Cane River Creole National Historical Park

Oakland Plantation

The Cottage

Historic Structure Report

2002

Hartrampf, Inc.

and

Office of Jack Pyburn, Architect, Inc.

for 

Historical Architecture, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-3117

The historic structure report presented here exists in two 

formats. A traditional, printed version is available for study 

at the park, the Southeastern Regional Office of the NPS 

(SERO), and at a variety of other repositories. For more 

widespread access, the historic structure report also exists 

in a web- based format through ParkNet, the website of the 

National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more 

information.

2002

Historic Structure Report

Cottage

Cane River Creole National Historical Park

Natchitoches, LA

LCS#: 100629

Cover image: Cover photographs courtesy of 

Sandra Prud’homme Haynie, from her book, 

Legends of Oakland Plantation, Shreveport, 2001, 

and courtesy of Doris Brett Vincent. 

The photographs surrounding the Cottage are of persons who 

lived in the house. Beginning from the lower right- hand 

corner and proceeding clockwise around the perimeter, the 

images are: Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I, who built the 

Cottage, or for whom it was built; a sketch of the probable 

original appearance of the Cottage; Jacques Alphonse 

Prud’homme, son of P. Phanor Prud’homme I, and his wife, 

Elisa LeComte Prud’homme; the Cottage in 1938; Arnold 

Cloutier and his wife, Virginia LeMeur Cloutier; Suzanne Lise 

Metoyer Prud’homme, wife of P. Phanor Prud’homme I; 

Pierre Phanor Prud’homme II and his wife, Marie Laure 

Cloutier Prud’homme; Lucie Leveque Prud’homme; August 

Lambre Prud’homme, husband of Lucie Leveque; Jesse 

Emmett Brett II and his wife, Marie Adele Prud’homme Brett; 

the Cottage in 1957; Prud’homme family showing (L to R), first 

row: Louise Desiree Cloutier Prud’homme, Daisy Marguerite 

Prud’homme, Francis Reginald Prud’homme, Edward 

Carrington Prud’homme; second row: Emma Laura Buard 

Prud’homme, Julie Buard Prud’homme, and Pierre Emmanuel 

Prud’homme (of these, only Edward Carrington 

Prud’homme, his wife, Emma Laura Prud’homme, and his 

son, Francis Reginald Prud’homme, are known to have lived 

in the Cottage); and Elise Elizabeth Prud’homme, bride of 

Wilbur Guy Cloutier.


National Park Service 7

Table of Contents 

Management Summary 

 Executive Summary 9 

 Administrative Data 11 

Part I: Developmental History 

 Historic Time Line 15 

 Historical Background and Context 19 

 Chronology of Development and Use 27 

 Physical Description 41 

 Summary of Materials Research Findings 65 

 Drawings 69 

 Bibliography 79 

Part II: Treatment and Use 

 

 Treatment and Use 83 

 Requirements for Use 83 

 Requirements for Treatment 86 

 Alternatives for Treatment 87 

 Ultimate Treatment and Use 88 
8 Oakland Cottage HSR 
National Park Service 9

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Historical Summary 

From the time of its construction until the 

time of its sale to the National Park Service as 

part of the creation of the Cane River Creole 

National Historical Park, the Cottage has been 

used as a family residence, mostly to house 

members of the Prud’homme family who 

owned and developed the area first known as 

Bermuda Plantation and later known as 

Oakland Plantation. In fact, during its nearly 

170- year history, it housed families unrelated 

to the Prud’hommes for a total of only about 

35 years. Though the Main House of the 

Plantation has received a majority of the 

interest and attention, the Cottage deserves 

important billing as a significant structure in 

the life and culture of the area and the times. 

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate 

the importance of this structure to the 

Prud’hommes and Oakland Plantation and to 

explore the means by which the National Park 

Service can preserve it and use it as a vital part 

of the Cane River Creole National Historical 

Park complex. 

Research regarding the historical background 

of this structure was conducted through 

reviews of previous research on the history of 

Prud’homme families and their associates, the 

development of the Plantations that they 

owned, and the cultures and times in which 

they lived. Genealogical information 

regarding the Prud’hommes and the extended 

family that surrounded them compiled over 

many years by Rosalie Lucile Keator 

Prud’homme proved invaluable to this effort. 

United States census records gave further 

insight into the considerable mobility of this 

family group within what might be considered 

a small world. Tour brochures written by 

Robert DeBlieux, descendant of earlier 

residents of the area, helped to establish the 

locations of many of the plantations along the 

Cane River and provided background 

information on the many interrelated families 

that lived in them and in Natchitoches. 

Interviews with several family members 

provided information not otherwise 

documented on the families that inhabited the 

“Cottage” and the changes they made to it. 

Together, these various resources painted a 

picture of the Cottage as a home, regarded by 

the Prud’homme family as secondary only to 

the Main House, and used by them for 150 

years as a place to raise their families and 

celebrate their lives. 

Architectural Summary 

The Cottage is a one- story, wood- framed 

structure set on brick and concrete piers with 

approximately 2,525 square feet of living space. 

The primary components of the structure 

include ten rooms and a front and rear porch, 

as well as all or part of three fireplaces. The 

gable roof extends the full length of the 

building with a change in pitch over the 

southwest quadrant of the house. A cabinetlike1

 enclosure of the south end of the front 

gallery has created a small room that is 

purported to have been used as a doctor’s 

office. Overall, the structure is in sound and 

stable condition with only localized structural 

deficiencies. Though currently vacant, the 

house has been used for storage at times and 

was last occupied as a residence in 1997. 

The period of significance for the Cottage is 

from 1834- 1960. The Cottage exhibits a 

sequence of modifications from about 1834 to 

1960 that parallel the history of the plantation. 

It is clear from research and field analysis that 

the original cottage was a traditional Creole 

cottage structure with two rooms, central 

fireplace, bousillage2

 wall construction and 

 

1

 A cabinet was a small enclosure, usually enclosing a 

portion of an existing gallery, often used for sleeping 

rooms. The walls were most often simple upright 

planks, with no insulating material between them and 

the interior. 

