, the culture can serve as a justification to preserve that environment 

against contrary developments, while still providing economic benefits. In this way, the culture is 

retained without sacrificing economic security. 

Tourism has many far-reaching impacts in a local economy that are important to consider in the 

management of a destination. Tourist spending increases tax revenues for the state, and the demand 

for visitor services creates new jobs in the tourism sector. In addition to these direct effects, there are 

countless tributary impacts that trickle into the many facets of community life. 

The greatest paradox of tourism is its capacity to generate so many benefits and yet, at the same time, 

create pressures and problems (Said 1978). The challenge that many tourist destinations around the 

world, including the Corridor, are facing is finding balance between increased development and 

visitation, and conservation of culture and traditions, as well as social and economic improvement. 

This is one of major factors that must be addressed throughout implementation of the management 

plan. Striking a balanced position for host communities must be an ongoing part of negotiations in 

order to capitalize on the economic development generated by tourism without compromising local 

culture, traditional values, and deep-rooted knowledge of the communities to which tourism is 

introduced. 

TOURISM AND EDUCATION 

Tourism can be an effective tool through which education about Gullah Geechee culture can spread 

far beyond the boundaries of the Corridor. Considering that one aspect of the mission of the 

Corridor is “to educate the public on the value and importance of Gullah Geechee culture,” it is only 

reasonable that interpretation provided to tourists be a primary mechanism for the distribution of 

that education. 

Since a visitor’s impression of a destination is not only influenced within formal interpretive 

programs, it is important to first educate the communities in which tourism is included. Providing 

education and training to members of the host community is a practical initiative to ensure 

continuity of interpretation. The goal is to develop responsible and enthusiastic hosts, so that 

informal, yet accurate interpretation can occur spontaneously between residents and visitors. 
Part 3: Heritage Tourism and Visitor Experience 

191 

The second dimension of the relationship of education with tourism is direct education through 

interpretations aimed at visitors outside the culture, which would be accomplished through the 

partnerships established by the Commission with sites and organizations that can offer unique visitor 

experiences and contribute to visitor understanding of all aspects of Gullah Geechee culture. The 

ultimate goal is to inform visitors in a way that inspires enthusiasm motivates them with the desire to 

share their newfound knowledge with their own communities. In this way, Gullah Geechee culture 

can reach the ears and touch the hearts of audiences beyond those that have previously visited the 

Corridor. 

Diversity, Tourism, and Education

The Commission would seek to employ NPS policies and best practices as they relate to diversity, 

tourism, and education throughout implementation of the management plan. The Commission 

would seek out partnership opportunities with NPS sites within the Corridor and other program 

offices to more effectively address these practices throughout the Corridor. 

Since its beginnings, the National Park Service has endeavored to preserve cultural and natural 

resources and the heritage of Americans; however, in recent years there has been an increased 

emphasis on incorporating the diversity of cultural groups comprising our society in public 

representations of national heritage. For the National Park Service, diversity is a strategic imperative, 

since the national park system represents the contributions of all Americans and belongs to every 

citizen of this nation (Murphy 2000; as cited in NPS 2011). The Commission also believes that 

diversity is a strategic imperative and would seek to work with a wide range of partners to enhance 

visitor experience by engaging the public in the richness and complexity of the American experience 

as reflected in the history and culture of Gullah Geechee people. 

TOURISM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

The Corridor provides a contemporary example of how living communities address heritage 

management and cultural preservation issues and negotiate multiple stakeholder concerns. A major 

concern among tourist destinations that rely on heritage tourism is the challenge of maintaining the 

authenticity of the culture despite the changes brought by visitation and development. Unless 

effective strategies are in place to preserve the lifestyles and cultural values and traditions of an area, 

the influx of tourists (and the corresponding increase of cash flow to the local economy) can 

significantly change the dynamics of the community. With conscientious planning, however, tourism 

can be used as an effective mechanism to promote and protect cultural resources while avoiding loss 

of identity or acculturation. 

One of the core principles of sustainable tourism is developing a balanced relationship between 

visitors and residents. The intention is to enhance the cultural encounter and promote mutual 

understanding and respect between the two parties. Residents seek, through tourism, to celebrate 

their culture with others, and visitors are looking for an enjoyable experience that is both humanistic 

and educational. The connection, therefore, is innately complementary, yet careful attention must be 

paid to ensure a harmonious relationship. 

The Commission would work with its partners to implement the following best management 

practices to ensure that heritage tourism within the Corridor is both successful and sustainable: 

 Create partnerships in both the public and private sectors, as outlined in this interpretive 

framework. With the help of partners, the Corridor can track visitation levels, gather 

information about visitors (demographics, reason(s) for visiting, areas of interest, etc.), and 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

192 

monitor the effect of visitation on Corridor resources. All partner sites are asked to identify 

and describe what prevention strategies and/or mitigation measures are in place to protect 

resource(s) from visitor damage; the compilation of these strategies and measures would 

allow the Commission to further develop tourism best management practices. 

 Coordinate actions for a unified effort to fulfill the vision, mission, and goals of the Corridor. 

One of the most critical overarching factors when developing heritage tourism in a 

destination is management and inter-institutional coordination. With an organized structure, 

more effective communication with visitors, residents, and partners would be possible, 

which would enhance the visitor experience and streamline marketing efforts. 

 Manage the image, brand, and marketing of the Corridor under the business development 

program. Bringing visitors to a destination and informing them of the wide array of 

opportunities and services related to Gullah Geechee history and culture is a major function 

of a successful tourism initiative. A consistent image and brand would contribute to these 

efforts. In its unifying role, the Commission is in the best position to spearhead such an 

initiative. 

 Maintain contact with the local communities, inviting their feedback and providing a means 

to keep in touch on a regular basis under the community outreach and training program. In 

any tourism program, and especially in those founded in cultural heritage, local buy-in and 

support from the community is of the utmost importance. Significant efforts should be 

dedicated to communicating with communities within the Corridor to ensure that a 

thorough and up-to-date understanding of community members’ perceptions and opinions 

on tourism is considered at all times. 

 Maintain the authenticity of the resources under the preservation program. The feedback 

gleaned from local residents can serve as a gauge of the level of authenticity in each 

community. If the Commission is made aware that resources or visitor experience is being 

degraded due to the level or type of visitation, it must take swift action (perhaps through 

partnerships) to protect the resource and restore cultural authenticity. Management actions 

would be determined based on tourism best management practices that would be further 

developed through partnerships. The development of a data system with qualitative and 

quantitative indicators to monitor the changes in local culture and society should also be 

considered. 

 Develop various interpretive projects related to heritage tourism under the interpretation 

and explore the corridor programs. One of the main goals of interpretation is to inspire 

visitors to become stewards of the resources that are being interpreted. If visitors truly come 

to understand and appreciate Gullah Geechee history and culture, they would be able to do 

their part in protecting the resources of the Corridor. 

 Develop educational projects related to being stewards of heritage tourism under the 

education and community outreach and training programs. If cultural pride and knowledge 

is fostered among community members of all ages, the culture can remain strong enough to 

resist the acculturation that is inherently a risk when more tourism is introduced. Coastal 

Heritage Centers would serve as hubs for community education and active participation in 

the culture. 

 Collaborate with local authorities in cities and counties within the Corridor to develop 

appropriate policies and regulations for territorial planning and land use under the 

environmental sustainability and preservation programs. Connection with the land is one of 

the primary interpretive themes of the Corridor, and therefore, natural and cultural 

landscapes must not be compromised for the sake of tourism. Input from Gullah Geechee 
Part 3: Heritage Tourism and Visitor Experience 

193 

representatives from the Commission or partner organizations in the development of such 

policies and regulations would help ensure the preservation of land-related resources. 

 Create general policies for tourism under the Business Development program. Overall, it is 

important that tourism contribute to Gullah Geechee communities in a beneficial, not 

detrimental, manner. Policies must be in place to allow tourism to be managed in a 

sustainable fashion that does not compromise the resources of the Corridor. Furthermore, 

tourism policies must recognize that Gullah Geechee culture is a current way of life, not an 

isolated attraction that is removed from modern times. 

Barriers to Successful Implementation 

Managing tourism inside the Corridor is a complex task due to the extensive territory within the 

Corridor’s boundaries, and because of the number and diversity of organizations and jurisdictions at 

the local, state, and federal level. The management of such an intricate web of jurisdictions demands 

a high level of coordination and a clear and direct communication strategy to facilitate effective 

cooperation with different agencies and local communities. 

The Corridor is relatively unique in that most important resources are tangible and intangible 

manifestations of a culture. The Commission is entrusted with assisting in the preservation of a living 

culture’s survival. For that reason, public participation and involvement in the planning, decision, 

and operation processes are fundamental. 

Finally, heritage tourism development in the Corridor must carefully avoid the mass tourism model 

and instead concentrate on a model of sustainable tourism. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

The interpretive planning process identifies and describes the intended visitor experience within the 

Corridor. It recommends ways to provide, encourage, sustain, facilitate, and assist the visitor 

experience. The Commission has identified a number of desired opportunities for residents and 

visitors. 

The Commission would seek to provide opportunities for residents and visitors to: 

 Gather information and stories associated with the primary interpretive themes, to the depth 

that they choose, through a variety of media. 

 Educate visitors on various topics so that the message can be highly personalized to the 

individual. 

 Understand the natural and cultural history of the Corridor. Gullah Geechee culture is alive 

and viable today; however, it cannot be fully appreciated without a firm grasp of the history 

that shaped it. 

 Explore the diversity of the Corridor’s natural and cultural resources and be inspired to 

participate in perpetuating the area’s heritage. 

 Cultivate an understanding and appreciation of the wealth of resources within the Corridor 

and the significance of the culture that has developed around those resources. 

 Promote stewardship of the unique and valuable resources within the Corridor. 

 Understand the history, complexity, and creativity of Gullah Geechee people and their 

contributions to the development of the United States of America. Accounts of Gullah 
CHAPTER 4

G

al

op

an

G

 O

V

ea

p

 H

re

up

C

an

 U

: “TELLIN WE ST

Geechee peop

ll, the inform

pportunity to

nd today. Vis

Gullah Geech

Obtain enoug

Visitors shoul

asily accessib

resented in a

Have an enjoy

esources of th

phold the hig

Corridor. Visi

nd not degra

Understand th

TORY” 

ple are largely

mation is often

o gain a more

sitors can beg

hee. 

h informatio

ld be well acc

ble to all, and

a variety of w

yable experie

he Corridor.

ghest level of

itors, too, hav

ade Gullah G

he historical 

SUGAR CA

y ignored in h

n incomplete

e complete u

gin to apprec

on to safely, e

commodated

d the experien

ways to accom

ence without 

 The tourism

f visitor enjoy

ve a responsi

eechee place

and current 

ANE SYRUP SAL

RICEBORO, L

194 

history book

e. By visiting 

understandin

ciate the dept

easily, and en

d within the C

nce should n

mmodate all a

impairing th

m best manag

yment witho

ibility to be c

es and objects

lifestyles wit

E AT THE RICEB

LIBERTY COUNT

ks; if they do h

the Corridor

g of Gullah G

th and intrica

njoyably visit 

Corridor. Res

not be burden

audiences. 

he natural and

gement practi

out comprom

conscientious

s. 

thin the Corr

BORO RICEFEST 

TY, GA 

happen to be

r, visitors hav

Geechee cult

acy of what i

the Corridor

sources and 

nsome. Infor

d cultural va

ices above w

mising the res

s guests whil

ridor. 

2011 

e mentioned 

ve the 

ture, historica

it means to be

r’s resources

sites should 

mation shou

lues or speci

ould seek to 

ources of the

le in the Corr

at 

ally 

e 

s. 

be 

uld be 

fic 

e

ridor, 
195 

PART 4: SIGNAGE FRAMEWORK 

REQUIREMENT 

The designating law states that one of the Commission’s duties is to assist units of local government 

and other persons in implementing the approved management plan by “ensuring that clear, 

consistent, and appropriate signs identifying points of public access and sites of interest are posted 

throughout the Heritage Corridor.” This section of the interpretation plan provides a framework to 

guide the Commission and partners in implementing this requirement. 

ORIENTATION 

A consistent, integrated, informative, and attractive sign system is a primary component of the 

overall interpretation framework of the Corridor. A comprehensive signage system would enhance 

orientation, wayfinding, and communication with the public, providing visitors with strong visual 

cues. 

Gateway signs on major routes would inform visitors of their entrance into the Corridor. Within the 

Corridor, visitors would encounter a clear, consistent, and easily understood system of signs that 

complement the other methods used to orient visitors to the Corridor and assist with wayfinding. 

Signage within the Corridor would direct visitors along US 17/A1A and to Coastal Heritage Centers. 

In addition, destination signs and/or interpretive panels would provide more in-depth information 

to visitors at affiliated sites. Additional methods of orientation would include brochures and maps, 

among others. 

The signage system for the Corridor would be complemented by Web-based tools and applications 

to the extent possible to provide more information and content about the Corridor, as well as 

assistance with wayfinding and orientation. For example, travelers with mobile Web devices would 

be able to access online content about the Corridor and other tools and mobile applications in realtime to assist with wayfinding and orientation. As technology continues to advance, the Commission 

would continue to strive to enhance interpretation within the Corridor through the use of such 

technology. 

Any sign installation for the Corridor would comply with all applicable federal and state laws. 

SIGN IDENTITY 

The signage system would use the “graphic identity” of the Corridor to the extent possible. This 

would include logo, color, format, fonts (type styles), and other aspects of the visual identity of the 

Corridor. The graphic identity of the Corridor would be applied as consistently as possible to all 

Corridor signs. If the Corridor’s graphic identify is found to not comply in any way with federal 

highway or state guidelines and requirements, then the Commission would work closely with the 

four states to identify an appropriate and consistent graphic identity for use in signage across the 

Corridor. 

Through a consistent graphic identity, the visitor or resident who learns of the Corridor through a 

print advertisement, for example, would see the same graphic identity of the advertisement reflected 

on the Web site when they seek out more information online. And those visiting online would see the 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

196 

same graphic identify present and reinforced through the sign system when visiting the Corridor inperson. 

CATEGORIES OF SIGNS 

Given the large area of the Corridor, more than one signage type would be used as part of a 

comprehensive signage system. Signs would be carefully planned and designed to fulfill the 

important roles of providing information and orientation to visitors and residents. The signage 

system is divided into the following sign types: 

 gateway signs 

 wayfinding signs 

– identification signs 

– directional signs (turns and movements) 

 destination signs 

 interpretive panels (waysides) 

Gateway Signs 

Gateway signs provide a clear sense of arrival to the Corridor. These signs are intended to welcome 

visitors to the Corridor. These signs would introduce or reinforce the graphic identity of the 

Corridor, and are intended to be welcoming and suggest the beginning of a quality experience. They 

are an important component of Corridor operations and another tool by which the Corridor can 

reach out to and engage with the public. This introductory sign to the Corridor would be reinforced 

through wayfinding signs, as well as destination signs and interpretive panels. 

FIGURE 17. CONCEPT DESIGN FOR GATEWAY SIGN
Part 4: Signage Framework 

197 

Gateways signs should be significant in size and prominently located. These signs would include a 

note of arrival, “Welcome to the Gullah Geechee Heritage Corridor” and the Corridor logo. 

Example Potential Gateway 

Sign Locations: 

North Carolina 

 southbound US 17 at the Corridor boundary line

 southbound US 421 at the Corridor boundary line

 eastbound US 74 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound I-40 at the Corridor boundary line 

South Carolina 

 eastbound US 501 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound US 521 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound US 52 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound I-26 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound I-95 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound SC 22 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound US 278 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound US 321 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound US 21 at the Corridor boundary line 

Georgia 

 eastbound I-16/404 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound US 25/341 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound US 82 at the Corridor boundary line 

 southbound GA 21 at the Corridor boundary line 

Florida 

 eastbound US 1/301/23 at the Corridor boundary line 

 eastbound I-10 at the Corridor boundary line 

 northbound I-95 at the St. Johns County line 

 northbound A1A at the St. Johns County line 
CHAPTER 4

Wayfind

Signs in th

informati

within th

signs sho

Wayfindi

confirmin

Therefor

described

Example

Identifica

Since gate

North Ca

identifica

FIGURE

: “TELLIN WE ST

ding Signs 

his category 

ion to travele

e Corridor, a

uld be recogn

ing signs not 

ng that a trav

e, two types 

d below. 

e Potentia

ation signs w

eway signs w

arolina would

ation signs pr

E 18. CONCEPT

TORY” 

would be sim

ers. These sig

and should id

nizable from

only mark a 

veler is still on

of wayfindin

l Number o

ould be spac

would mark th

d be approxim

resented here

T DESIGN FOR ID

mple in design

gns are the pr

dentify the C

m a distance d

route, but pr

n the right pa

ng signs are n

of Identific

ced approxim

he entrance t

mately 25 mi

e is an estima

DENTIFICATION 

198 

n and intend

rincipal form

orridor by na

due to color a

rovide inform

ath, and (2) d

eeded—iden

Id

id

th

w

fr

S

w

a

d

n

a

th

C

lo

q

tr

a

m

a

[N

w

b

a

W

if

C

p

si

p

U

cation Sign

mately 25 mile

to the Corrid

iles south of t

ate and not ba

SIGN

ded to provid

m of visitor or

ame and incl

and shape, ra

mation in two

directing trav

ntification sig

dentificatio

dentify the U

he Corridor.

work with par

rom Pender C

St. Johns Cou

would be spac

apart, or a dis

during implem

name of the C

as the princip

he traveler is

Corridor. The

ogo would be

quickly identi

raveling at hi

a motorcycle.

marked with t

as appropriat

Note: The C

with partners

byway design

avoid the pote

Wayfinding si

f US 17/A1A 

Commission w

partners durin

ignage plan t

phasing of eff

US 17/A1A.]

ns along US

es apart alon

dor, the first s

the Pender C

ased on actu

de consistent 

rientation an

lude the Corr

ather than tex

o key situatio

veler turns an

gns and direc

on Sign. The

US 17/A1A ro

 The Commi

rtners to mar

County, Nor

unty, Florida.

ced approxim

stance deeme

mentation, an

Corridor, the

pal indicator i

s traveling wi

e prominent 

e an easy way

ify Corridor 

igh speeds in

. Additional r

this signage t

e. 

Commission i

s to explore o

nation along U

ential duplic

igns and Scen

designation 

would work 

ng the develo

to determine

fort regarding

S 17/A1A 

ng the length 

southbound 

County line. T

ual sign locati

and reliable 

d direction 

ridor logo. T

xt or imagery

ons: (1) 

nd movement

ctional signs, 

se signs wou

oute througho

ission would

rk US 17/A1A

rth Carolina, 

. These signs 

mately 25 mil

ed reasonable

nd include th

 logo, and se

identifying th

ithin the 

display of th

y for traveler

signs, even w

n a car, bus, o

routes may b

type in the fu

ntends to wo

obtaining sce

US 17/A1A. T

ation of 

nic Byway sig

occurs, the 

closely with 

opment of th

e the appropr

g signage alo

of US 17/A1A

sign placed i

The number 

ions. 

These 

y. 

ts. 

uld 

out 

A

 to 

les 

e

he 

rve 

hat 

he 

rs to 

while 

or on 

be 

uture, 

ork 

nic 

To 

gns, 

he 

riate 

ong 

A. 

in 

of 
Part 4: Signage Framework 

199 

North Carolina 

 Approximately 10 identification signs 

South Carolina 

 Approximately 16 identification signs 

Georgia 

 Approximately 16 identification signs 

Florida 

 Approximately 8 identification signs 

Directional Signs (turns and movements). Directional signs prompt travelers to perform turns or 

movements. These signs would identify the Corridor by name, include the Corridor logo, and have 

additional traveler information at the bottom of the sign that would include a basic message. The 

messages would often only be conveyed through the use of a symbol such as a directional arrow. In 

other instances, the message would be conveyed through both a symbol(s) and words, such as a right 

arrow with the words “In 100 yards.” Finally, the sign could only include text, such as “Right Lane 

Ahead” or “Exit 136-A.” These signs would comply with the Federal Highway Administration’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009 [or most recent] edition) in order to meet national 

standards for sign installation on public roadways. 

Two types of directional signs would be used: 

1. Those placed at exits that are near Coastal Heritage Centers. 

2. Those used to direct travelers to US 17/A1A from interstates or other high-volume roadways 

and placed near or at intersections. For example, the exit off I-26 to US 17 (Septima Clark 

Expressway) would be a potential site for such a sign. To reduce costs, these signs could be 

added to existing exit assemblies. Freeway directional signs and arterial/surface street signs 

may both be needed and would be installed, as appropriate, in cooperation with partners. 

Example Potential Directional Sign Locations at Major Intersections 

North Carolina 

 I-40 and I-140 

 I-140 and US 17 

 US 74 and US 17 

South Carolina (North to South) – Note: these locations depict major route intersections with US 17 

 US 17 and the US 17 Business Route 

 US 17 and US 501 

 US 17 and SC 544 (Duck Pond Road) 

 US17 and I-26/Ravenel Bridge 

 US 17 and SC 171/SC 61 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

200 

 US 17 and SC 7/I-526 

 US 17 and US 21 

 US 17 and I-95 Exit 5 

Georgia 

 I-16 and I-95 in both directions 

 US 17 and I-95 near Richmond Hill 

 US 17 and I-95 north of South Newport 

 US 82 and I-95 

 I-95 and US 17 south of Kingsland 

Florida 

 I-295 and US 17 northeast Jacksonville 

 US 17 and I-95 downtown Jacksonville 

 I-295 and I-17 southwest Jacksonville 

 County 202 and I-95 

 I-295 and I-95 southeast Jacksonville 

 US 1 and I-95 (Old St. Augustine Road) 

Destination Signs. Destination signs welcome travelers upon arrival to sites designated as Affiliated 

Sites by the Commission. Affiliated sites are defined in more detail in the “Partner Site Support” 

document in appendix E. Destination signs would be similar in appearance to identification signs. 

Affiliated sites of the Corridor would be able to install official Corridor destination signs (see “Cost 

Breakdown” section). These signs would not be installed on highway right of ways, but on the 

property of individual affiliated sites and would comply with state and federal outdoor advertising 

policies. 

Interpretive Panels (Waysides). Interpretive panels would be an additional sign type that could be 

installed at affiliated sites. They would provide general information about the Corridor, as well as site 

specific information. They should be designed to blend with the surrounding environment. In 

addition, they would include a map and illustrations, as appropriate. 

There are many benefits of interpretive panels. They are available without the need for a staff 

presence and they use real locations and objects in their own setting as the object of interpretation. 

Moreover, they can illustrate a historical setting and/or phenomena not visible to modern-day 

visitors, and can alert visitors to potential dangers. Interpretive panels could be used to highlight 

important natural features, historically significant areas, or cultural communities and resources that 

are fundamental to Gullah Geechee people and their stories. 

Two styles of interpretive panels would be used, an upright wayside sign and a tilted wayside sign. 

Tilted wayside signs would be primarily used in locations where the sign would be used to interpret a 

resource that the visitor would be able to see directly in front of them while reading the sign. Upright 

signs would be more appropriate in locations where obstructing a viewshed is not an issue. These 
Part 4: Signage Framework 

201 

signs would not be installed on highway right of ways, but on the property of individual affiliated 

sites and would comply with state and federal outdoor advertising policies. 

COORDINATION WITH EXISTING SIGN PLANS AND PROGRAMS 

Given the fact that the Corridor stretches across four states, the Corridor would work with the 

departments of transportation in each state to ensure that the final sign design guidelines conform to 

each state’s requirements and all Federal Highway Administration requirements. The Corridor 

would work with state and local transportation departments and authorities to ensure consistency 

across the Corridor. Actual sign locations would be negotiated with partners during implementation. 

Sign Placement Guidelines 

 Signs would be held to the minimum number, size, and wording required to serve their 

intended functions. 

 Signs would be placed in such a manner and in such locations as to minimally intrude on the 

natural and historic setting. 

 Signs would be placed so as not to interfere with visitor enjoyment and appreciation of 

Corridor resources. 

 Signs would be placed to ensure the safety of residents and visitors. 

COST BREAKDOWN 

As currently envisioned, the signage system to be developed over the life of the plan would consist of 

a minimum of 10 gateway signs; 50 identification signs; and an undetermined number of directional 

signs, destination signs, and interpretive panels. Sources of funding for signs in each of the categories 

would differ. For example, all costs associated with the production, installation, and maintenance of 

destination signs and interpretive panels would be the responsibility of officially designated affiliated 

sites, unless other agreements are negotiated with the Commission. Costs for gateway signs, 

identification signs, and directional signs would be shared between the Corridor and partners. Actual 

funding amounts would be negotiated and determined in the future. Actual sign locations would be 

identified in cooperation with partners at appropriate levels of government. Sign installation would 

be completed by partners. 

SIGNAGE PLAN 

The Commission would develop a comprehensive signage plan as early as possible during 

implementation. The Commission would distribute a request for proposals if needed to develop the 

signage plan as an initial action (by end of 2013). Contractor selection and the actual development of 

a signage plan, as well as initial sign installation would all occur in the mid-range time frame (2014–

2016). The signage plan would clarify sign categories as needed, include sign designs for each sign 

category, and identify locations for gateway and wayfinding signs. The plan would also include 

specific costs broken down by types (production, installation, maintenance) and identify specific 

sources of funding. A general overview map, as well as site-specific maps would be included. In 

addition, the signage plan would clarify phasing regarding Wayfinding signage and efforts to obtain 

Scenic Byway designation along US 17/A1A. The goal of this plan would be to facilitate sign 

installation. Actual sign design, production, installation, maintenance, replacement, etc., would be 

guided by existing sign standards and specifications for the four states and Federal Highway 
CHAPTER 4: “TELLIN WE STORY” 

202 

Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009 or most recent edition). Note: If 

the NPS Arrowhead is to be used, the signage plan and individual signs must be approved by the 

Southeast Regional Office, Assistant Regional Director for Communications. 

CONCLUSION 

Accurate, comprehensive interpretation of Gullah Geechee history and culture is critical to the 

overall success of the Corridor in meeting its goals and realizing its mission and vision. The 

development of engaging, comprehensive interpretation across the Corridor is a Commission 

priority. A clear and consistent signage system would be a critical component of the overall 

interpretation framework of the Corridor. 
5

Chapter 5

Consultation and Coordination
Chapter 5 divider photos (top to bottom) 

 Brick Baptist Church Graveyard, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea 

Natalga Sumpter) 

 Marsh Landing, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 McLeod Plantation, James Island, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 
This man

members

the plann

the plan, 

PUBLIC 

Newslet

In Februa

individua

within th

comment

meetings 

Corridor 

of 2009. T

about the

public fee

mission, p

themes. T

following

1. H

an

th

ad

st

2. H

p

h

n

ad

3. W

im

ab

A

d

4. W

p

5. W

m

6. W

C

7. P

nagement pla

s of the Comm

ning process. 

including pu

MEETINGS

tter 1 

ary 2009, a ne

als and organ

e Corridor. N

t forms were 

and other ev

throughout 

The newslett

e managemen

edback on th

purpose, and

The commen

g questions: 

How do you f

nd mission st

his newslette

dditional com

tatements? 

How do you f

urpose statem

eritage area p

ewsletter? D

dditional com

What do you t

mportant thin

bout the Cult

Are there othe

o you think t

What are the t

reserved, or 

What opportu

management p

What are your

Corridor? 

lease add any

PUBLIC

n is based on

mission. Con

The public h

ublic meeting

S AND NEW

ewsletter was

nizations in al

Newsletters a

distributed a

vents within t

the spring an

er provided i

nt plan and as

he proposed v

d primary inte

nt form asked

feel about the

tatements pr

r? Do you ha

mments on th

feel about the

ment for the 

presented in 

o you have a

mments on th

think is the m

ng visitors sh

tural Heritag

er theme top

this category

three feature

continued? W

unities or ma

plan for the C

r greatest con

y additional c

C AND AG

n input from 

nsultation wit

had many ave

gs, postal mai

WSLETTERS

s sent out to 

ll four states 

and 

at public 

the 

nd summer 

information 

sked for 

vision, 

erpretive 

d the 

e draft vision

esented in 

ave 

hese 

e draft 

cultural 

this 

any 

he purpose? 

most 

hould learn 

ge Corridor? 

ics you woul

 is important

es of Gullah G

What must re

nagement ac

Cultural Her

ncerns about

comments yo

205 

GENCY IN

the public, st

th Native Am

enues to prov

il, e-mail, and

n

ld include be

t? 

Geechee cultu

emain for fut

ctions would 

itage Corrido

t the future o

ou would like

VOLVEM

takeholders, 

merican tribe

vide commen

d the Interne

esides those li

ture that you 

ture generatio

you like to s

or? 

of the Gullah

e to share wi

FIGURE

ENT 

potential pa

s was conduc

nts during th

et. 

isted in this n

think must b

ons? 

ee explored 

Geechee Cu

ith the Comm

E 19. NEWSLET

rtners, and 

cted through

he developme

newsletter? W

be protected,

in the 

ultural Herita

mission. 

TTER 1 

hout 

ent of 

Why 

,

age 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

206 

Additionally, 21 public meetings were held in 19 communities in the four states within the Corridor 

from February to August 2009. These meetings provided the public with an opportunity to express 

their thoughts and opinions about the future of the Corridor. Discussions focused on stories related 

to the cultural traditions, heritage, and resources of Gullah Geechee people. Speakers also shared 

ideas for future management of the Corridor. 

TABLE 27. PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD

Date Location 

February 19, 2009 Fernandina Beach, FL 

February 20, 2009 Jacksonville, FL 

April 7, 2009 Georgetown, SC 

April 27, 2009 McClellanville, SC 

April 28, 2009 Conway, SC 

May 5, 2009 Atlantic Beach, SC 

May 14, 2009 Georgetown, SC 

May 28, 2009 Wilmington, NC 

June 2, 2009 Savannah, GA 

June 5, 2009 Mount Pleasant, SC 

June 9, 2009 Savannah, GA 

June 16, 2009 St. Helena Island, SC 

June 22, 2009 Hollywood, SC 

June 23, 2009 Walterboro, SC 

June 24, 2009 Yemassee, SC 

June 26, 2009 Darien, GA 

June 29, 2009 Sapelo Island, GA 

July 7, 2009 Johns Island, SC 

July 27, 2009 Bluffton Village, SC 

July 28, 2009 Hardeeville, SC 

August 5, 2009 Pineland, SC 

The official public scoping comment period for the management plan opened on February 5, 2009, 

and closed on August 21, 2009. Comments were received via (1) hardcopy comment form included 

in the newsletter mailing, (2) direct input into the PEPC Web site by the respondent 
Public and Agency Involvement 

207 

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/guge), (3) e-mail, or (4) official transcripts from the public meetings. 