2

Bousillage was a common means of creating insulated 

walls generally used in Louisiana until the close of the 

Civil War. A system of horizontal lathes was installed 

between the upright members of a wall. These were 
10 Oakland Cottage HSR 

front and rear galleries. There is strong 

evidence that rear cabinets with bousillage

walls were added after the original 

construction but before 1870. At the same time 

or during the same time period, a center hall 

was created by the construction of a bousillage 

wall in the north room. Later, a southwest 

room was created behind the original south 

room by enclosing part of the rear gallery or 

expanding an already existing rear cabinet. 

This expansion dramatically changed the 

exterior character of the cottage by changing 

the roof profile from a hip roof to a gable end 

roof to accommodate the roof framing 

requirements of the southwest room 

expansion. A detached kitchen was 

constructed off the rear of the house, probably 

before 1870, as well. In 1870, the resident 

doctor, Dr. Leveque, received permission to 

add an office to the house, and, at that time, 

the south end of the front porch was enclosed. 

In 1880, a major addition was added to the 

north end of the house to accommodate the 

new family of Lucie Leveque, Dr. Leveque’s 

daughter, who had married. In the late 1920s, a 

bathroom was added, and, in the 1950s, the 

kitchen was brought into the house with the 

modification of the southwest room. The final 

phase of modifications to what started as a 

modest cottage was a series of renovations in 

1957 that included the installation of a 

composition shingle roof, asbestos shingle 

siding, gypsum wallboard interior finish over 

board walls, and vinyl sheet flooring over 

plywood sub- flooring applied to well worn 

unfinished flooring. 

The Cottage is significant for the progression 

of building on the plantation. There are a 

number of common features and 

characteristics between the cottage and other 

buildings on the property, including the main 

house. The core of the significance of the 

structure is the original Creole cottage 

embedded within the south part of the larger 

structure. Though subsequent modifications 

have altered a number of the original cottage 

 

then draped with a mixture of clay and plant material 

or animal hair that had been rolled into sheets and 

dried. The bousillage could remain the exterior finish 

of a structure, but it was usually either plastered and 

whitewashed or covered with board to protect the 

material. 

features, the basic components of the original 

are intact: hip roof framing, bousillage walls, 

central fireplaces, and hand hewn and 

numbered beams (visible in the attic). Each 

subsequent modification to the original 

cottage carries its own significance in relation 

to the corresponding period of time, fashion 

or style, and social and economic 

circumstances. 

Recommendations 

The recommendations established for the 

Cottage in the General Management Plan for 

the Cane River National Historical Park is to 

use it as a park office. The recommended 

treatment is to accommodate that use within 

the framework of a preservation treatment 

giving preservation a priority over function 

where function will meaningfully threaten 

historic materials, features, and character. In 

simple terms, the goal is to preserve the house 

as it exists today while accommodating office 

functions. This approach will include: 

• Preservation, repair and maintenance 

of the existing features of the cottage. 

• Introduction of new electrical 

capacity in the structure that respects 

the existing electrical features 

meaningful to the period of 

significance. 

• Introduction of a modern, noncentral air conditioning system to 

support office functions, the choice of 

systems and method of installation to 

minimize the impact on historically 

significant materials, features, and 

character. 

• Adaptation for handicapped 

accessibility including a ramp and 

providing accessible restrooms 

outside the confines of the historic 

structure. 

• Upgrading the existing restroom to 

provide for non- disabled staff. 

• Reroofing with composition roofing 

to match type, exposure, and profile 

of the 1960- era roof. 

• Provision of interpretative features in 

the house, including the interpretation 
National Park Service 11

of the Creole cottage and later 

building systems such as the bousillage

walls, the chamfered original columns 

on the front gallery, and the layers of 

history represented in the layers of 

wall finishes both within and without 

the house. 

Administrative Data 

Locational Data 

Building Name: The Cottage 

Building Address 4414 Hwy. 494 

 Bermuda, LA 71457 

LCS # 100629 

Related Studies 

Jones, Tommy. Main House, Oakland 

 Plantation, Cane River National 

Historical Park, Historic Structure 

Report. National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2001. 

Jones, Tommy. Prud’hommes Store, Oakland 

Plantation, Cane River National 

Historical Park, Historic Structure 

Report. National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, 

2001. 

Keel, Bennie C., and Christina E. Miller, “Gabe 

Nargot’s Cabin – Investigations at a 

Nineteenth Century Slave Domicile in 

Northwest Louisiana.” Paper 

presented at 1999 Society for 

Historical Archeology Conference, 

Salt Lake City. 

<http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/gabes/ 15 

Dec 2000>. 

Lawliss, L., C. Goetcheus, and D. Hasty, “The 

Cultural Landscapes Inventory and 

Assessment, Cane River Creole 

 National Heritage Area Natchitoches, 

 Louisiana.” National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta. 

1997. 

National Park Service. Cane River Creole 

National Historical Park, Draft 

General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.

2000. 

Cultural Resource Data

National Register of Historic Places: The Jean 

Pierre Emmanuel Prud’homme Plantation 

(Oakland Plantation), contributing structure, 

originally listed 29 August 1979 (upgraded 

from local to statewide significance 2 August 

1989) under Criteria A for association with 

events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our 

history. The Cottage was included in January 

of 2001 as part of Oakland Plantation. 

Period of Significance: The period of 

significance for Oakland Plantation concludes 

about 1960, around the time that the last of the 

sharecroppers and tenants were leaving the 

plantation. This appears to be an appropriate 

date for the Cottage, even though it continued 

to be used as a residence until 1998, as 1957 was 

the time of the last renovation. 

Proposed Treatment and Use: The proposed 

use is for a National Park Service site office. 