Respondents represented five states (California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina) and the District of Columbia, and included individuals and organizations. 

Every letter, e-mail, electronic entry, comment form, or individual speaker at a public meeting was 

considered one piece of correspondence. Each correspondence was individually analyzed and 

specific comments were extracted. A specific comment could include one story; identification of a 

resource or potential partner(s); a specific issue, concern, or idea, etc. The majority of the 

correspondences included several comments, and therefore, the number of actual comments is 

much greater than the number of correspondences received. 

During the official comment period 125 individual correspondences were received via letter, e-mail, 

electronic entries into PEPC, or hardcopy comment forms. Additionally, there were many people 

that spoke at each of the 21 public meetings. Together, the public input yielded 1,553 total 

comments. 

The majority of comments received identified specific places, people, or features that contribute to 

the uniqueness of the Corridor; shared stories of direct experiences of growing up in the Corridor 

and of those that had been passed down through generations, and provided significant insight into 

Gullah Geechee cultural traditions, language, and people. Comments also included many ideas for 

primary interpretive themes and various ways for achieving the educational and interpretive goals of 

the Corridor. Most of the comments expressed support for the preservation, conservation, and 

restoration of resources and traditional practices. They also stated the need to obtain oral histories 

and to document historical information, and identified numerous important cultural resources. 

Many comments also identified potential partners to assist in implementing the management plan. 

The public meeting transcripts and entire Public Scoping Comment Analysis Report are available in 

appendix N and on the Corridor Web site: www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org. 

Newsletter 2 

Approximately 1,600 copies of Newsletter 2 were distributed to the public and stakeholders in 

September 2010. The newsletter included descriptions of the preliminary alternatives for future 

management of the Corridor. The official public comment period opened on September 17, 2010, 

and closed on October 26, 2010. Comments were received via (1) hardcopy comment form included 

in the newsletter mailing, (2) direct input into the PEPC Web site by the respondent, (3) e-mail, or (4) 

letter. No public meetings were held during this period. During the official comment period, 69 

correspondences were received. The four questions asked were: 

1. Which parts of any of the preliminary alternatives do you feel strongly should be included in 

the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor? 

2. Which parts of the preliminary alternatives would you eliminate in the future management of 

the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor? 

3. List any important strategies, approaches, or elements (including themes) that have been 

missed or overlooked for management of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. 

4. Do you have any other comments or concerns you would like the planning team to take into 

consideration? 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

208 

The majority of comments received were 

about the parts of the preliminary 

alternatives that respondents liked. There 

were differing opinions about whether 

preliminary alternative B (Document to 

Sustain and Inform about Gullah Geechee 

People and Culture) or preliminary 

alternative C (Empower Gullah Geechee 

People and Perpetuate and Sustain the 

Culture) would be more effective in 

meeting the Corridor’s vision and mission. 

Many people suggested that preliminary 

alternatives B and C were not mutually 

exclusive, but interdependent, and 

suggested that they be combined. The 

ideas about how to combine them varied, 

but comments received touched on most 

of the implementation ideas included in 

Newsletter 2. 

Many comments received noted the 

importance of having a plan, the “project 

needs structure and backing.” Although 

there were a few comments received that 

noted specific items to remove from 

alternatives B and C, the majority of 

comments reiterated elements that were 

liked. Many respondents commented on 

the fact that the upcoming difficulty would be deciding how to prioritize the implementation ideas 

included in Newsletter 2. 

Missed or overlooked strategies, approaches, or elements were also included such as addressing the 

need to trace genealogy; considering vacant property management; creating land use maps of 

existing/proposed development for each area with overlays and insets; and developing a research 

team to gather oral histories, stories, and tales. A few comments suggested that the Commission 

create local advisory groups to assist with implementing the management plan, to instill pride in local 

areas, and to assist with fundraising. Other comments included suggestions about the potential 

future location of Coastal Heritage Centers, the need to partner and work closely with local 

governments, and increase awareness of the Corridor’s existence throughout the country and within 

African American communities. One comment suggested that the Commission develop an 

endorsement program to assist organizations in finding funding, and yet another suggested 

reviewing (and conferring about) heritage preservation efforts in other countries. 

The entire “Preliminary Alternatives Public Comment Report,” including comments received, is 

available in appendix N and on the Corridor’s Web site: www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org. 

CONSULTATION WITH TRIBES, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS 

To review copies of consultation letters and responses, please see appendix G on the CD. 

FIGURE 20. NEWSLETTER 2 
Public and Agency Involvement 

209 

Native American Consultation 

The Commission recognizes that indigenous peoples may have traditional and contemporary 

interests and ongoing rights in lands within the Corridor boundary, as well as concerns and 

contributions to make for the future of the Corridor. 

Native American Consultation with native peoples, such as Native American tribes, Alaska Natives, 

and Native Hawaiians, is required by various federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

For example, such consultation is needed to comply with section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for the 

National Environmental Policy Act also require Native American Consultation. 

Letters were sent to the following Native American tribes in June 2010 (appendix G) to invite their 

participation in the planning process. Each tribe was invited to consult about the plan. No replies 

were received by the Commission or the National Park Service. A copy of Newsletter 2 was mailed to 

each tribe requesting their input. The tribes will have an opportunity to review and comment on this 

management plan. 

 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

 Catawba Indian Nation 

 Cherokee Nation 

 Chickasaw Nation 

 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina 

 Kialegee Tribal Town 

 Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

 Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama 

 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

 Seminole Tribe of Florida 

 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida did not receive a letter and copy of Newsletter 2; rather, 

they were consulted according to their own communication protocol. 

The rights, privileges, concerns, and interests of Corridor Native American neighbors are an 

important consideration; it is equally important to work out mutually acceptable arrangements on 

particular issues. The tribes have been kept fully informed throughout the planning process. The 

Commission would continue to consult with each Native American tribe, as appropriate, during 

implementation. 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation 

Federal agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction over historic properties are required by 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 270 et seq.) to 

take into account the effect of any undertaking on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. To meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, the Commission, in 

cooperation with the National Park Service, mailed a letter to the SHPO in North Carolina, South 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

210 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida in February 2010, inviting their participation in the planning process. 

In addition, a letter was mailed to each SHPO in September 2010 inviting their review and feedback 

on Newsletter 2. 

Due to the general nature of the management plan and the uncertainty of future federal undertakings 

that may stem from implementation of this plan, the National Park Service has determined that this 

management plan involves no federal undertakings on historic properties. Per 36 CFR 800.16, 

“Undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal 

agency; those carried out with Federal assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or 

approval.” The Commission will complete a section 106 review for each undertaking involving a 

federal nexus that may stem from implementation of this management plan. This management plan 

does not restrict the subsequent consideration of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate [a 

specific] a future undertaking's adverse effects on historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.1(c). 

The National Park Service mailed a copy of the management plan to each SHPO with a request for 

written concurrence with this determination. 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation 

During the preparation of this document, National Park Service staff coordinated with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, office. A letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

on February 1, 2010, and to each state’s department of natural resources or equivalent (see appendix 

G), initiating formal consultation and requesting a species list. The list of threatened and endangered 

species included in appendix H of this plan was compiled using lists and information from online 

sources developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, the 

National Park Service determined that the management approach outlined in the management plan 

would have no effect on listed species that are under the jurisdictions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. A copy of the management plan was mailed to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 

Consultation on future actions would be conducted during implementation of this management 

plan, as necessary, to comply with the Endangered Species Act. 

Coastal Zone Management 

The Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted in 1972 to preserve, protect, develop, and where 

possible, to restore and enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone. The act requires federal 

agency activities (i.e., “direct” agency activities) to be fully consistent with a state’s approved coastal 

management program, unless full consistency is prohibited by federal law. This plan does not 

propose any development in the Corridor and no management activities in this plan conflict with the 

coastal zone management program. Therefore, there is no effect on coastal resources in the 

Corridor. 
Public and Agency Involvement 

211 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

The Commission will comply with all appropriate laws and funding requirements in implementing 

the strategies and actions outlined in this management plan. See “Applicable Laws, Policies, and 

Initiatives” in chapter 1 and “Other Requirements of the Commission” in chapter 3 for more 

information. 

OTHER OUTREACH EFFORTS 

In addition to consultation required by law, the Commission continuously conducted outreach with 

potential partners, agencies, and the public throughout the planning process. 

Quarterly Business Meetings 

The Commission is required to hold quarterly business meetings that are open to the public. Table 28 

lists the meetings that have been held since the Commission members were publicly announced in 

October 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. 

Initial Meetings with Potential Partners 

Early in the planning process, the Commission 

opened a dialogue with a few local, county, and 

regional planning agencies, as well as tourism 

agencies and organizations. These meetings 

were informal in nature and allowed the 

Commission to engage in discussions about 

local issues and concerns (see table 27). For 

example, information was shared with the 

Commission about remnants of indigo dying, 

threatened slave cemeteries, ideas for an active 

center with sweetgrass fields, and small African 

American communities threatened by 

development pressures. Throughout this round 

of meetings, all of the potential partners stated 

that they were willing to assist in any way they could. 

TABLE 28. QUARTERLY PUBLIC BUSINESS MEETINGS (2008–2012) 

Date Location 

May 18–19, 2008 Charleston, SC 

August 13–15, 2008 Wilmington, NC 

September 17–18, 2008 Darien and Sapelo Island, GA 

February 20, 2009 Jacksonville, FL 

May 15, 2009 Georgetown, SC 

July 17, 2009 Wilmington, NC 

October 23, 2009 Savannah, GA 

February 18–19, 2010 St. Augustine, FL 

QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING

CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC, MAY 2010 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

212 

TABLE 28. QUARTERLY PUBLIC BUSINESS MEETINGS (2008–2012) 

Date Location 

May 20–21, 2010 Charleston, SC 

August 12–13, 2010 Southport, NC 

November 18–19, 2010 Brunswick, GA 

February 11, 2011 Jacksonville, FL 

May 26–27, 2011 Bluffton, SC 

August 19, 2011 Burgaw, NC 

November 11, 2011 Midway, GA 

February 23-24, 2012 Jacksonville, FL 

June 1, 2012 Mount Pleasant, SC 

TABLE 29. INITIAL MEETINGS WITH POTENTIAL PARTNERS

Date Location 

July 31, 2009 City of Savannah Community Planning & Development 

August 5, 2009 Columbus County Government: Travel & Tourism 

August 6, 2009 Charleston County, South Carolina Councilmen 

August 12, 2009 Brunswick County Planning & Community Development 

August 14, 2009 The Lowcountry Council of Governments (COG) 

August 14, 2009 Beaufort County Council Planning Department and Historic Preservationist 

August 17, 2009 Berkeley County, South Carolina Councilmen 

August 19, 2009 New Hanover County City and Regional Planning Department and Wilmington 

City and Regional Planning Department 

August 20, 2009 Coastal Regional Commission and Camden County Planning Department 

August 21, 2009 Savannah Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Workshops with Potential Partners 

In early 2010, the Commission distributed “Partner Packets” to more than 100 potential partners 

requesting their involvement at an in-person meeting. Recipients of the “Partner Packet” included 

each state’s congressional delegation; federal agency officials; the governors of the four states; state 

cabinet members and high-ranking state officials (including each state SHPO); county and town 

administrators, mayors, and regional, county, and local planning directors; representatives from 

convention and visitor bureaus; and chambers of commerce. Throughout the spring of 2010, 

members of the Commission held face-to-face workshops with potential partners. Four meetings 

were held, one in each state—they are presented here in chronological order. 

North Carolina. The North Carolina meeting was held at the North Carolina Department of 

Cultural Resources in Raleigh on Thursday, April 29, 2010, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. There were 19 

non-Commission participants in attendance. The group unanimously agreed that efforts in North 
Public and Agency Involvement 

213 

Carolina to conserve Gullah Geechee culture would require a sustained effort from within the state; 

the larger effort being undertaken by the full Commission. The city of Raleigh was the site of the 

workshop because the majority of potential state-level partners are concentrated in the capital city. 

North Carolina Participants 

 John Battle, Chairman African American Heritage Foundation of New Hanover County 

 Leslie Bell, Director, Brunswick County Planning and Community Development 

 Linda Carlisle, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

 Margaret Conrad, Resourceful Communities 

 Jeff Crow, Assistant Secretary, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

 Angella Dunston, Director of Outreach and Faith in the Governor’s Office 

 Fleming A. El-Amin 

 Mary Ruffin Hanbury, Hanbury Consulting 

 Bill Hart, New Hanover County Soil and Water District and Eagles Island Coalition 

 Jamilla Hawkins, Consultant to the African American Heritage Commission 

 Dr. Valerie Johnson, Bennett College and North Carolina Historical Commission 

 Dr. Rhonda Jones, North Carolina Central University History Department 

 Dr. Richard Lawrence, North Carolina Underwater Archeological Commission 

 Michelle Lanier, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, North Carolina 

Department of Cultural Resources 

 Gloria Nance Simms, Director, Division of Community Assistance, North Carolina 

Department of Commerce & NCAPA Representative 

 Connie Nelson, Cape Fear Visitors Bureau, Wilmington, North Carolina 

 Sally Peterson, North Carolina Arts Council Folk Life Program 

 Susan Sachs, Resourceful Communities 

 Mikki Sager, Vice President, The Conservation Fund 

 Jim Williard, Audio/Visual, North Carolina Cultural Resources 

NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERS MEETING

RALEIGH, WADE COUNTY, NC, APRIL 2010 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

214 

South Carolina. The South Carolina meeting was held at the Wachovia Room of the South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History in Columbia on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, from 10:30 a.m. to 

1:00 p.m. Twenty-five non-Commission or National Park Service participants attended. The 

participants expressed gratitude for having been invited and presented accolades for the way their 

input was solicited and would be used. The capital city, Columbia, was the site of the workshop since 

the majority of potential state-level partners are located at the government seat. 

South Carolina Participants 

 Rene Ann Tenkesbury, Office of Senator 

Lindsey Graham 

 Randy Akers, South Carolina Humanities 

Council 

 Jane Baker, City of Charleston 

 Marcy Benson, City of Hilton Head 

Island 

 Chris Bickley, Lowcountry Council of 

Governments 

 Michael Covington, South Carolina 

Department of Transportation 

 Susan DuPlessis, South Carolina Arts 

Commission 

 W. Eric Emerson, South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

 Adam Emrick, Horry County Government 

 George Estes, South Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation 

 Jannie Harriot, South Carolina African American Heritage Commission 

 Louis Heyward, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

 Elizabeth Johnson, South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

 Leon Love , South Carolina African American Heritage Commission 

 Joseph McGill Jr., National Trust for Historic Preservation 

 Ron Mitchum, Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments 

 Tom O’Rourke, Charleston County Parks and Recreation 

 Kiera Reinertsen, Town of Mount Pleasant 

 Chanda Robinson, South Carolina Department of Education 

 Samuel N. Robinson, Mayor, Town of Awendaw 

 Sharon Scott, International African American Museum 

 Ray Sigmor, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism 

 Michelle Sinkle, The Donnelly Foundation 

 Elizabeth Tucker, Georgetown County Government 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEETING

GEORGETOWN, GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SC, 

MAY 2009 
Public and Agency Involvement 

215 

Georgia. The Georgia meeting was held at the National Park Service, Martin Luther King Jr. 

Historic District, Visitor’s Center Conference Room in Atlanta on Monday, May 3, 2010, from 10:00 

a.m. to 12:30 p.m. There were seven non-Commission participants in attendance. The capital city, 

Atlanta, was the site of the workshop since the majority of potential state-level partners are located at 

the government seat. 

Georgia Participants 

 Cynthia Peurifoy, Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 William T. Austin, Mayor, City of Riceboro 

 K. Lynn Berry, NHA Program Manager, National Park Service, Southeast Region 

 Leslie Breland, Heritage Tourism, Georgia Department of Economic Development 

 Shedrick Coleman, Commissioner, Metropolitan Savannah Planning Commission 

 Dave Crass, Director, Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

 Jamil Zainaldin, President, Georgia Humanities Council 

Florida. Outreach to potential partners formally commenced in Florida with a workshop at Mission 

San Luis Visitor Center in Tallahassee, Friday, April 9, 2010, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. There were 

five non-Commission participants in attendance. The capital city, Tallahassee, was the site of the 

workshop since the majority of potential state-level partners are located at the government seat. 

Florida Participants 

 Dawn Kimmel Roberts, Assistant Secretary of State and Chief of Staff, 

Florida Department of State 

 Barbara Mattick, Bureau Chief, Division of Historical Resources, 

Florida Department of State 

 JuDee Pettijohn, Department Chief, Cultural Affairs, 

Florida Department of State 

 Scott Stroh, Department Chief, Division of Historical Resources, 

Florida Department of State 

 Phillip Werndli, Florida Park Service, Division of Recreation and Parks, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

New Elected Officials 

Following the November 2010 election, the Commission reached out to newly elected officials at the 

federal and state level. A letter was mailed to the following elected officials in April 2011 to 

congratulate them on their electoral success and introduce them to the Corridor and the 

management planning process. 

 Honorable Marco Rubio, United States Senator, Florida 

 Honorable Tim Scott, United States Congressman, South Carolina 

 Honorable Nathan Deal, Governor of Georgia 

 Honorable Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

216 

 Honorable Rick Scott, Governor of Florida – c/o Jennifer Carroll, Lieutenant Governor 

OTHER COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 

Table 30 identifies some of the events, conferences, meetings, and other activities held by other 

organizations that one or more commissioners presented at or attended as representatives of the 

Commission. Meetings related to Commission operations and/or the development of the 

management plan are described in the Timeline of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

Committee Development and Management Plan Process in the section titled “Commission 

Committees, Preparers, and Appendices.” 

TABLE 30. OTHER COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

Activity Date Location 

Attended the African American Life in the Georgia 

Lowcountry Symposium February 20, 2008 Savannah, GA 

Attended the Alliance of National Heritage Areas 

Annual Meeting/Congressional Reception March 2–4, 2008 Washington, D.C. 

Presented at the South Carolina Federation of 

Museums Conference. “Connecting Nature and 

Culture: SC Museums in a Changing Environment” 

February 27–29, 2008 Beaufort, SC 

Attended the Coastal African American Summit, 

Geechee Kunda April 19, 2008 Riceboro, GA 

Attended the Georgia Sea Island Festival June 21, 2008 St. Simons Island, GA 

Attended the Wanderer Slave Ship Memorial November 25, 2008 Jekyll Island, GA 

Presented at the Organization of American Historians 

Annual Meeting. “Public History Roundtable: The 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor” 

April 2009 Washington, D.C. 

Attended the Georgia Sea Island Festival and 

distributed Newsletter 1 June 20–21, 2009 St. Simons Island, GA 

Attended and spoke at the dedication of the 

Sweetgrass Cultural Arts Pavilion at Mount Pleasant 

Memorial Waterfront Park 

July 5, 2009 Mount Pleasant, SC 

Presented at the Association of African American 

Museums August 19-22, 2009 Baton Rouge, LA 

Presented at the Congressional Black Caucus 

Foundation’s legislative conference September 2009 Washington, D.C. 

Presented at the National Trust for Historic Preservation October 13–17, 2009 Nashville, TN 

Presented at the Connecting the Worlds of the African 

Diaspora: The Living Legacy of Lorenzo Dow Turner 

Symposium 

November 12–13,2010 Washington, D.C. 

Attended and presented at the Mitchellville 

Preservation Project Committee. “Inaugural Forum: 

Unheard Voices” 

October 21, 2011 Hilton Head Island, SC 
Public and Agency Involvement 

217 

LETTERS OF SUPPORT 

The following section includes letters from governments and other organizations, as well as a county 

resolution supporting the Commission and the development and implementation of this management plan. The letters were received from state and local governments and other organizations that 

support the work of the Commission. Additional letters were received in direct response to 

Newsletter 2 and are included in appendix N. 





July 21, 2009 

Charleston, SC

A RESOLUTION 

of Charleston County Council 

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has enacted the National Heritage 

Areas Act of 2006 creating ten new heritage areas among which is the GullahGeechee Cultural Heritage Corridor along the coasts of northern Florida, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and southern North Carolina; and 

WHEREAS, the Heritage Corridor recognizes the important contributions made 

to American culture and history by Africans and African Americans known as 

Gullah/Geechee who settled in the coastal counties of Florida, Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina; and 

WHEREAS, the Heritage Corridor provides assistance to federal, state, and local 

governments, grassroots organizations, and public and private entities in 

interpreting the story of Gullah/Geechee culture and preserving Gullah/Geechee 

folklore, arts, crafts, and music; and 

WHEREAS, the Heritage Corridor assists in identifying and preserving sites, 

historical data, artifacts, and objects associated with Gullah/Geechee culture for 

the benefit an education of the public; and 

WHEREAS, Mount Pleasant Sweetgrass Overlay District possesses significant 

history related to Gullah-Geechee culture and Gullah-Geechee folklore, arts, 

crafts, and music; and 

WHEREAS, the historical sites, historical data, artifacts and objects associated 

with Gullah-Geechee culture in Mount Pleasant Sweetgrass Overlay District 

should be identified and preserved for the benefit and education of the public. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by CHARLESTON COUNTY COUNCIL 

OF CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA as follows: 

1. County Council hereby endorses and supports the goals and objectives of 

the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006 and the work of the GullahGeechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission. 

2. County Council hereby endorses the inclusion of the Mount Pleasant 

Sweetgrass Overlay District in the Gullah-Geechee Cultural Heritage 

Corridor.

Adopted in regular session of County Council for the County of Charleston, South 

Carolina this 21st day of July, 2009. 

CHARLESTON COUNTY COUNCIL 

Teddie E. Pryor, Sr., Chairman 

July 21, 2009




228 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

U.S. Senate 

Richard Burr, NC 

Kay R. Hagan, NC 

Jim DeMint, SC 

Lindsey Graham, SC 

Saxby Chambliss, GA 

Johnny Isakson, GA 

Bill Nelson, FL 

Marco Rubio, FL 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Mike McIntyre. NC – 7th District 

James Clyburn, SC – 6th District 

Tim Scott, SC – 1st District 

Joe Wilson, SC – 2nd District 

John Barrow, GA – 12th District 

Jack Kingston, GA – 1st District 

Corrine Brown, FL – 3rd District 

Ander Crenshaw, FL – 4th District 

John Mica, FL – 7th District 

Clifford Stearns, FL – 6th District 

Federal Agencies and Lands 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Castillo de San Marcos National Memorial 

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 

Fort Caroline National Monument 

Fort Frederica National Monument 

Fort Matanzas National Monument 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Fort Sumter National Monument 

Francis Marion National Forest 

Library of Congress, The American Folklife Center 

Moores Creek National Battlefield 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Services Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Scenic Byway Program 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic National Preserve 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region 

 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document 

229 

Native American Tribes 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

Catawba Indian Nation 

Cherokee Nation 

Chickasaw Nation 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma 

Interstate Organizations 

Governor’s South Atlantic Alliance 

South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

Governors 

Governor Bev Perdue, NC 

Governor Nikki Haley, SC 

Governor Nathan Deal, GA 

Governor Rick Scott, FL 

State of North Carolina 

Department of Administration 

State Environmental Review Clearinghouse 

Department of Commerce 

Division of Community Assistance 

Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development 

Economic Development Board 

Department of Cultural Resources 

North Carolina African American Heritage Commission 

North Carolina Arts Council 

Office of Archives and History 

Office of State Archaeology 

State Historic Preservation Office 

State Historic Sites 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Coastal Management 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

Office of Conservation and Community Affairs 

Office of Environmental Education 

Parks and Recreation 

Department of Transportation 

Public Schools of North Carolina 

State Board of Education 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

230 

State of South Carolina 

Budget and Control Board 

 State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Review 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Archives and History 

South Carolina African American Heritage Commission 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Department of Commerce 

Community & Rural Planning and Development 

Department of Education 

Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

State Park Service 

Tourism and Recreation Development 

Department of Transportation 

South Carolina Arts Commission 

State of Georgia 

Department of Economic Development 

Department of Education 

Department of Natural Resources 

Coastal Resources Division 

Georgia African American Historic Preservation Network 

Historic Preservation Division 

State Parks and Historic Sites Division 

Department of Transportation 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget 

State Clearinghouse 

State of Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Florida Forest Service 

Department of Education 

Department of Economic Opportunity 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Florida State Clearinghouse 

Florida Park Service 

Department of State 

Division of Cultural Affairs 

Division of Historical Resources (State Historic Preservation Officer) 

Florida African American Heritage Preservation Network 

Department of Transportation 

Regional Organizations 

Cape Fear COGs, NC 

Waccamaw Regional COG, SC 

Pee Dee Regional COGs, SC 

Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester COG, SC 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document 

231 

Lowcountry COG, SC 

Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia, GA 

Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission, GA 

Northeast Florida Regional Council, FL 

Libraries 

C. Louis Shields Learning Resource Center, Coastal Carolina Community College, NC 

Central Branch Library, Pender County, NC 

Columbus County Public Library, Columbus County, NC 

G.V. Barbee, Sr. Library (Oak Island), Brunswick County, NC 

New Hanover County Central Library, New Hanover County, NC 

Onslow County Library, Onslow County, NC 

William Madison Randall Library, University of North Carolina –Wilmington, NC 

Allendale County Library, Jasper County, SC 

Avery Research Center for African American History & Culture, Archives & Library, SC 

Beaufort Branch Public Library, Beaufort County, SC 

Charleston County Library – Main Branch, Charleston County, SC 

Colleton County Memorial Library, Colleton County, SC 

Daniel Library, The Citadel Military College, SC 

Dorchester County Library, Dorchester County, SC 

Georgetown County Library – Main Branch, Georgetown County, SC 

H.V. Manning Library, Clafin University, SC 

Hilton Head Gateway Campus Library, University of South Carolina, SC 

Historic Beaufort Campus Library, University of South Carolina, SC 

Horry County Memorial Library, Horry County, SC 

Kimbel Library, Coastal Carolina University, SC 

L. Mendel Rivers Library, Charleston Southern University, SC 

Miller F. Whittaker Library, South Carolina State University, SC 

Moncks Corner Library, Berkeley County, SC 

Waring Historical Library, Medical University of South Carolina, SC 

Williamsburg County Library, Williamsburg County, SC 

Asa H. Gordon Library, Savannah State University, GA 

Bull Street Library Branch, Chatham County, GA 

Brunswick-Glynn County Library, Glynn County, GA 

Camden County Public Library (Kingsland), Camden County, GA 

Jen Library, Savannah College of Art & Design, GA 

Lane Library, Armstrong Atlantic State University, GA 

Statesboro-Bulloch Regional Public Library, Bryan County, GA 

Betty P. Cook Nassau Center Library, Florida State College, FL 

Duval County Library – Main Branch, Duval County, FL 

Edward Waters College Library, Edwards Waters College, FL 

Nassau County Public Library, Nassau County, FL 

Proctor Library, Flagler College, FL 

St. Johns County Library – Main Branch, St. Johns County, FL 

Swisher Library, Jacksonville University, FL 

Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida, FL 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

232 

County/Local Government 

All 27 county governments that are wholly or partially within the boundary of the Corridor. 

Local, municipal, and town governments within the Corridor, to the extent possible 

Organizations and Businesses 

An extensive list of organizations and businesses will be notified of the availability of the draft 

plan. 

Individuals 

An extensive list of individuals will be notified of the availability of the draft plan. 
6

Commission 

Committees,

 References, and 

Appendices
Commission Committees, References, and Appendices divider photos (top to bottom) 

 Daufuskie Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 Traditional Gullah Geechee Home, Hog Hammock Community, Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA 

(Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Child’s Grave in the Springfield Cemetery, Brookgreen Gardens, Murrells Inlet, Georgetown County, 

SC (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 


Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Committees, 2008–2012 

237 

ISSUE-SPECIFIC COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES 

Boundary Subcommittee 

(under General Management Plan Committee) 

Anthony E. Dixon 

Veronica D. Gerald 

John H. Haley 

Coastal Heritage Centers Subcommittee 

(under General Management Plan Committee) 

J. Herman Blake 

Lana Carter 

Louise Miller Cohen 

Charles H. Hall 

Antoinette Jackson 

Partner Packet / Partnership Subcommittee 

(under Marketing and Resource Development Committees) 

Ronald Daise, Co-chair 

Lana Carter 

Daniel Cromer 

Anthony E. Dixon 

David B. Frank 

Nichole Green 

Willie B. Heyward 

Althea Natalga Sumpter, Co-chair 

Amir Jamal Touré 

Eulis A. Willis 

Interpretation Plan Committee 

Nichole Green, Chair 

Emory S. Campbell 

Louise Miller Cohen 

Jeanne C. Cyriaque 

Anthony E. Dixon 

David B. Frank 

Veronica D. Gerald 

John H. Haley 

Charles H. Hall 

Antoinette Jackson 

Amir Jamal Touré 

Implementation Plan Committee 

Ronald Daise, Chair 

J. Herman Blake 

Emory S. Campbell 

Marquetta L. Goodwine 

Antoinette Jackson 

Ralph B. Johnson 

Althea Natalga Sumpter 

Eulis A. Willis 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

238 

Management Plan Review Committee 

Ronald Daise, Chair 

J. Herman Blake 

Emory S. Campbell 

Marquetta L. Goodwine 

John H. Haley 

Charles H. Hall 

Antoinette Jackson 

Ralph B. Johnson 

Althea Natalga Sumpter 

Eulis A. Willis 

Michael A. Allen 

Public Statement Policy Committee 

Eulis Willis, Chair 

Louise Miller Cohen 

Anthony E. Dixon 

David B. Frank 

Willie B. Heyward 

Amir Jamal Touré 

Web Design Committee 

Althea Natalga Sumpter, Chair 

J. Herman Blake 

Ronald Daise 

Anthony E. Dixon 

Nichole Green 

Antoinette Jackson 
239 

TIME LINE OF GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 

COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS 

April 21–23, 2008 The Commissioners assembled at Penn Center, St. Helena Island, SC. The 

session was organized and facilitated by the National Park Service, Southeast 

Regional National Heritage Area Program Office. The majority of the meeting 

focused on presentations of ethical and legal issues relating to service on a 

National Commission as Unpaid Governmental Employees. Representatives 

of several existing national park areas presented illustrative cases. 

 The Commissioners then met without the presence of nonmembers, and 

without a designated leader. By common consent, participants selected 

Commissioner J. Herman Blake to serve as lead person for the Commission 

until executive officers were elected. Commissioner Blake then selected 

Commissioner David Frank to organize a By-laws Committee and 

Commissioner Charles Hall to organize a Nominating committee. 

Commissioner Lana Carter was selected as a recorder. 

 With the support of Michael Allen (NPS Liaison), Commissioner Blake 

planned the organizational meeting scheduled to take place in Charleston, 

SC.