The treatment, using a period of significance 

extending from c. 1835 to c. 1960, would 

generally retain, repair, and restore the 

finishes and features in the house at the time 

of the last set of modifications. Additionally, it 

would be necessary to upgrade the mechanical 

and electrical systems as well as strengthen the 

structural system to accommodate this 

proposed use. 
12 Oakland Cottage HSR 
National Park Service 13

PART I 

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
14 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 15

HISTORICAL TIME LINE 

21 Oct 1786 – Jean Baptiste Prud’homme dies in 

Natchitoches, Natchitoches Parish, New 

Spain. After the death of his wife in 1788, his 

sons, Jean Pierre Emmanuel, Antoine, 

Dominique, and Francois and his daughters, 

Marie Louise, Nanette, and Susanne inherit 

his estate. 

1800 – Spain cedes the Louisiana Territory to 

France. 

1803 – United States government purchases the 

Louisiana Territory from France. 

24 Jun 1807 – Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I 

born to Jean Pierre Emmanuel Prud’homme 

and Marie Catherine Lambre. 

1810 – Eman’l Prud’homme is enumerated in 

the 1810 census of “the Territory of Orleans” 

with a wife and three children. 

5 Feb 1812 –Pierre Emmanuel Prud’homme 

files claims with the government of the United 

States to tracts of land along the Red River 

(now, Cane River) that would become 

Bermuda Plantation. 

26 Jul 1816 – Claims of Emmanuel Prud’homme 

for land in Natchitoches Parish are confirmed 

by the United States government. 

22 Nov 1818 – Suzanne Lise Metoyer, daughter 

of Francois Benjamin Metoyer and Marie 

Aurore Lambre, born. 

1818- 1821 – Emmanuel Prud’homme replaces 

his original home on Bermuda Plantation with 

a larger structure farther back from the river, 

the Main House that stands today at Oakland 

Plantation. 

1830 – Census indicates a cluster of property 

owners similar to that in the 1810 census and, 

to some degree, the 1820 census. Listed in 

order are Benjamin Metoyer, Antoine 

Prudhomme, Lestan Prudhomme and Man’l 

Prudhomme. Further down river, Nevil [sic] 

Prudhomme, followed much later by Francois 

Prudhomme and then Narceas [sic] 

Prudhomme. The census indicates that only 

Emmanuel, his wife, and Phanor were living 

on the property in 1830. 

1832 – James A. Leveque born. 

12 Dec 1835 – Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I 

marries Suzanne Lise Metoyer. 

1834- 1840 – Possible date of construction of 

the Cottage. 

17 Apr 1838 – Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme I 

born to Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I and 

Suzanne Lise Metoyer. 

11 Aug 1839 – Marie Emma Prud’homme born 

to Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I and Suzanne 

Lise Metoyer. 

1840 – Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I is listed as 

a separate head of household in the 1840 

census. 

19 Nov 1840 – Elise Elizabeth Lecomte, wife of 

Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme, born. 

January 1842 – Phanor Prud’homme notes in 

his records that he had begun the extension of 

the house. Because the final modifications to 

the Main House have been determined to have 

concluded about 1835, it seems reasonable to 

assume that this work was being done on the 

Cottage. Based on the sequence of 

construction established by field observations, 

the extension to which he referred is believed 

to be the enclosure of parts of the rear gallery 

to form cabinets or the expansion of an 

existing cabinet to create what is now the 

southwest bedroom. 

February 1842 – Phanor Prud’homme notes “I 

have contracted with the painter Morin to 

have the two houses painted giving him 

Nathan for the sum of $150 which is $75 for 

each.” 
Historical Background and Context 

16 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Abt. 1844 – Theresa Marie Kirkland, wife of 

Dr. James A. Leveque, born. 

8 Jan 1844 – Pierre Emmanuel Prud’homme II 

born to Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I and 

Suzanne Lise Metoyer. 

13 May 1845 – Jean Pierre Emmanuel 

Prud’homme I dies. 

26 May 1848 – Marie Theresa Henriette 

Prud’homme born to Pierre Phanor 

Prud’homme I and Suzanne Lise Metoyer. 

4 Aug 1848 – Marie Catherine Lambre 

Prud’homme, wife of Emmanuel Prud’homme 

I, dies. 

19 May 1852 – Suzanne Lise Metoyer, wife of 

Pierre Phanor Prud’homme I, dies. 

Abt. 1854 – August Lambre Prud’homme born 

to Lestan Prud’homme and Marie Eliza 

Lambre. 

1860 – Federal Census taken. Indicates a Dr. 

Heulin living in what is now called the 

Cottage. 

12 Apr 1861 – Civil War begins at Ft. Sumter, 

Charleston, South Carolina. 

1862 – Phanor builds a fence “between the Dr. 

and me and the camp. 

14 Feb 1862 – Notation to “make plank fence to 

Doctors Yard” appears in plantation journal. 

April 1862 – In plantation journal, Phanor 

Prudhomme mentions renting “a negress” to 

Dr. Lahaye at $12 a month at the same time 

that he was renting the doctor a house for $100 

a year. 

December, 1862 – Dr. J. A. Leveque marries 

Theresa Marie Kirkland. 

Abt. 1864 – Marie Lucie Celeste Leveque 

(Lucie) born to Dr. J. A. Leveque and his wife, 

Theresa Marie Kirkland. 

6 Jun 1864 – Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme 

marries Elise Elizabeth Lecomte. 

28 Apr 1865 – Last of the Confederate armies 

surrender. End of the Civil War. 

20 Sep 1865 – Edward Gamaliel Lawton, 

husband of Marie Cora Prud’homme and 

resident of the Cottage, born. 

20 Jun 1866 – Doctor J. A. Leveque and his wife 

and daughter, Lucie, move in to the Cottage at 

Bermuda Plantation. 

1868 – Joseph Mark Leveque born at Bermuda 

(Oakland) Plantation to Dr. J. A. Leveque and 

his wife, Theresa Marie Kirkland. 

12 Jul 1869 – Edward Carrington Prud’homme 

born at Bermuda (Oakland) Plantation to 

Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme, Sr. and Elise 

E. Lecomte. 

1871 – Dr. Joseph Leveque receives permission 

from the Prud’homme family to renovate and 

add to the existing house. He encloses part of 

the front porch to use as an office to see and 

treat patients. 