May 19, 2008 The Commission, at its meeting in Charleston, SC, approved the by-laws 

recommended (as amended) by Commissioner David Frank and his 

committee. Commissioner Charles Hall presented a slate of nominees 

selected by the Nominating Committee. The Commission then elected the 

following Executive Committee members, reflecting a representative from 

each of the four states: Emory S. Campbell, Chair (SC); Eulis A. Willis, Vice 

Chair (NC); Jeanne C. Cyriaque, Secretary (GA); and Ralph B. Johnson, 

Treasurer (FL). 

 The following Standing Committees were established: 

 Fiduciary Partnership – Commissioner John H. Haley, Chair 

 General Management Plan – Commissioner Marquetta L. Goodwine, 

Chair 

 Marketing – Commissioner Glenda Simmons-Jenkins, Chair 

 Resource Development – Commissioner Althea N. Sumpter, Chair 

 The following General Management Plan Subcommittees also were 

established: 

 Criteria 

 Inventory – Commissioner Nichole Green, Chair 

 Public Involvement 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

240 

July 15–16, 2008 The Commission, at its meeting at the Charles Pinckney National Historic 

Site, Mount Pleasant, SC, participated with Denver Service Center in a 

technical assistance meeting to discuss the requirements of the legislation, 

public involvement strategies, National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance, data needs, etc. 

August 14–15, 2008 The Commission, at its meeting in Wilmington, NC, participated with Denver 

Service Center in a technical assistance workshop focused on specific needs 

for the planning effort, including resource inventory, business plan, 

implementation plan and interpretation plan, as well as early implementation 

activities. 

September 17–18, 2008 The Commission, at its meeting in Darien and Sapelo Island, GA, constructed 

the initial draft of the Corridor’s Vision, Mission, and Goals, and decided to 

incorporate in the state of South Carolina and file certificates to conduct 

business in the other three states. Commissioner Nichole Green volunteered 

to chair a subcommittee to work on the primary interpretive themes. 

September 26, 2008 The Commission became incorporated in the state of South Carolina. 

February 20, 2009 The Commission, at its meeting in Jacksonville, FL, formed the Staffing 

Committee consisting of Commissioners Charles Hall (Chair), Antoinette 

Jackson, and Ralph Johnson. The superintendents of several NPS units 

within the Corridor attended the meeting, along with the Southeast Regional 

Director. 

 From February 19 – August 5, the General Management Plan Committee and 

Public Involvement Subcommittee officiated at 21 Public Scoping Meetings 

throughout the Corridor. 

 

March 19–20, 2009 Commissioner Antoinette Jackson met with Denver Service Center staff to 

discuss the roles of DSC team members on the project. 

May 15, 2009 The Commission, at its meeting in Georgetown, SC, approved the 

recommendations of the Bylaws Committee. 

July 17, 2009 The Commission, at its meeting in Wilmington, NC, approved the Marketing 

and Resource Committees’ development of a Partner Packet and 

recommendation to send mail outs to 100 potential partners, requesting their 

involvement and to meet with them for a face-to-face meeting. Recipients 

were: each state’s congressional delegation; federal agency officials; the 

governors of the four states; state cabinet members and high-ranking state 

officials, county and town administrators, mayors, and regional, county, and 

local planning directors; representatives from convention and visitor 

bureaus; and chambers of commerce. 

The Commission approved the Executive Committee’s appointment of 

Commissioner Ronald Daise as Chair of the Marketing Committee, upon the 

resignation from the Commission of Commissioner Glenda SimmonsJenkins. 
Time Line of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

241 

From April 9 – May 3, 2009, the Commission held four (4) face-to-face 

workshops with potential partners in FL, SC, NC, and GA. 

September 29– 

October 1, 2009 

 The Executive Committee met with Denver Service Center in Denver, CO to 

discuss the plan’s schedule, budget, and scope. Public comment analysis was 

reviewed and NEPA requirements were discussed, including ideas for 

preliminary alternatives. Key elements of the plan, such as boundary 

adjustments, partnerships, and coastal heritage center(s) were also on the 

agenda for discussion. 

October 23, 2009 The Commission, at its meeting in Savannah, GA, gave and listened to a 

variety of reports on various projects and initiatives related to the Corridor, 

including the report by Executive Committee members and participants who 

attended the workshop in Denver, CO. 

February 19, 2010 The Commission, at its meeting in St. Augustine, FL, approved the Marketing 

Committee’s report to disseminate 50 upper tier mail-outs about partnerships 

to government officials. 

 

Following the Nominating Committee’s recommendation of candidates, the 

Commission re-elected the following Executive Committee members at the 

Commission meeting in St. Augustine, FL: Emory S. Campbell, Chair (SC); 

Eulis A. Willis, Vice Chair (NC); Ralph B. Johnson, Treasurer (FL); and it 

elected Charles H. Hall, Secretary (GA). 

 The following Issue-Specific Subcommittees were established: Boundary, 

Coastal Heritage Centers, and Partner Packet/Partnership. 

Chairman Campbell and NPS Community Partnership Specialist Allen 

reported that the Commission, National Park Service, and Denver Service 

Center, Planning Division signed a Project Agreement for the Denver Service 

Center, Planning Division to develop the Corridor’s Management Plan. 

May 20, 2010 The Commission, at its meeting in Charleston, SC, formally recognized the 

following as “Former Commission Members”: Deborah L. Mack, GA; 

William Jefferson , FL; and Glenda Simmons-Jenkins, FL. 

The Commission approved the Boundary Committee’s recommendation to 

include Pender County, NC, which was included in the NPS Lowcountry 

Gullah Special Resource Study, as well as St. Johns County, FL due to its 

historical and current connections to Gullah Geechee history, culture and 

people. The Boundary Committee recommended that this be included in the 

developing Management Plan. The Boundary Committee reiterated that the 

boundary does not change until the plan is signed by the secretary of the 

interior. It also proposed that no other territory be added to the Corridor in 

the future and that the boundaries of the Corridor be fixed. 

 The Nominating Committee presented recommendations for a process by 

which to solicit new members of the Commission. A decision was made to 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

242 

consider conversion of alternates into commissioners before looking for 

individuals who had not previously been involved with the Commission. 

August 13, 2010 The Commission, at its meeting in Southport, NC, approved the 

recommendations of the Marketing Committee and Partner Packet / 

Partnership Subcommittee to: 

1. authorize the “Preliminary Alternatives” Newsletter draft for 1,000 mail 

outs throughout the Corridor on September 20, 2010; 

2. alter the Partnership Outreach strategy by sending Partner Packets to 

local government offices via PDF instead of mail outs; and 

3. include copy revisions that had been voiced by attendees at each 

statewide Partnership meeting. 

 

 The Commission also approved the recommendation of the Coastal Heritage 

Center Subcommittee regarding the Coastal Heritage Center Decision 

Criteria. 

November 19, 2010 The Commission, at its meeting in Brunswick, GA, selected the Preferred 

Alternative upon an assessment of public opinion. Following the selection, 

the following Issue-Specific Subcommittees were established: Interpretation 

Plan, Implementation, Management Plan Review, and Public Statement 

Policy. 

The Commission approved the Partnership Subcommittee’s 

recommendation to work with DSC for the next two to three months to 

finalize the Preferred Alternative and to develop strategies to continue 

reaching out to partners in a strategic manner to build critical relationships 

needed to implement the management plan. 

The Commission approved the recommendation of the Fiduciary Committee 

to continue procuring a fiscal agent.

February 10, 2011 Members of the Interpretation Plan Committee, along with other 

commissioners who assisted in drafting the primary interpretive themes of 

the Corridor, met with Melisaa English-Rias, Interpretative Specialist for the 

NPS Southeast Regional Office, to discuss the primary interpretive themes 

she drafted. 

February 11, 2011 The Commission, at its meeting in Jacksonville, FL, approved the Report 

on Refining and Finalizing the Preferred Alternative, submitted by 

Partnership Subcommittee Co-chairs: Commissioner Althea N. Sumpter, 

Resource Development, Chair ; and Commissioner Ronald Daise, Marketing, 

Chair. 

The Fiduciary Committee was authorized to establish 

conversation/negotiations for the purpose of securing a fiscal agent/fiscal 

sponsorship for the Commission. 

The Commission approved the Nominating Committee’s/Staffing 

Committee’s recommendation of names of prospective citizens to fill 
Time Line of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

243 

vacancies of Commission members. The names subsequently were submitted 

to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior for approval. 

During Executive Session, the Commission approved the establishment of a 

Web Design Committee. 

May 27, 2011 The Commission, at its meeting in Bluffton, SC, approved the 

Implementation Plan Committee’s recommendations to: 

1. focus implementation efforts on three interdependent pillars: education, 

economic development, and documentation and preservation; 

2. establish the Corridor Organization Chart; and 

3. develop partnerships through proposed Partner, Partner Site, and 

Stakeholder applications. 

The Commission also approved the Public Statement Policy document 

prepared by the Public Statement Committee. 

The Commission was introduced to the Web site design and structure 

created by an advanced class of web designers from The Art Institute of 

Atlanta, under the supervision of the Web Design Committee. Afterward, the 

Commission approved the Web Design Committee’s report that the 

Commission’s Web site, www.gullahgeecheecorridor.org, was almost 

completed, was available online, and would be ready to launch officially in 

the immediate future. 

July 21, 2011 A Draft Management Plan was distributed to the Management Plan Review 

Committee for its review and comment. The comment period lasted until 

August 7, 2011. 

August 19, 2011 Following a number of conference calls to address comments by the 

Management Plan Review Committee, a revised Draft Management Plan was 

distributed to all Commission members, National Heritage Area Program 

staff, and superintendents of national parks within the Corridor at or 

immediately following the quarterly business meeting in Burgaw, NC. The 

full Commission review period closed on September 23, 2011. 

 

September 20, 2011 The following Management Plan Review Committee members formed 

subcommittees to draft and edit revised Draft Management Plan documents, 

which subsequently were approved by the full Management Plan Review 

Committee: 

 “Contemporary Events of Significance” – Commissioner Ronald Daise 

 “Who Are Gullah Geechee People?” – Commissioner J. Herman Blake 

 “Folk Life and Traditions” – Commissioners Althea N. Sumpter and 

Ronald Daise 

 “Heirs’ Property” – Commissioners Marquetta L. Goodwine and Willie 

Heyward 

 “Heritage Tourism” – Commissioner Antoinette Jackson 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

244 

 “Historical Overview of the Gullah Geechee People and Culture” – 

Commissioners John H. Haley and Anthony Dixon 

 “Language and Oral Traditions” – Commissioner David B. Frank 

 “Letter of Support from SC NHA and Alliance of NHAs” – NPS 

Partnership Specialist Michael Allen 

 Photo Editor – Commissioner Althea N. Sumpter 

 “Resource Inventory” – Commissioners John H. Haley (NC), Marquetta 

L. Goodwine (SC), Althea N. Sumpter (GA), and Antoinette Jackson (FL) 

 “Significance Statements” – Management Plan Review Committee 

 “Socioeconomic Conditions” – Chairman Emory S. Campbell and 

Commissioner J. Herman Blake 

November 11, 2011 The Commission, at its meeting in Midway, GA, decided to pursue an 

agreement with the Gullah Geechee Sustaining Fund to serve as the 

Commission’s fiscal agent. 

 The Commission granted authority to the Management Plan Review 

Committee to grant final approval of documents in the Draft Management 

Plan before and after public review. The Commission approved 

Commissioner Ronald Daise as Chair of the Management Review 

Committee. 

February 23–24, 2012 The Commission elected Ronald Daise as Chair-Elect and Althea Natalga 

Sumpter as Vice Chair-Elect of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage 

Corridor Commission. 

June 1, 2012 The Commission, based on the recommendation of the Management Plan 

Review Committee, approved the management plan for public distribution. 
245 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

PREPARERS 

NPS Denver Service Center, Planning Division 

Andrew Coburn, Project Manager / Community Planner; B.A. Economics; B.S. Business 

Administration; Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Land use and Environmental Planning; 

Master of Public Administration; 4 years with the National Park Service. 

Mary McVeigh, Project Manager/ Community Planner (2008-2009); B.A. Technical 

Communications; 22 years with the National Park Service. 

Patrick Kenney, Former Branch Chief; B.S. Zoology, 23 years of experience, 20 years with the 

National Park Service (2008–2011). 

Aaron Gagne, Branch Chief; B.Sc. in Environmental Planning; Master of City and Regional Planning; 

US Navy Supply Corps School; Naval War College. 19 years of experience, 2 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Tracy Atkins, PE, PMP, Project Manager / Community Planner; B.S. Architectural Engineering; M.S. 

Construction Engineering and Management; M.S. Community and Regional Planning. Registered 

Civil Engineer, Certified Project Manager; 22 years of experience, 4 years with the National Park 

Service. 

Sarah Bodo, Community Planner; B.S. Finance; Master of Urban and Regional Planning; 5 years with 

the National Park Service. 

Carrie Miller, Cultural Resource Specialist; B.S. Human Ecology; M. Arh. Architectural History; 10 

years of experience, 2 years with the National Park Service. 

Christina Miller, Natural Resource Specialist; B.S. in Biology, B.A. in Geography, M.A.S. in 

Environmental Policy and Management (for Natural Resource Management); 8 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Nancy Doucette, Visitor Use Management Specialist (SCEP); A.S. in Travel-Tourism Management; 

B.S. in Hospitality Management; 2 years with the National Park Service. 

Justin Henderson, Community Planner (SCEP); B.A. Anthropology; Master in Anthropology and 

Museum Studies; Master of Urban and Regional Planning; Master of Historic Preservation; 1.5 

years with the National Park Service. 

Susan McPartland, Visitor Use Management Specialist; B.A. Environmental Studies and Art; Master 

of Social Science; Society & the Environment; 3.5 years with the National Park Service. 

Technical and Publication Services 

Jim Corbett, Publications Supervisor; 27 years with the Government Printing Office, 7 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Nell Blodgett, GIS Program Lead, B.A. Geography; M.S. GIS Science; 8 years with the National Park 

Service. 

Laura Pernice, GIS Specialist (SCEP); B.A. Geography; GIS Certificate; M.S. of GIS (in progress); 1 

year with the National Park Service. 

Phil Thys, Visual Information Specialist, B.A. Marketing Management, A.A. Graphic Arts 

Communications; 27 years of experience, 20 with the National Park Service. 

Ángel López, Visual Information Specialist (SCEP). BFA, Communication Design (in progress); 6 

years of experience, 1 year with the National Park Service. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

246 

Wanda Gray Lafferty, Editor; Paralegal; 2 years undergrad education in business and 

communications; 34 years of experience, 11 years with National Park Service documents. 

Melissa Vagi, Editor; B.A. Spanish; M.J. Journalism; 4 years experience, less than 1 year with National 

Park Service documents. 

John Paul Jones, Visual Information Specialist (SCEP); B.S. Communications; B.S. Graphic Design 

(in progress); 1 year with the National Park Service. 