25 Jan 1871 – Marie Laure Cloutier, wife of 

Pierre Phanor Prud’homme II, born to 

Francois Xavier Emile Cloutier and Marie 

Coralie Buard 

20 Oct 1871 – Marie Cora Prud’homme born to 

Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme and Elise E. 

Lecomte. 

1873 – Formal division of Bermuda Plantation 

results in Atahoe Plantation on the east side of 

Cane River and Oakland Plantation on the 

west side. 

23 Oct 1873 – Emma Laura Prud’homme born 

to Pierre Emmanuel Prud’homme and Julie 

Buard of Atahoe Plantation. 

17 Jun 1880 –Lucie Leveque marries August 

Lambre Prud’homme, son of Jean Jacques 

Lestan Prud’homme and Marie Elise Lambre. 

1880- 1881 – Dr. Leveque receives permission to 

enlarge the house in which he lives. He builds 

an addition to the north for his daughter, 

Lucie, and her husband. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 17

1890 – Marie Therese Leveque, Joseph Mark 

Leveque, and Lucy Leveque Prud’homme 

leave Oakland Plantation, taking Lambre and 

Lucie’s daughter, June, with them. None of 

them ever return to Oakland Plantation except 

briefly after the death of Doctor Leveque. 

3 Feb 1891 – Pierre Phanor Prud’homme II 

marries Marie Laurie Cloutier at the Cora 

Lambre Plantation. 

August, 1893 – August Lambre Prud’homme, 

Lucie’s husband, dies. 

11 Dec 1893 – Dr. James A. Leveque dies. 

7 Aug 1894 – Marie Cora Prud’homme marries 

Dr. Edward Gamaliel Lawton. They move 

into the Cottage. 

17 Oct 1894 –Edward Carrington Prud’homme 

marries Emma Laura Prud’homme. 

27 Nov 1898 – Francis Reginald Prud’homme 

born to Edward and Emma Prud’homme. 

22 Feb 1899 – Wilbur Guy Cloutier, husband of 

Elise Elizabeth Prud’homme, born to Francois 

Alexis Cloutier and Merie Celine Buard. 

Jun 1900 – Census taken. J. Alphonse 

Prud’homme is enumerated as head of 

household with his wife and younger 

daughters. Also enumerated in his household 

(that is, not as separate heads of household) 

are Lecomte (Uncle Buddy), and Edward 

Prudhomme, both listed as clerks in store. 

Edward’s wife and son, Reginald, are also 

listed in this household, indicating that 

Reginald was probably born in the Main 

House and not in the Cottage. Pierre Phanor 

Prud’homme II is listed separately as a head of 

household, apparently living in the Cottage. 

12 Dec 1900 – Elise Elizabeth Prud’homme 

born to Pierre Phanor Prud’homme II and 

Marie Laure Cloutier. 

1901 – J. Alphonse Prud’homme builds a house 

at what is now called Riverside Plantation for 

his son, Pierre Phanor Prud’homme, and 

family. 

3 Mar 1903 – Marie Adele Prud’homme born 

to Pierre Phanor Prud’homme II and Marie 

Laure Cloutier. 

16 Feb 1906 – Jesse Emmett Brett, Jr. born to 

Jesse Emmett Brett, Sr. and Maude 

Prud’homme. 

Apr – May 1910 – Federal Census taken. In this 

census, Edward G. Lawton and wife, Cora 

Prud’homme Lawton and their family are 

listed immediately before the family of J. 

Alphonse Prudhomme. In conjunction with 

other census records, it appears that the 

Lawtons may have been living in the Cottage 

in 1910. 

24 Apr 1914 – Journal of Edward Carrington 

Prudhomme notes “Covering kitchen Old 

House (Leveques) where I now reside – 

needed badly.” 

17 Feb 1919 – J. Alphonse Prudhomme dies. 

1920 – Census taken. In this census, Mrs. J. 

Alphonse Prudhomme is listed separately as a 

head of household with her daughter, Julia, 

and a cook. In the next dwelling are listed 

Phanor Prudhomme and his family. This may 

indicate that Phanor moved into the Cottage 

following the death of his father, necessitating 

a move of the Edward Prud’homme family to 

Riverside Plantation to the south. And, 

indeed, they are enumerated about 11 dwellings 

after Phanor Prudhomme and his family. 

20 Oct 1923 – Elise Elizabeth Lecompte 

Prud’homme (Mrs. J. Alphonse) dies. 

10 Jun 1925 – Elise Elizabeth Prud’homme 

marries Wilbur Guy Cloutier. 

1925 - 1929 – Bath and plumbing (cold water 

only) are added to the Cottage by Guy and 

Elise Cloutier while they are renting the house. 

24 Apr 1930 – Louis Arnold Cloutier born to 

Wilbur Guy Cloutier and Elise Elizabeth 

Prud’homme. 

21 Sep 1931 – Virginia LeMeur, wife of Louis 

Arnold Cloutier, born to Alcide and Virginia 

LeMeur. 
Historical Background and Context 

18 Oakland Cottage HSR 

1 Sep 1932 – Adele Prud’homme marries her 

cousin, Jesse E. Brett, Jr. 

1934 – Guy and Lise Cloutier complete their 

new home and move out of the Cottage. 

1936 – Jesse E. Brett and Adele Prud’homme 

Brett are living in the Cottage. 

11 Oct 1936 – Doris Ann Brett born to Jesse E. 

Brett and Adele Prud’homme. 

1936- 37 – Rural electrification comes to Cane 

River. 

1938 – A photograph is taken of the Cottage, 

showing a white picket fence, similar to the 

one in front of the Main House, surrounding 

part of the front yard. It also shows that the 

roof had been replaced at some time with a 

metal roof. 

Jan 1940 – Jesse E. Brett and his daughter, 

Doris, are photographed in front of the 

Cottage garage. 

Apr 1941 – The Cottage is purchased by Jesse E. 

and Adele Prud’homme Brett. 

Jan 1949 – The Jesse Brett family moves to 

Texas, leaving the Cottage vacant. 

29 Aug 1951 – Louis Arnold Cloutier marries 

Virginia LeMeur. 

1952 – Arnold and Virginia Cloutier renovate 

the Cottage. They rent it from the Bretts and 

move in October of 1952, but move out again in 

December of that year. 

1954 – Alphonse and Jane Prud’homme move 

into the Cottage. They move the kitchen into 

the small back hall, where it is currently 

located. 

1956 – Jesse and Adele Brett return to the area 

and move into the Cottage. 

1957 – Jesse and Adele Brett renovate the 

Cottage. 

20 Feb 1974 – Adele Prud’homme Brett dies. 

Jesse Brett continues to live in the house. 

1984 – Jesse E. Brett moves to Little Rock, 

Arkansas. He rents the house to Joe Beck 

Payne, who was the husband of Adele’s 

nephew’s daughter. 

11 Mar 1985 – Doris Ann Brett Vincent draws 

house plans for Evelyn Tudor Stallings of the 

arrangement of the Cottage when she was a 

girl. 

4 Dec 1987 – Jesse Emmett Brett dies. Doris 

Brett Vincent inherits the Cottage. 

1994 – Joe Beck Payne moves out of the 

Cottage. Margo Haas, a cousin of Doris 

Vincent, rents the house from Doris. 

6 Jun 1997 – Archeological auger testing 

uncovers an intact, in situ brick feature in the 

front of the doctor’s house. 

Jun 1997 – Archeological auger testing locates a 

“construction rubble” feature next to the filled 

cistern north of the Cottage (behind the 

garage). 

June 1997 – Archeological auger testing located 

a midden near the location of the former 

gristmill behind the Cottage. 

1998 – Doris Brett Vincent sells the Cottage to 

the National Park Service to complete their 

acquisition of the plantation complex of 

Oakland Plantation. 

2001 – Utility crews working in the area of the 

Cottage garage discover a brick floor under 

the existing garage, with a brick “apron” in 

front of it. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 19

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 

Much has been written regarding the 

Natchitoches Prud’homme family. That they 

were among the first families of Louisiana 

when the territory belonged to the French, 

and continued to be one of the prominent 

families of the area through the subsequent 

occupation of the Spanish, the reestablishment of French control, and the 

acquisition of the territory by the United 

States government, is indisputable. During 

their tenure on the land along the Cane River, 

they established a successful agricultural 

enterprise and prospered despite the 

vicissitudes of national politics and economy. 

Pragmatists, they adopted new technologies 

with alacrity, and adjusted to new political 

realities when obliged to do so. Idealists, they 

attempted to find ways to coax the best they 

could from the soil on which they lived and 

the people who worked it. Finally, 200 years 

after the establishment of their plantation at 

Isle Brevelle along the Cane River, they sold an 

important part of it to the National Park 

Service to establish a park that would serve to 

educate the public and preserve the remnants 

of a vanished way of life. 

As early as 1758, Jean- Baptist Prud’homme had 

acquired land along what was then called the 

Red River and begun to farm it, growing 

indigo and tobacco as the main crops for 

export.3

 According to family tradition, his 

oldest son, Jean Pierre Emmanuel, was 

farming land that would become Oakland 

Plantation by 1787, though his residence in the 

early 1790s was still on a 51- acre tract opposite 

the post at Natchitoches.4

 However, by the 

late 1790s, family tradition holds that 

Emmanuel Prud’homme had purchased the 

property from Nicholas Rousseau, the original 

owner, and built a small home on the banks of 

the river.5

 

3

 Anne Patton Malone, “Oakland Plantation, Its 

People’s Testimony,” unpublished MS, National Park 

Service, 1998, pp. 24-25. 

4

 Ibid., p. 26. 

5

 Ibid. 

In 1803, the United States Government 

purchased the Louisiana Territory from 

France, and, in 1810, when the third United 

States Federal Census was taken, a census of 

the “Orleans Territory” was conducted as 

well. By that time, the Prud’hommes were well 

established on plantations along what was 

then called the Red River. A comparison of 

the 1810 census of the “Orleans Territory” and 

the Walmsley plat of 1816 indicates that the 

census- taker, John C. Carr, who was probate 

judge at the time6

, essentially cruised down the 

river, taking names and statistics as he went. 

This is useful to know because it helps to 

establish the locations of persons enumerated 

in later records. Thus, we see that Emmanuel 

Prud’homme was living on land located 

between that of his brother, Antoine,7

 on the 

north, and his brother- in- law, Remy Lambre8

, 

on the south, which is consistent with the 

location of the lands associated with what is 

now Oakland Plantation. The 1810 census 

establishes that there was only one residence 

on the property at the time (residences of 

slaves were not enumerated), in which resided 

Emman’l Prud’homme, his wife, Marie 

Catherine, their youngest son, Phanor, aged 3 

years, and the twin daughters, Adele and 

Adeline, aged 10 years.9 The three older 

children in this family had already married and 

established homes for themselves elsewhere. 

The land on which the Prud’hommes 

established their plantations is described as 

follows, starting from the south, near Colfax, 

and moving to Grand Encore, north of 

Natchitoches. “The village of the Boluxa 

Indians (near Colfax) stood where the river 

divides into two branches, forming an island 

about fifty miles in length and three to four in 

width. On the right hand ascending was the 

stream called Rigolet de Bon Dieu (now Red 

River), on which there were no settlements in 

 

6

 Donna Rachal Mills, Biographical and Historical 

Memoirs of Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. Mills 

Historical Press, Tuscaloosa, 1985, p. 10. 

7

 Lucile K. Prud’homme, comp. “The Prud’homme 

Family,” genealogical information, p. 2. 

8

 Ibid. 

9

 Ibid. 
Historical Background and Context 

20 Oakland Cottage HSR 

1812. On the left hand (now Cane River) was 

the boat channel to Natchitoches, and on this 

branch, for twenty- four miles, were several 

rich plantations. Above the old River Cane 

settlement, the river divided again, forming an 

island thirty miles in length, called Isle Brevel. 