Other Advisory and Administrative Services 

Ann Van Huizen, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Jody Quintana, Administrative Support Assistant 

Christina Hirschfeld, Youth Intern Program Participant 

CONSULTANTS 

NPS Sites within the Corridor 

Moores Creek National Battlefield 

Tyrone Brandyburg, Superintendent 

Fort Sumter National Monument; Charles Pinckney National Historic Site 

Tim Stone, Superintendent 

Bob Dodson, Former Superintendent 

Michael Allen, NPS Community Partnership Specialist 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Randy Wester, Superintendent 

Fort Federica National Monument 

Mary Beth Wester, Superintendent 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Fred Boyles, Superintendent 

Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve; Fort Caroline National Memorial 

Barbara Goodman, Superintendent 

Castillo De San Marcos National Monument; Fort Matanzas National Monument 

Gordie Wilson, Superintendent 

NPS Southeast Regional Office 

Chris Abbett, Assistant Regional Director, partnerships 

K. Lynn Berry, National Heritage Area Program Coordinator 

Patty Wissinger, Former National Heritage Area Program Coordinator 

Melissa English-Rias, Interpretive Specialist 
Preparers and Consultants 

247 

NPS National Heritage Area Program Office 

Martha Raymond, National Heritage Area Program Coordinator 

Heather Scotten, Assistant National Heritage Area Program Coordinator 

Katie Callahan Durcan, Assistant National Heritage Area Program Coordinator 

Dwayne Rax, Intern, 2008 

NPS Heritage Documentation Programs, Cultural Resource 

Geographic Information Systems Facility 

Richard O’Connor, Chief 

Jami Babb, Historian 

John Knoerl, Program Manager 

Deidre McCarthy, Historian 

James Stein, GIS Specialist 

NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

Le`alani Schaumburg, Community Planner 

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 

Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission 

Zelda Grant, Administrative / Creative Assistant 
248 

APPENDICES 

The enclosed CD contains the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Management Plan 

Appendices. 

Appendix A – Designating Law: Includes the law that designated the Gullah Geechee Cultural 

Heritage Corridor and established the requirements for the management plan. 

Appendix B – Commission Bylaws: Includes the adopted bylaws of the Gullah Geechee Cultural 

Heritage Corridor Commission which serve as the operating procedures of the Commission.

Appendix C – Resource Inventory: Includes definitions of inventory categories and identifies the 

many tangible resources that support the intangible primary interpretive themes of the 

Corridor. 

Appendix D – Boundary: Includes resolutions supporting the inclusion of Pender County and St. 

Johns County in the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor as well as a letter of support 

from the former Governor of Florida. Additional historical information justifying the 

inclusion of St. Johns County in the Corridor is also included.

Appendix E – Partner Applications: Includes the partnership applications forms, as well as a 

detailed explanation of how to complete them.

Appendix F – Early Implementation: Includes a position statement and letter to the president of 

the College of Charleston, along with a news article related to the Commission’s assistance in 

preserving McLeod Plantation on James Island, South Carolina. Also included are a letter to 

the secretaries of the interior and agriculture, a letter to the Charleston County Council 

chairman and corresponding resolution, a letter of support to the supervisor of Francis 

Marion and Sumter National Forests, and a letter of support for the Harris Neck Land 

Trust's proposal to acquire land in northeast McIntosh County, Georgia. 

Appendix G – Consultation Letters: Includes letters sent to Native American tribes, State Historic 

Preservation Officers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and each state’s department of natural 

resources or equivalent.

Appendix H – Major River Basins & Threatened & Endangered Species: Includes listings and 

descriptions of the major river basins in the Corridor. A list of threatened and endangered 

species in the Corridor is provided as a reference.

Appendix I – Economic Impact of Tourism: Includes tourism and economic impact statistics for 

various geographies and locations. Also includes a brief summary of the methodology for 

gathering and analyzing information presented in the Socioeconomic Conditions section.

Appendix J – List of Islands &Festivals: Includes a list of Sea Islands and islands in tidal areas, as 

well as local and regional Gullah Geechee festivals and special events.

Appendix K – Potential Partners and Related Plans: Includes a preliminary list of potential 

partners, however, given the number of potential partners that the Commission could work 

with, not all are listed. Known plans that are related to the Corridor are noted. 

Appendix L –Recreational and Scenic Resources: Includes a brief overview of recreational and 

scenic resources in the Corridor, along with specific examples. 
Appendices 

249 

Appendix M– Bibliography Including Selected References and Additional Sources of 

Information about Gullah Geechee History, Culture, and People: Includes all selected 

references that are printed in the document as well as other sources of information (such as 

books, journal articles, dissertations, films, etc.) about Gullah Geechee history, culture, and 

people. 

Appendix N – Public Comment Reports: Includes all comments received from Newsletter 1 in 

February 2009 and Newsletter 2 in September 2010, and letters received in response to 

Newsletter 2. 

 

251 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

2003 Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America” Section 3: Improving Federal Agency 

Planning and Accountability, Report of the National Park Service (Electronic 11 

Document), accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.achp.gov/section3 

/index.html. 

American Trails 

2010 American Trails Web site accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.americantrails.org 

/nationalrecreationtrails/stateNRT/SCnrt.html. 

Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture 

2011 Avery Research Center Web site, accessed October 6, 2011, http://avery.cofc.edu/. 

2008 “About Avery,” accessed September 1, 2010, http://avery.cofc.edu/about_avery.htm. 

Baird, Keith E. and Mary A. Twining 

1994 “Names and Naming in the Sea Islands,” in The Crucible of Carolina: Essays in the 

Development of Gullah Language and Culture, edited by Michael Montgomery, 23–37. 

Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

Ball, Edward 

1998 Slaves in the Family. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 

Bendell, B.M., and North Carolina Estuarine Biological and Physical Processes Work Group 

2006 “Recommendations for Appropriate Shoreline Stabilization Methods for the 

Different North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Types.” NC Division of Coastal 

Management. 

Berkley County Chamber of Commerce 

2010 Berkley County Chamber of Commerce Web site, accessed December 21, 2011, 

www.bcoc.com (site discontinued). 

Calhoun Times 

2010 “Friends Announces Economic Impact of State Park System.” Calhoun, GA, accessed 

March 17, 2010, http://www.calhountimes.com/view/full_story/6742878/articleFriends-announces-economic-impact-of-state-park-system-

?instance=home_local_news. 

Cape Fear Coast CVB 

2010 Web site, accessed on July 7, 2010, www. capefearcoast.com 

Cape Fear Museum 

2008 “Cape Fear Museum,” accessed September 23, 2010, 

http://www.capefearmuseum.com/index.php. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

252 

Cassidy, Frederic G. 

1986 “Some Similarities Between Gullah and Caribbean Creoles,” in Language Varieties in 

the South: Perspectives in Black and White, edited by Michael Montgomery and Guy 

Bailey, 30–37. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 

1994 “Gullah and the Caribbean Connection,” in The Crucible of Carolina: Essays in the 

Development of Gullah Language and Culture, edited by Michael Montgomery, 16–22. 

Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation 

2011 “Learn: What is Heirs’ Property,” accessed March 16, 2012, 

http://www.heirsproperty.org/learn/?id=565. 

Chambers, Erve 

2006 “Heritage Matters: Heritage, Culture, History, and Chesapeake Bay.” College Park: A 

Maryland Sea Grant Publication. 

2010 Native Tours—The Anthropology of Travel and Tourism. Long Grove, IL: Waveland 

Press. 

Charleston Convention and Visitors Bureau 

2010 Charleston Convention and Visitors Bureau Web site, accessed January 19, 2012, 

www.charlestoncvb.com. 

Charleston County, South Carolina Online 

2011 Charleston County, South Carolina Online, “History” Web site, accessed August 

2011, http://www.charlestoncounty.org/history.htm. 

Colgan, Charles S. 

2007 “A Guide to the Measurement of the Market Data for the Ocean and Coastal 

Economy in the National Ocean Economics Program.” National Ocean Economics 

Program Web site, accessed September 2010, http://www.oceaneconomics.org 

/Market/. 

Copeland, Mary Shawn 

2007 “My Soul is A Witness: African-American Women’s Spirituality (review).” Spiritus: A 

Journal of Christian Spirituality 7(2):223–225. 

Creel, Margaret Washington 

1991 “Gullah Attitudes Toward Life and Death.” Africanisms in American Culture, ed. 

Joseph E. Holloway, 68–92. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 

Cunningham, Irma Aloyce Ewing 

1970 “A Syntactic Analysis of Sea Island Creole [Gullah].” Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Michigan. 

Cyriaque, Jeanne 

2011 Personal communication with Andrew Coburn, December 15, 2011. 

2010 Personal communication with Andrew Coburn, September 29, 2010. 
Selected References 

253 

Daise, Ronald 

2007 Gullah Branches, West African Roots. Orangeburg: Sandlapper Publishing, Inc. 

Daly, J. 

2003 “Heritage Areas: Connecting People to their Place and History.” Forum Journal

17(4). 

Dixon, Anthony, E. 

2010 Personal communication with Andrew Coburn, February 10, 2010. 

Dorchester Chamber of Commerce 

2010 Dorchester Chamber of Commerce Web site, accessed January 19, 2012, 

www.summervilletoursim.com. 

Drake, St. Clair 

1990 Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: 

University of California Center for Afro-American Studies. 

Eltis, David 

2000 The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Endangered Species Coalition 

2010 “Flatwoods Salamander,” accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.stopextinction.org 

/top10/ahs/152-flatwoods-salamander.html. 

Evans, W. McKee 

1966 Ballots and Fence Rails. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 

Excelsior Cultural Center 

2010 Excelsior Cultural Center Web site, accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://www.excelsiorculturalcenter.com/. 

Ferguson, Leland 

1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) 

2010a “Nassau-St. Marys River Watershed,” accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/nassau. 

2010b “Lower St. Johns River Watershed,” accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/lower_st_johns. 

2010c “Upper East Coast River Basin,” accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_east_coast. 

Florida Department of Revenue 

2011 Web site accessed December 21, 2011, http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes 

/colls_from_7_2003.html. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

254 

Florida Division of Historical Resources 

2010a “Florida Historical Markers Program,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=st. 

2010b “Florida Historical Markers Program,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=nassau. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 

2010 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker,” accessed December 21, 2011, 

<http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATs/BirdSpecies_RedCockadedWoodpecker.

htm>. 

Frank, David 

2011 Personal communication to Andrew Coburn, NPS Project Manager/Community 

Planner, April 28, 2011, regarding Gullah language as an oral tradition and the nature 

of its written form to date. 

2007 “Three Irregular Verbs in Gullah,” in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on 

Contact Languages, edited by Magnus Huber and Viveka Velupillai. Creole Language 

Library 32. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 159–173. 

2007 “We Don’t Speak a Real Language: Creoles as Misunderstood and Endangered 

Languages.” Paper presented at a Symposium on Endangered Languages at the 

National Museum of Language in College Park, MD, accessed December 21, 2011, 

www.saintluciancreole.org/workpapers/creoles_as_misunderstood.pdf. 

Garner, Jeffrey T., and John A. Fridell 

1997 “Recovery Plan for Anthony’s Riversnail,” prepared for the Southeast Region, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/970813.pdf. 

Georgetown County Chamber of Commerce 

2010 Web site, accessed December 21, 2011, www.georgetownchamber.com. 

Georgia Department of Economic Development 

2009a “Georgia Economic Impact Report Tourism Report 2009,” accessed December 21, 

2011, http://www.georgia.org/GeorgiaIndustries/Tourism/Pages 

/IndustryResearch.aspx#economic 

2009b “2008 Travel Economic Impact on Georgia State, Counties and Regions,” prepared 

by the U.S. Travel Association, Washington, DC, accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.georgia.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Industries/Tourism/IndustryRese

arch/State%20Economic%20Report/2008%20GA%20Region%20Repot%20(Prelim

ary).pdf 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

n.d. Web site accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1356. 

Georgia River Network 

2010 “River Basin Fact Sheets,” accessed December 21, 2011, www.garivers.org/garivers 

/river_info.html. 
Selected References 

255 

Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites 

2011 Information about state parks accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.gastateparks.org/parks/. 

2008 Georgia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008–2013, accessed 

December 21, 2011, http://www.gastateparks.org/item/132975. 

Godwin, John L. 

2000 Black Wilmington and the North Carolina Way: Portrait of a Community in the Era of 

Civil Rights Protest. Lantham: University Press of America. 

Goodman, Blair E. and Kally L. McCormick 

2010 “Roads and Reeds: Navigating NEPA Through the Historic Sweetgrass Basket 

Making Corridor in Mount Pleasant, SC.” Oral presentation, Collingswood, NJ: 

National Association of Environmental Professionals. 

Governors’ South Atlantic Alliance 

2010 “Draft Action Plan,” accessed September 2010, 

http://www.southatlanticalliance.org/. 

Hampton County, South Carolina. 

2011 “Historical Profile of Hampton County,” accessed August 2011, 

http://www.hamptoncountysc.org/index.aspx?NID=145. 

Hancock, Ian F. 

1994 “Componentiality and the Creole Matrix: The Southwest English Contribution,” in 

The Crucible of Carolina: Essays in the Development of Gullah Language and Culture, 

ed. Michael Montgomery, 95–114. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 95–114. 

1980 “Gullah and Barbadian: Origins and Relationships.” American Speech 55:17–35. 

1971 “West Africa and the Atlantic Creoles,” in The English Language in West Africa, edited 

by John J. Spencer. London: Longman. 

Hilliard, Sam B. 

1978 “Antebellum Tidewater Rice Culture in South Carolina and Georgia,” in European 

Settlement and Development in North America: Essays on Geographical Change in 

Honour and Memory of Andrew Hill Clark, ed. James R. Gibson, 95–115. Toronto: 

University of Toronto Press. 

Hopkins, Tometro 

1994 “Variation in the Use of the Auxiliary Verb Da in Contemporary Gullah,” in The 

Crucible of Carolina: Essays in the Development of Gullah Language and Culture, ed. 

Michael Montgomery, 60–86. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

1992 “Issues in the Study of Afro-Creoles: Afro-Cuban and Gullah.” (PhD diss., Indiana 

University, 1992). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

2007 “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change.” edited by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. 

Averty, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

256 

Jackson, Antoinette T. 

2011 “Shattering Slave Life Portrayals: Uncovering Subjugated Knowledge in U.S. 

Plantation Sites in South Carolina and Florida.” American Anthropologist 113(3):448–

462. 

2008a “Plantations,” in Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, ed. John H. Moore. Detroit: 

McMillan Reference USA/Thomson Gale. 

2008b “Imagining Jehossee Island Rice Plantation Today.” International Journal of Heritage 

Studies 14(2):131–155. 

2004 “African Communities in Southeast Coastal Plantation Spaces in America. 

Anthropology.” (PhD diss., University of Florida, Gainesville). 

2003 “Africans at Snee Farm Plantation: Informing Representations of Plantation Life at a 

National Historic Site,” in Signifying Serpents and Mardi Gras Runners: Representing 

Identity in Selected Souths, ed Celeste Ray and Luke Eric Lassiter, 93–109. Athens: 

University of Georgia Press. 

Jackson, Claude V 

2008 The Big Book of the Cape Fear River, ed. Jack E. Fryar Jr. Wilmington: Dram Tree 

Books. 

Jones-Jackson, Patricia Ann 

1983 “Contemporary Gullah Speech: Some Persistent Linguistic Features.” Journal of 

Black Studies 13(3):289–303. 

1978 “The Status of Gullah: An Investigation of Convergent Processes.” (PhD diss., 

University of Michigan). 

Journey through Hallowed Ground Partnership (JHGP) 

2011 The Of the Student, By the Student, for the Student Service Learning Project Web 

site, accessed June 2011, http://www.hallowedground.org/Education/ServiceLearning-Programs. 

Joyner, Charles 

1984 Down by the Riverside: A South Carolina Slave Community. Urbana: University of 

Illinois Press. 

Judah, J. Cristy 

2009 The Two Faces of Dixie: Politicians, Plantations and Slaves. Brunswick County, NC: 

Coastal Books. 

Lee, Lawrence 

1965 The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina 

Press. 

Littlefield, Daniel C. 

1995 “Rice and the Making of South Carolina: An Introductory Essay.” Columbia: South 

Carolina Department of Archives and History. 