This island was subdivided by a bayou, which 

crossed it from one river to the other. The 

middle or Cane River was called Little River, 

and was the boat channel. The westward 

channel, old river or false river, was navigable; 

but, owing to the lowness of its banks there 

were no settlements visible in 1812. The river 

passed through Lac Occasee (where 

Prudhomme now is), and above, at 

Natchitoches, the two channels met, while the 

Rigolet du [sic] Bon Dieu (now the main 

channel) left the present Cane River at Perot’s 

plantation one mile below Grand Encore 

Bluffs, six miles up the stream from 

Natchitoches.”10

On July 26, 181611, a certificate was issued by the 

United States government in favor of 

Emmanuel Prud’homme under an order of 

survey and settlement for lands he claimed to 

own and for which he had filed claims with the 

government in January of 1812 and which 

claims had been accepted in February of that 

year.12 In addition to claim No. B- 1850, which 

comprised both sections 104 and 44 of 

Township 8, North Range 6, lying on both 

sides of the Red (now, Cane) River, which 

were the lands originally granted to Nicholas 

Rousseau, Emmanuel Prud’homme was 

granted land under claims No. B- 1811 and B1812, originally granted to Pierre Baden, claim 

No. B- 1813, originally granted to Sebastian 

Prud’homme, claim No. B- 1814, originally 

granted to Jean Baptiste Brewoele,and claim 

No. B- 1815, originally granted to Domnique 

Rachal.13 It is uncertain where these other 

claims were located, though it seems likely that 

one of them was section 40, which appears as 

 

10 Mills, p. 4. 

11 Claim No. B-1850, Plat No. 799, Book C, p. 291, Plats 

of the Western District of Louisiana. A copy of this 

document is located in the Prud’homme Family Library. 

12 Lester Hughes, in letter to Mrs. Lucile Prud’homme, 

dated 12 May 1958. 

13 Marshall H. Carver, in letter to Lester Hughes, n.d., 

quoted from The American State Papers, Vol. II, p. 

717, and from enclosure entitled “Land Claims Filed 

with the United States Government”, p. 1. 

part of the Emmanuel Prudhomme holdings in 

the Walmsley plat of 1816. The issuance of 

these certificates indicates that, contrary to 

family legend, the lands of Emmanuel 

Prud’homme did not come to him through an 

earlier grant from the French or Spanish 

governments. They appear to have come to 

him by the method of providing proof to the 

United States government of at least 10 years 

of continued and uncontested occupancy of a 

property, including improvements, this proof 

resulting in confirmation by the government 

of the claim of ownership. Usually, this 

method of proof is required where a valid bill 

of sale is not available. The Prud’homme 

family insists that Emmanuel Prud’homme 

paid for his lands, and that is probably the 

case. The problem may have been that the 

original grantees did not have proof of the 

right to sell it, resulting in the necessity of 

Emmanuel Prud’homme being obliged to 

claim “squatter’s rights,” even though he had 

previously purchased the land. 

By 1818, the frequent flooding of the Red River 

(now the Cane River) and the subsequent 

erosion of the riverbank14, induced the 

Prud’hommes to build another home at a 

distance further from the banks of the river.15

 

Work was begun on a larger home, which was 

built some distance behind the location of the 

original house, sometime after 1818 and 

finished in 1821. This second home stands 

today, identified as the Main (or Big) House at 

Oakland Plantation. 

Before 1822, the Emmanuel Prud’homme 

family had moved into their new home. By 

this time, only their youngest son, Phanor, 

remained at home with them.16 It is important 

to note that the 1830 census enumeration does 

not suggest another dwelling on the 

Emmanuel Prud’homme plantation on the 

same side of the river as the Main House. 

Miller and Wood have stated that the Cottage 

 

14 Duggan, Vivian Prud’homme. Interview with 

Deborah Harvey, 18 Oct 2001. 

15 Malone, p. 26. 

16 Fifth Census of the United states, 1830, Population 

Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2001, image 19 of 62. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 21

was built in the 1820s,17 and there has been 

some speculation that it pre- dates the Main 

House. The census does not indicate that this 

is the case. The families of Antoine and Lestan 

Prud’homme were enumerated immediately 

before that of Emmanuel Prud’homme. 

Immediately afterward is enumerated the 

family of a Joseph Johner, apparently a small 

farmer who owned eight slaves, and after this 

family was the family of a free person of color, 

owning one slave, followed by the 

enumeration of several families of Rachal. 

Taking into account the known positions of 

the Prudhomme and Rachal families, it is 

apparent that the census taker was headed 

south down the west bank of the river. While 

it is true that censuses were often not taken in 

the strictest order of the dwellings due to 

families not being at home at the time of the 

census, which necessitated the return of the 

census taker at another time, the census takers 

did make an effort to be as efficient as 

possible. Therefore, it is probable that the 

order in which persons are listed in the census 

is more or less the order in which they lived 

along the road, especially in a location such as 

this, where there was only one road. That 

being the case, the implication of the assertion 

that the Cottage was built before the Main 

House would be that it would probably have 

been occupied in the 1820 or 1830 censuses, if 

not both. If so occupied, it was occupied by 

persons having no documented relationship to 

the Prud’hommes.18 That being unlikely, it 

seems reasonable to assume that the structure 

known as the Cottage was built after 1830. 

In fact, an event occurred in 1835 that suggests 

a possible date for the construction of the 

dwelling now called the Cottage. On 12 Dec 

1835, Pierre Phanor Prud’homme married his 

cousin, Suzanne Lise Metoyer.19 He began to 

manage the plantation for his parents, and he 

and Lise started a family. It is probable that 

the house was built before the 1840 census. In 

 

17 Christina Miller and Susan E Wood, Oakland 

Plantation – A Comprehensive Subsurface 

Investigation, National Park Service, Southeast 

Archeological Center, Tallahassee, 2000, p. 29. 

18 Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Population 

Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2001, images 1 and 2 of 2. Also Fifth 

Census cited above. 19 Prud’homme, Lucille K., p. 3. 

this census, Phanor Prud’homme was 

enumerated as a separate head of household 

from his father, indicating that they did not 

share a dwelling.20 Two possibilities arise from 

the completion of renovations to the Main 

House and the construction of the new house. 

One is that the new house was built for the use 

of Phanor and his bride. The other is that the 

house was built for Phanor’s parents, 

Emmanuel and Catherine Prud’homme, who 

could have moved to the smaller home when 

the family of their son began to grow, leaving 

the larger home for him. In either event, 

evidence of early wallpaper on beams framing 

the attic attest to the probability that this new 

house was at least partially constructed of 

salvaged portions of an older structure, 

possibly the original Main House built along 

the riverbank. 

Emmanuel Prud’homme I died on 13 May 

1845.21 His wife, Marie Catherine Lambre 

Prud’homme, died three years later, on 4 Aug 

1848.22 By the 1850 census, the Phanor 

Prudhomme family occupied the Main House 

of what was then known as Bermuda 

Plantation.23 Who occupied the Cottage 

between 1848 and 1860 is currently unknown. 

Though it appears to have been unoccupied in 

the 1850 census,24 it may have been used by the 

plantation overseer during this time. By 1860, 

however, a doctor occupied it. The 1860 

census indicates that a French doctor, a 

Doctor Heulin and his wife were, at that time, 

living in the cottage.25 This location is verified 

by the enumeration of the plantation overseer, 

Seneca Pace, who is recorded in the next 

dwelling (which he referred to in his journal as 

his “new” house), and by the plantation 

records written by this overseer in 1860 which 

 

20 Sixth Census of the United States, 1840, Population 

Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2001, image 30 of 108. 

21 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 2 

22 Ibid. 

23 Seventh Census of the United States, 1860, 

Population Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA,

Microfilm roll #233, copy #M432, held at Historical 

Society Library, Old Courthouse, Natchitoches, 

Louisiana. 

24 Ibid. 

25 Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Population 

Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com, 2001, image 46 of 188. 
Historical Background and Context 

22 Oakland Cottage HSR 

make reference to Dr. Heulin.26 The 

plantation records for 1862 make several 

references to fences “between the Dr. and me 

and the camp”27 and “to Doctor’s Yard.”28 In 

April of 1862, Phanor Prud’homme was renting 

“a ‘negress’ to a Dr. Lahaye at $12 a month at 

the same time that he was renting the doctor a 

house for $100 a year.”29 

The use of the house for a resident doctor may 

have been prompted by the war. Although the 

plantation had boasted a hospital since at least 

the 1850s,30 Phanor Prud’homme may have felt 

the need to keep a doctor near as well. His 

sons, Jacques Alphonse and Pierre Emmanuel 

II, were both embroiled in the War Between 

the States, having enlisted in the Confederate 

Army in 1861.31 In March of 1862, Alphonse was 

wounded. He was discharged from his unit 

and sent home to recuperate. He remained at 

Bermuda Plantation until July of that year, 

when he and his brother- in- law, Winter 

Breazeale, recruited five companies of cavalry 

and set off in September to do battle. 

However, in April of 1863, Alphonse was again 

wounded and obliged to return home to 

recuperate. By June of that year, he felt 

recovered enough to rejoin his unit. Still, he 

was mustered out of his unit in July of 1864 

because of disability from the wounds that he 

had received and from which he had never 

properly recovered.32

Unable to continue as a soldier, Alphonse 

Prud’homme turned to husbandry and 

husbanding. On 6 Sep 1864, he married Elise 

Elizabeth Lecomte33, and set about assisting his 

father with the running of the plantation. This 

 

26 Pace, Seneca, “Daily Record of Passing Events on 

Prudhomme [sic] Plantation, 1860, no page numbers, 

Prud’homme family Papers, 1788-1997, Series 3.1.5, 

Plantation Journals and Records, Southern Historical 

Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

27 Breedlove, pp. 53-54. 

28 Malone, p. 54. 

29 Breedlove, p. 90. 

30 Malone, p. 74. 

31 Breedlove, pp. 24-26. 

32 Fortier, Alcee, ed., “Jacques Alphonse Prud’homme,” 

Louisiana, Comprising Sketches of Counties, Towns, 

Events, Institutions, and Persons Arranged in 

Cyclopedic Form, Southern Historical Association, 

Atlanta, 1909, no page numbers. 

33 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 4. 

was no small task, as the war had at last 

overrun “la Cote Joyeuse.”34 The defeat of the 

Federal army at the battles of Mansfield and 

Pleasant Hill, north of Natchitoches, resulted 

in a retreat that led the Federal troops down 

the Cane (formerly, Red) River. The desire for 

vengeance got the better of the soldiers, and 

the orders of their superiors to burn only 

cotton and to refrain from burning other 

buildings were ignored as they engaged in 

widespread looting and burning of civilian 

property on their retreat to Federallycontrolled territory.35 Though they lost 

virtually all of their cotton to fire, and the 

steam- powered cotton gin that Phanor built 

in 1860 was destroyed,36 the Prud’hommes 

were among the lucky. Neither the Main 

House nor the Cottage were harmed during 

the rampage. Family tradition attributes this 

good fortune to the story that “faithful slaves 

begged the yankees [sic] not to burn the 

home.”37 Fortunately, the rest of the war was 

short. In April of 1865, the last of the 

Confederate Army surrendered. In August of 

that year, the oldest son of J. Alphonse and 

Elise E. Prud’homme, named Pierre Phanor 

Prud’homme II, was born.38

Emmanuel returned home to Bermuda 

Plantation, and he and Alphonse undertook 

the management of the farm. Their father, 

Pierre Phanor, weakened by the demands of 

war, retired to the Lecomte’s townhouse in 

Natchitoches, where he died on 12 October 

1865.39 By that time, Jacques Alphonse 

 

34 The name given to the Cane River Country by other 

Louisianians in the early 1800s. See DeBlieux, Robert 

B., Cane River Country, “La Cote Joyeuse” and 

Kisatchie National Forest – An Auto Guide to the 

Historically and Architecturally Important Plantations 

of Creole Origins and a Guide to the Vistas, Hiking 

Trails and Flora of the Forest of Natchitoches Parish, 

The Natchitoches Times, Natchitoches, 1993, p. 3. 