1981 Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina. Baton 

Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1981; reprint, Chicago: IL, University of 

Illinois Press, 1991. 
Selected References 

257 

Locke, John 

1669 “The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669),” LEARN NC, accessed January 

19, 2012, http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pdf/the-fundamental-constitutions-p1657.pdf. 

Low Country Open Land Trust 

2006 “Santee River Basin,” Web site accessed August 30, 2010, http://www.lolt.org 

/landprotection/santee-basin. 

Massally, Amadu 

2010 “National Heritage/Tourism—Gullah Visits to Sierra Leone" (pers. e-mail comm. 

August 2, 2010, 1:13 p.m.) 

Mbiti, John S. 

1989 African Religions and Philosophy, 2nd Ed. Oxford, U.K.: Heinemann Educational 

Books. 

McNab, W. Henry, and Peter E. Avers 

1994 “Ecological Subregions of the United States.” Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions 

/index.html. 

McPherson, James M. 

1965 The Negro’s Civil War, New York: Random House. 

McWhorter, John H. 

1995 “Sisters under the Skin: A Case of Genetic Relationship between the Atlantic Englishbased Creoles.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 10:289–333. 

Michels, Margaret Ann 

2011 “Expanding into History – Sweetgrass Basket Stands.” Mount Pleasant Magazine, 

http://mountpleasantmagazine.com/2011/places/expanding-into-history-sweetgrassbasket-stands/. 

Mille, Katherine Wyly 

1990 “A Historical Analysis of Tense-Mood-Aspect in Gullah Creole: A Case of Stable 

Variation.” (PhD dissertation, University of South Carolina). 

Morgan, Philip D. 

2011 “Introduction”. African American Life in the Georgia Lowcountry: The Atlantic World 

and the Gullah Geechee. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 10. 

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 

1997 “The Ecology of Gullah’s Survival.” American Speech 72:69–83. 

Museum of African Art, New York 

2010 “Grass Roots: African Origins of an American Art.” Traveling exhibit, June 23–

November 28, 2010. Avery Research Center for African American History and 

Culture at the College of Charleston, McKissick Museum at the University of South 

Carolina and the Sweetgrass Cultural Arts Festival Association. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

258 

Nalty, Bernard C. 

1986 Strength for the Fight: A History of Black Americans in the Military. New York: Free 

Press. 

National Audubon Society 

2010 “Piping Plover,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://web1.audubon.org/science 

/species/watchlist/profile.php?speciesCode=pippl. 

National History Education Clearinghouse 

2011 Web site accessed June 2011, http://teachinghistory.org/. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

2010a “Sperm Whales,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species 

/mammals/cetaceans/spermwhale.htm. 

2010b “Caribbean Monk Seal,” accessed December 21, 2011, 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/caribbeanmonkseal.htm. 

2010c “Shortnose Sturgeon,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr 

/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm. 

2010d “Smalltooth Sawfish,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr 

/species/fish/smalltoothsawfish.htm. 

2010e “Marine Turtles,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov 

/pr/species/turtles/. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

2011 “Visitation Levels,” accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.nature.nps.gov/. 

2011b “Draft Management Plan for the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, from 

Brian Loadholtz on behalf of Loadholtz, Barbara Goodman, and John Whitehurst.” 

(pers. e-mail comm. to Michael Allen, NPS Community Partnership Specialist, 

September 23,2011, regarding comments on the draft). 

2010a “Archaeology at Kingsley Plantation,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.nps.gov/timu/historyculture/kp_archaeology.htm. 

2010b “Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation State Historic Site,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.nps.gov/history/goldcres/sites/hofwyl.htm. 

2005 “Low Country Gullah Culture, Special Resource Study and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement.” Southeast Regional Office, Planning and Compliance Division. 

2002 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Chapter 8: Management of 

Historic and Prehistoric Structures. 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28chap8.htm. 

1996 Along the Georgia-Florida Coast, accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.nps.gov 

/history/nr/travel/geo-flor/g-fintro.htm 

1994 “Historical Overview: The Life of Charles Pinckney Snee Farm – History of a 

Landscape.” Prepared by staff of Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, staff of 

Fort Sumter National Monument, Division of Planning and Compliance, and Office 

of Cultural Resources – Southeast Regional Office. 
Selected References 

259 

National State Auditors Association 

2004 “Best Practices in Carrying Out State Economic Development Efforts.” Lexington, 

KY: National State Auditors Association, accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://www.nasact.org/nsaa/committees/performance/downloads 

/bestpractices/Economic_Development.pdf. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

2011 WSR Web site, accessed December 21, 2011, http://www.rivers.gov. 

National Wild Turkey Foundation (NWTF) 

2010 “Eastern Indigo Snake.” accessed DATE, http://www.nwtf.org/NAWTMP 

/downloads/Literature/Eastern_Indigo_Snake.pdf. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2010a “Distribution Maps of Dominant Soil Orders” and “Official Soil Series Descriptions,” 

accessed December 21, 2011, http://soils.usda.gov. 

2010b “Soil Data Mart,” accessed December 21, 2011, http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov. 

2004 “Farmland Protection Policy Act,” accessed December 21, 2011, www.nrcs.usda.gov 

/programs/fppa/pdf_files/7cfr658.pdf. 

Nichols, Patricia Causey 

1976 “Linguistic Change in Gullah: Sex, Age, and Mobility.” (PhD diss., Stanford 

University). 

North Carolina Birding Trail 

2005 Web site, accessed DATE, http://www.ncbirdingtrail.org/. 

North Carolina Department of Coastal Management (NC DCM) 

2009 “North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan,” accessed September 2009, 

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/bimp.htm. 

North Carolina Department of Commerce 

2010 Economic Impact – Visitor Spending, accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://www.nccommerce.com/en/TourismServices/PromoteTravelAndTourismIndu

stry/TourismResearch/visitorspending.htm. 

2010a General information, accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.nccommerce.com/en 

/TourismServices/PromoteTravelAndTourismIndustry/. 

2010b “Division of Tourism, Film and Development, 2009 North Carolina Annual Report,” 

accessed January 21, 2012, http://annualreport.visitnc.com/year-in-review/2009-

results/. 

2010c “The Economic Impact of Travel on North Carolina Counties, 2008” by US Travel 

Association accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.nccommerce.com/en 

/TourismServices/PromoteTravelAndTourismIndustry/TourismResearch/visitorspe

nding.htm 

2009 “Division of Tourism, Film and Development, 2008 North Carolina Regional Travel 

Report,” accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.nccommerce.com/NR 

/rdonlyres/62941F72-A743-4BA2-8343-

74E65039C3EE/0/2008NorthCarolinaRegionalTravelSummary.pdf 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

260 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDEP) 

2007 “Lumber River Basin,” accessed January 21, 2012, www.eenorthcarolina.org 

/.../riverbasins/LumberRiverBasin.htm. 

2002 “Cape Fear River Basin,” accessed January 21, 2012, 

www.eenorthcarolina.org/public/.../riverbasins/capefear.150dpi.pdf. 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, State Parks 

2010 State Park information, accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.ncparks.gov 

/Visit/main.php. 

2009 “North Carolina Outdoor Recreation Plan 2009–2013,” accessed January 21, 2012, 

http://www.ncparks.gov/About/plans/scorp/main.php. 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation & Community Affairs 

2010 “American Chaffseed,” accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.ncnhp.org 

/Images/73.pdf. 

North Carolina Office of Environmental Education 

2008 “North Carolina’s Environmental Education Newsletter, Summer 2008, No. 131,” 

accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.ee.enr.state.nc.us/newsandevents 

/newstips_summer_2008.html. 

North Carolina Office of State Archaeology 

2010 “Fort Fisher: Facilities at Fort Fisher,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.nchistoricsites.org/fisher/Main.htm. 

North Carolina State University (NCSU) 

2010 “Cape Fear River Basin,” accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.water.ncsu.edu 

/capefear.html>. 

Oh, Chi-Ok, Anthony Dixon, and Jason Draper 

2006 “Visitor Needs Assessment and Economic Analysis at South Carolina Beaches,” 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, 

accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.hehd.clemson.edu/PRTM 

/trmcenter/ocrm2006.pdf. 

Opala, Joseph 

2000 “The Gullah: Rice, Slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American Connection.” U.S. 

National Park Service, Fort Sumter National Monument, Sullivan’s Island, South 

Carolina. 

1990 “The Gullahs Come Home.” West Africa 25:2143. 

1988 “Momoh Visits the Gullah.” West Africa 31:1048. 

1987 “The Gullah: Rice, Slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American Connection.” Sierra 

Leone: USIS. http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/index.htm. 

Parrish, Lydia, O. Downes, C. Churchhill 

1992 Slave Songs of the Georgia Sea Islands (Introduction by A. Rosenbaum). Athens: 

University of Georgia Press. 
Selected References 

261 

Parsons, Elsie C. 

1923 Folk-Lore of the Sea Islands, South Carolina. Cambridge, MA: American Folklore 

Society. 

Phelps, David S. 

1983 “Archeology of the North Carolina Coast: Problems and Hypotheses,” in The 

Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. 

Mathias and Jeffrey J. Crow Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Archives. 

Poplar Grove Plantation 

2010 “Poplar Grove Plantation,” accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.poplargrove.com/. 

Powell, William S., ed. 

2006 The Encyclopedia of North Carolina History. Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press. 

Quarles, Benjamin 

1988 Black Mosaic: Essays in Afro-American History and Historiography. Amherst: 

University of Massachusetts Press. 

Reaves, William M. and Beverly Tetterton, eds. 

1998 Strength Through Struggle: The Chronological and Historical Record of the AfricanAmerican Community in Wilmington, North Carolina, 1865–1950. Wilmington: New 

Hanover County Public Library. 

Richter, William L. 

2004 Historical Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, 

MD. 

Robinson, Mike, and David Picard 

2006 “Tourism, Culture and Sustainable Development,” UNESCO, Programme, “Culture, 

Tourism, Development,” Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue, 

Culture Sector. Paris: UNESCO. 

Rogers, George C. Jr. 

1973 A South Carolina Chronology 1497–1970. Columbia: University of South Carolina 

Press. 

1970 “The Georgetown Rice Planters on the Eve of the Civil War” South Carolina History 

Illustrated 1:24–33. 

Said, E. 

1978 Orientalism. London, U.K.: Routledge & Kegan. 

Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve Center 

2010 “Sapelo Island Visitor Center,” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.sapelonerr.org/visitorcenter.htm. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

262 

Schwalm, Leslie A. 

1996 A Hard Fight for We: Women’s Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina. 

Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 

Sea Island Translation and Literacy Team 

2005 De Nyew Testament. (The New Testament in Gullah Sea Island Creole with marginal 

text of the King James Version). New York: American Bible Society. 

Sherman, William T. 

1865 Special Field Orders, No. 15, Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, 16 

Jan. 1865, Orders & Circulars, ser. 44, Adjutant General’s Office, Record Group 94, 

Washington, DC: National Archives Building. 

Singleton, Theresa. A., ed. 

1985 Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life: Studies in Historical Archaeology. Orlando: 

Academic Press. 

Smith, Alice R. Huger 

1936 A Carolina Rice Plantation of the Fifties, 30 Paintings in Water Colour. New York: 

William Morrow. 

Smith, John David, ed. 

2002 Black Soldiers in Blue. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 

Soergel, Matt 

2011 “UF Archaeological Team Finds Six Human Burials at Kingsley Plantation.” blog 

entry by Matt Soergel, Nov. 11, 2011, http://m.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-

11-10/story/uf-archaeological-team-finds-six-human-burials-kingsley-plantation 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

2011 “National Register Properties in South Carolina: Fish Haul Archaeological Site, 

Beaufort County,” accessed January 23, 2012, 

http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/beaufort/S10817707033/index.htm. 

2010 “National Register Properties in South Carolina: Penn Center Historic District, 

Beaufort County (St. Helena Island),” accessed August 30, 2010, 

http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/beaufort/S10817707020/pages 

/S1081770702006.htm. 

2009 “African American Historic Places in South Carolina.” Columbia: State Historic 

Preservation Office. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) 

2012 “Watersheds: Santee River Basin—Water Quality Information Maps North Santee 

River/South Santee River,” accessed March 2012, 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/maps/50112-060.pdf. 

2010 “Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Salkehatchie River Basin,” accessed 

January 19, 2012, www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/salk.pdf. 
Selected References 

263 

2006 “Adapting to Shoreline Change Final Report of the Shoreline Adaptation Committee, 

April,” accessed January 12, 2012, http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library 

/CR-009823.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 

2006 “Coastal Plain Ecoregion Aquatic Habitats, State of South Carolina,” accessed 

January 19, 2012, www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/CoastalPlainAquatics.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SC DPRT) 

2012 “South Carolina Tourism Statistics Highlights” U.S. Travel Association, SC Tourism 

Satellite Account 2009, accessed March 2012, http://www.scprt.com/ourpartners/TourismStatistics.aspx. 

2011 General information, accessed January 21, 2012, http://www.scprt.com/. 

2010 Personal communication to Le’alani Schaumburg from SC DPRT, July 6, 2010. 

2009 “The Economic Impact of Tourism in South Carolina Counties, 2008” Report 

prepared by U.S. Travel Association, accessed January 21, 2012, 

http://www.scprt.com/files/Research/Economic%20Impact%20of%20Travel%20on

%20SC%20Counties%202008.pdf. 

2008 “2008 South Carolina State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,” accessed 

January 19, 2012, http://www.scprt.com/tourismbusiness/outdoorrecreationplan.aspx. 

2004 “Travel to Historic Attractions in South Carolina and the United States Market 

Trends,” prepared for Hospitality and Tourism Management Program, School of 

Business and Economics, College of Charleston, Jeanette M. Bergeron, accessed 

January 19, 2012, http://www.scprt.com/files/Research 

/Historic%20Attractions%20Travel.pdf. 

South Carolina’s Information Highway (SCIWAY) 

2011 “South Carolina – Formation of Counties Timeline,” accessed August 2011, 

http://www.sciway.net/cnty/history/timeline.html. 

South Carolina State House 

2011 Student Connection Web site, “The State Music,” accessed November 2011, 

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/studentpage/coolstuff/music.shtml. 

South Carolina State Trails Program 

2008 Palmetto Trail information, accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.sctrails.net/trails 

/ALLTRAILS/Palmetto%20Trail/PALMETTO%20TRAIL.html. 

St. Johns River Water Management District (SJR) 

2010 “St. Mary’s River Basin,” accessed DATE, http://sjr.state.fl.us 

/stmarysriver/index.html. 

State of South Carolina 

2010 “State Symbols & Emblems,” Language & Arts, accessed September 2010, 

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/studentpage/coolstuff/arts.shtml. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

264 

Steelman, Ben 

2010 “What is the History of Williston High School?” Star News, April 28, accessed 

August 30, 2010, http://www.myreporter.com/?p=6513. 

Stewart, Mart A. 

2002 What Nature Suffers to Groe: Life, Labor, and Landscape on the Georgia Coast, 1680–

1920. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

Svancara, L. 

2009 “Measure Development Summary: Conservation Status.” Fort Collin, CO: Office of 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation, National Park Service. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

2010 “Altamaha River Basin,” accessed January 21, 2012, 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/georgia/pla

cesweprotect/altamaha-river.xml. 

The New Georgia Encyclopedia 

2009a “Savannah River,” accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org 

/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2638&hl=y. 

2009b “River Basins,” accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2837&hl=y. 

2004 “Altamaha River,” accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org 

/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2834&hl=y. 