35 Brown, Sharon Sholars, ed., “Papers of the Fifth 

Grand Reunion of the Descendants of the Founders of 

Natchitoches,” (Conference held July 1984, 

Northwestern State Univeristy, Natchitoches, LA), 

Special Collection, Northwestern State University, 

Natchitoches, Louisiana, p. 32. 

36 Breedlove, p. 36. 

37 DeBlieux, 1993, p. 21. 

38 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 23. 

39 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 3. Also see Melrose 

Collection, Scrapbook 256, Cammie Henry Research 

Center, Northwestern University, Natchitoches, 

Louisiana, for Phanor Prud’homme’s obituary. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 23

Prud’homme and his family, along with 

Emmanuel, lived in the Main House at 

Bermuda. Who lived in the Cottage is unclear, 

though Alphonse and Elise may have lived 

there from late 1864 until the death of Phanor 

Prud’homme I. When Emmanuel married 

Julia Buard in January of 186640, the couple 

continued to share the Main House with the J. 

Alphonse Prud’homme family rather than 

incur the additional expense of setting up 

housekeeping for themselves.41 The 

Prud’homme brothers and their families 

worked together to rebuild their lives. 

The Prud’hommes obviously felt that it was a 

good thing to have a doctor in the house. On 

20 Jun 1866, Doctor James A. Leveque and his 

wife and small daughter, Lucie, moved into the 

Cottage at Bermuda Plantation.42 Dr. Leveque 

was to remain in the house for the next 

twenty- seven years. According to Stallings, 

his residency caused the dwelling to come to 

be called “the doctor’s cottage.”43 While this is 

not strictly the case, it is certain that his 

occupancy of the house caused the term to 

come into common use. During that time, 

Doctor Leveque modified a portion of the 

residence to be used as an office for meeting 

and treating patients, possibly in response to 

the removal of the plantation hospital, said to 

have been located in the field between his 

home and the Main House. Later, he nearly 

doubled the size of the dwelling by building an 

addition to house his daughter, Lucie, and her 

new husband, August Lambre Prud’homme.44

While Doctor Leveque was holding the house 

for them, future residents of the Cottage were 

being born and growing to adulthood. 

Edward Carrington Prud’homme was born to 

J. Alphonse and Elise E. Prud’homme at 

Bermuda Plantation on 12 Jul 1869.45 Bermuda 

 

40 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 4. 

41 Prud’homme Family Papers, 1788-1997, Southern 

Historical collection, Wilson Library, University of North 

Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

42 Evelyn Tudor Stallings, “Cane River Physician – the 

Practice and Letters of Dr. J. A. Leveque, 1832 – 1893,” 

unpublished paper submitted to the North Louisiana 

Historical Association for consideration in the Graduate 

Division 1987 Overdyke Competition, 1987, p. 1. 

43 Stallings, p. 25. 

44 Ibid, p. 8. 

45 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 23. 

Plantation was formally divided between J. 

Alphonse Prud’homme and Pierre Emmanuel 

Prud’homme in 1870, and Pierre Emmanuel 

moved his family across the Cane River to his 

portion, which he renamed Atahoe Plantation. 

J. Alphonse Prud’homme renamed the portion 

of Bermuda Plantation that remained to him 

Oakland Plantation. Marie Cora Prud’homme 

was born to J. Alphonse and Elise E. 

Prud’homme on 20 Oct 1871 at the newlyrenamed Oakland Plantation.46 Emma Laura 

Prud’homme was born to P. Emmanuel and 

Julie Prud’homme of Atahoe Plantation on 23 

Oct 1873.47

In 1890, Lucie Leveque Prud’homme, with her 

mother, brother, and daughter, left the 

Cottage and Oakland Plantation for New 

Orleans, never to return.48 Lucie’s husband, 

Lambre, died in the summer of 1893,49 and Dr. 

Leveque died in December of that same year,50

leaving the Cottage empty for the first time in 

nearly thirty years. Stallings states that 

another doctor, who was a relative of the 

Prud’hommes, moved into the Cottage a few 

months after the death of Dr. Leveque.51 This 

was probably Dr. Edward Gamaliel Lawton, 

who married Marie Cora Prud’homme in 

August of 1894.52 Two months later, in 

October, her brother, Edward Carrington 

Prud’homme married his cousin from Atahoe 

Plantation, Emma Laura Prud’homme.53

In 1900, the twelfth census of the United States 

was taken. J. Alphonse Prud’homme was 

enumerated as head of household with his 

wife and young daughters.54 Also enumerated 

in his household (that is, not as separate heads 

of household) were Lecomte and Edward 

Prud’homme, both listed as clerks in the 

store.55 Edward’s wife, Laura, and their son, 

Reginald, are listed in this household.56 This 

appears to indicate that the Edward 

 

46 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 23. 

47 Ibid., p. 57. 

48 Stallings, p. 9. 

49 Ibid, p. 23. 

50 Ibid, p. 25. 

51 Stallings, p. 25. 

52 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 23. 

53 Ibid. 

54 Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, 

Population Schedules, Natchitoches Parish, LA,

reviewed online at Ancestry.com, 2001, image 45 of 61. 

55 Ibid. 

56 Ibid. 
Historical Background and Context 

24 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Prud’homme family were living in the Main 

House when Reginald was born in 1898.57

 

Enumerated immediately after the 

Prud’hommes was a black family, the 

Dorcinos, who were apparently living and 

working on the Prud’homme plantation, and, 

following them, was enumerated a single, 

white, male farm worker who was also 

apparently working for the Prud’hommes.58

 

These persons may have been occupying the 

structures in the yard of the Main House that 

formerly housed the cook and other house 

servants.59 P. Phanor Prud’homme II is 

enumerated next.60 The Edward G. Lawton 

family is enumerated after the Metoyers.61

 

Since the Metoyers lived south of the 

Prud’hommes, this order seems to indicate 

that the Lawtons were not living in the Cottage 

in 1900, which may have been occupied