Thompson, Robert Farris 

1984 Flash of the Spirit. New York: Vintage Books. 

Tindall, George Brown 

1952 South Carolina Negroes, 1877–1900. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 

Toner, Robin 

1987 “Bible Is Being Translated into a Sourthern [sic] Coastal Tongue Born of Slavery,” 

New York Times, March 1. 

Trudeau, Noah Andre 

1998 Like Men of War: Black Troops in Civil War, 1862–1865. New York: Little, Brown. 

Turner, Lorenzo Dow. 

1949 Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Twining, Mary Arnold 

1977 “An Examination of African Retentions in the Folk Culture of the South Carolina and 

Georgia Sea Islands.” (PhD diss., Indiana University). 

Twining, Mary A., and Keith E. Baird 

1991 Sea Island Roots: The African Presence in the Carolinas and Georgia. Trenton: Africa 

World Press. 
Selected References 

265 

University of Georgia 

2008 “Upland Combshell,” Museum of Natural History, accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://naturalhistory.uga.edu/~GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/ai_s

pecies_page&key=emetastriata. 

2001 “Altamaha River Basin,” River Basin Center, accessed January 19, 2012, 

http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/education/k12resources/basinsofga1.htm 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

2005 “Ochlockonee Moccasinshell,” South Atlantic Division, accessed February 1, 2012, 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/profile.cfm?Type=Freshwater%20Mussels&Nam

e=Ochlockonee%20Moccasinshell&View=Species. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2012 American Fact Finder. Data from 2010 and 2000, March 15, 2012. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?ref=top&refre

sh=t. 

2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year (2005–2009) estimates, accessed February 

2012, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

1990 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census. General Population 

Characteristics. North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, accessed March 

15, 2012, http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1990.html 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

2010a Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Surveys for South Carolina, Georgia, 

North Carolina, Florida by County, accessed March 2010, 

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/. 

2010b NSSH Part 622, Ecological and Interpretive Groups, accessed March 2010, 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html. 

2010c Title 7-Agriculture, Part 657 – Prime and Unique Farmland, accessed March 2010. 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/7cfr657_00.html. 

2010d Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Santee Subbasin: An Assessment of the 

Santee Subbasin,” accessed March 2012, http://www.esri.sc.edu/Projects/usda 

/conservation_documents/RWAs/Santee.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

2005 “Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement.” Atlanta: NPS Southeast Regional Office. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

2001 “Threats to Wetlands,” accessed January 19, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/wetlands 

/pdf/threats.pdf. 

1990 Clean Air Act of 1963, including 1990 amendments 

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

2011a America’s Byways, accessed January 20, 21012, 

http://www.byways.org/explore/states/NC/. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

266 

2011b America’s Byways, accessed January 20, 2012, 

http://www.byways.org/explore/states/SC/. 

2011c America’s Byways, accessed January 20,2012, 

http://www.byways.org/explore/states/GA/. 

2011d America’s Byways, accessed January 20, 2012, 

http://www.byways.org/explore/states/FL/. 

2011e America’s Byways, accessed January 20, 2012, http://www.byways.org/stories/46911. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

2010a “West Indian Manatee Factsheet,” accessed January 31, 2012, 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A007. 

2010b “Gray Bat,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/midwest 

/endangered/mammals/grbat_fc.html. 

2010c “Indiana Bat,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/midwest 

/endangered/mammals/inba/index.html. 

2010d “Bachman’s Warbler,” accessed February 1, 2012, 

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/Bachmanswarbler.pdf. 

2010e “Sea Beach Amaranth,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant 

/seabamaranth.html. 

2010f “Canby’s Dropwort,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant 

/canbydrop.html. 

2010g “Rough-leaved Loosestrife,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nces/plant/rllooses.html. 

2010h “Cooley’s Meadowrue,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nces/plant/coolmeadow.html. 

2010i “Golden Sedge,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nces/plant/gsedge.html. 

2010j “Southeast Region,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/southeast/ 

2007 “Georgia,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es 

/partners/StrategicPlan/Appendix%20A%20GA.pdf. 

2005a “Anastasia Island Beach Mouse,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov 

/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/Beach-Mice-2005.pdf. 

2005b “Wood Stork,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SpeciesAccounts/Wood-stork-2005.htm. 

2003 “Pondberry,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/nces/plant/pondberry.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

2001 “Landcover Product,” accessed February 1, 2012, http://soils.usda.gov/technical 

/handbook/contents/part622.html. 

U.S. Supreme Court 

1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483. 
Selected References 

267 

U.S. Travel Association 

2012 “The Economic Contribution of Tourism in South Carolina.” 2010 Tourism Satellite 

Account Results, accessed February 2012, 

http://www.scprt.com/files/Research/SC%20TSA%202010%20Report%20Final.pdf. 

2009 “The Economic Contribution of Tourism to the State of North Carolina.” Report 

prepared by Tourism Economics, Wayne, PA, accessed January 20, 2012, 

Rehttp://www.nccommerce.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D1fGQ6o6v7U%3d&tab

id=1547&mid=4666 

Visit Florida 

2010 Visit Florida Web site, accessed January 20, 2012, 

http://media.visitflorida.org/research.php. 

Visit Jacksonville 

2011 Visit Jacksonville Web site, accessed January 2012, http://www.visitjacksonville.com 

/media-pressroom-economicreports/. 

2010 “2009 Value of Tourism in Jacksonville,” accessed January 20, 2012, 

http://www.visitjacksonville.com/media-pressroom-economicreports/. 

Wade-Lewis, Margaret 

1988 “The African Substratum in American English.” (PhD diss., New York University). 

Walvin, James 

2000 Britain’s Slave Empire. Charleston: Tempus Publishing. 

Whale Center of New England 

2009 Species Info: Finback Whale, Humpback Whale, Right Whale, accessed January 19, 

2012 http://www.whalecenter.org/information/species.html. 

Williamson, Joel 

1976 After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina During Reconstruction, 1861–1877. Chapel 

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 

Wilson, Ellen Gibson 

1976 The Loyal Blacks. New York: Capricorn Books. 

Winford, Donald 

1998 “On the Origins of African-American Vernacular English: A Creolist Perspective. Part 

II: Linguistic Features.” Diachronica 15:99–154. 

1997 “On the Origins of African-American Vernacular English: A Creolist Perspective. Part 

I: The Sociohistorical Background.” Diachronica 14:305–344. 

Wolfram, Walt 

1974 “The Relationship of White Southern Speech to Vernacular Black English.” Language

50:498–527. 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

268 

Wood, Peter H. 

1976 “Black Labor-White Rice: Colonial Manpower and African Agirucultural SKill in 

Early Carolina,” in Shaping Southern Society: The Colonial Experience, ed. T. H. Breen, 

135–155. New York: Oxford University Press. 

1975 Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina (from 1670 through the Stono 

Rebellion). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 

1974 “ ‘It Was a Negro Taught Them’: A New Look at African Labor in Early South 

Carolina.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 9:160–179. 

World Tourism Organization 

2011 “Destination Management,” accessed May 12, 2011, http://www.unwto.org 

/destination/index.php?lang=E. 
Photograph List with Credits 

269 

PHOTOGRAPH LIST WITH CREDITS 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Background 

 Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study, July 2005 

Planning Issues and Concerns 

 Public Engagement Meeting, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 (Photo Credit: 

Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

Foundation for Planning and Management 

 Old Slave Mart Museum, Charleston, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: NPS) 

Next Steps and Implementation of the Plan 

 Navassa Dock, Navassa, Brunswick County, NC (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

Chapter 2: Context of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

 Land’s End Live Oak Tree, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea 

Natalga Sumpter) 

 “Rice Culture on the Ogeechee, near Savannah, Georgia,” January 5, 1867, Harper's Weekly

(Photo Credit: Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture, College of 

Charleston, SC) 

 Rice Trunk and Canal, Mansfield Plantation, Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC (Photo 

Credit: NPS) 

 Slave Quarters, Fort King George, Darien, McIntosh County, GA (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 U.S. Colored Troops, NC Highway Historical Marker, Wilmington National Cemetery, 

Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Bateau Boat (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Alex and Luther Jones and a Mule, Old Georgetown, Old Georgetown Road, Charleston 

County, SC (Photo Credit: U.S. Forest Service, Francis Marion National Forest) 

Cultural Resources 

 Gullah Geechee Seafood Meal: red rice, crab, green beans, whiting fish, cole slaw, bread 

pudding (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Doing the Ring Shout in Georgia, ca. 1930s (Photo Credit: Lorenzo Dow Turner Papers, 

Anacostia Community Museum Archives, Smithsonian Institution, gift of Lois Turner 

Williams) 

 Sapelo Island Cultural Day 2003, McIntosh County, GA (Photo Credit: Diedra Laird, 

Charlotte Observer) 

 Sweetgrass Baskets by Vera Manigault (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

270 

 “Gullah O’oman Quilt” by Bunny Rodrigues (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Coffin Point Praise House, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea 

Natalga Sumpter) 

 Three Tabby Cabins, Ossabaw Island, Chatham County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. 

Cyriaque) 

 Mitchelville Historical Marker, Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: 

Cynthia Porcher) 

 Behavior Cemetery, Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Overview of Archaeological Investigation, Kingsley Plantation, National Historic District, 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Duval County, FL (Photo Credit: James 

Davidson) 

 Sad Iron (heated and used to press clothing) recovered during excavation, Kingsley 

Plantation, National Historic District, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Duval 

County, FL (Photo Credit: James Davidson) 

 Penn Center School, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Penn School Historical Marker, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: 

Cynthia Porcher) 

 Dorchester Academy Boys’ Dormitory, Midway, Liberty County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne 

C. Cyriaque) 

 Lincolnville Historic District, FL Historical Marker, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, FL 

(Photo Credit: Derek Boyd Hankerson, Freedom Road 1, LLC) 

 Needwood Baptist Church, Brunswick, Glynn County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. 

Cyriaque) 

 Tabby Cabin Row, Kingsley Plantation, National Historic District Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic Preserve, Jacksonville Duval County, FL (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Beach Institute, Savannah, Chatham County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

Natural Resources 

 No Title (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 No Title (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 No Title (Photo Credit: NPS) 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

 Gullah Geechee Sweetgrass Basket Stand, Highway 17 Near Mount Pleasant, Charleston 

County, SC (Photo Credit: NPS) 

 NPS Youth Educational Field Trip, Morris Island, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: 

NPS) 

 Homes in the Harrington Community, St. Simons Island, Glynn County, GA (Photo Credit: 

Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Fresh Conch (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Turnip Greens for Sale (Photo Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 
Photograph List with Credits 

271 

Land Ownership and Land Cover 

 Robert Smalls Home, Beaufort, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Sign on St. Simons Island, Glynn County, GA (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

Chapter 3: Management of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

Management and Organization 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Burgaw, Pender County, NC, August 2011 (Photo Credit: Jerry 

Immel) 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Charleston, Charleston County, SC, May 2010 (Photo Credit: 

Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Brunswick, Glynn County, GA, November 2010 (Photo Credit: 

Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 (Photo Credit: 

Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

Implementation Framework 

 Commission Planning Workshop, Denver, CO September 2010(Photo Credit: NPS) 

 Commission Planning Workshop, Charleston, Charleston County, SC, May 2010 (Photo 

Credit: NPS) 

Funding and Early Implementation 

 McLeod Plantation, James Island, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: NPS) 

Ongoing and Future Actions 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL, February 2009 (Photo Credit: 

NPS) 

Chapter 4: “Tellin We Story” 

Part 2: Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

 Stono Rebellion Historical Marker, Charleston County, SC (Photo Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Benjamin Bennett Headstone, Parker Island Cemetery, Charleston County, SC (Photo 

Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

 Robert Smalls National Historic Landmark, Beaufort, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: 

Cynthia Porcher) 

 St. Luke’s Rosenwald School, Sapelo Island, McIntosh County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. 

Cyriaque) 

 Traditional Gullah Geechee Home, Hog Hammock Community, Sapelo Island, McIntosh 

County, GA (Photo Credit: Jeanne C. Cyriaque) 

 Framed Image in Gullah Grub Restaurant, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo 

Credit: NPS) 

 Sewing Hands, Vera Manigault (Photo Credit: Diedra Laird, Charlotte Observer) 
COMMISSION COMMITTEES, REFERENCES, AND APPENDICES

272 

 Mary Jenkins Praise House, St. Helena Island, Beaufort County, SC (Photo Credit: Althea 

Natalga Sumpter) 

Part 3: Heritage Tourism and Visitor Experience 

 Friendfield Plantation National Historic Landmark, Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC 

(Photo Credit: NPS) 

 Sugar Cane Syrup Sale at the Riceboro Ricefest 2011, Riceboro, Liberty County, GA (Photo 

Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

Public and Agency Involvement 

 Quarterly Business Meeting, Charleston, Charleston County, SC, May 2010 (Photo Credit: 

NPS) 

 North Carolina Partners Meeting, Raleigh, Wake County, NC, April 2010 (Photo Credit: 

Courtesy of the NC State Archives) 

 Public Engagement Meeting, Georgetown, Georgetown County, SC, May 2009 (Photo 

Credit: Althea Natalga Sumpter) 

FIGURE LIST WITH CREDITS 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

The Corridor Boundary 

 Fort Mose 1783, St. Johns County, FL (Figure Credit: Cynthia Porcher) 

Chapter 2: Context of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

Historical Overview and Contemporary Events of Significance 

 Map of Ethnic Groups Transported from West and Central Africa to the Americas (Figure 

Credit: Joseph E. Holloway, Africanisms in American Culture, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana 

University Press, 1991) 

 Page from De Nyew Testament, also known as the Gullah Bible (Figure Credit: David B. 

Frank) 

 
Tales, 1988 – Oil on Masonite, 24” x 36” © Jonathan Green 

COMMENTS ON THE PAINTING “TALES”

BY JONATHAN GREEN

Painting: Tales, 1988 – Oil on Masonite, 24” x 36” © Jonathan Green

 

Cultural background influences of painting:

I was born in the home of my grandparents, Oscar and Eloise Stewart 

Johnson, which was a small shotgun type house located in the rural Gullah 

community of Gardens Corners, South Carolina. There was no running 

water in the home, telephone, or television, but the home was heated by 

a pot bellied stove and did have a few electrical wires that provided light 

when necessary. In back of the house there was a huge Live Oak tree. In 

the evening it was common for family, community members, and youths to 

sit around the tree to tell and listen to stories and histories of our ancestors, 

myths, and traditions. I was most fortunate to have had a special relationship 

with the elders of my community as they knew I was very interested in our 

history and culture, with specific interest in my great ancestors. Along with 

their stories they shared with me how they would use particular herbs, teas, 

and roots to help heal common health conditions.

The painting Tales reflects my recollections of the stories told around 

the Oak tree. Because this is a recollection stemming from my youth, I 

purposely did not put facial features on the figures. In Gullah tradition, it 

was an insult for a child to look an adult in the face until given permission to 

do so. Always, elders and adults were to be respected.

When I was approximately 11 years old I and other children from the 

community were climbing and playing in the tree. There was a giant knot 

hole in the tree and I was not aware someone had poured gasoline into 

the hole. To see what was in the hole, I lit a match and flames shot out and 

severely burned my face which resulted in searing pain and I was disfigured 

for many months. In addition to being burned, the oak tree was destroyed 

by the fire and I mourned the loss of such a magnificent and magical tree. 

My grandmother, Eloise, knew the use of herbal and natural medicine and 

applied ointments and medications on my face and fortunately I was healed, 

but the memory of the experience has always stayed with me.
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior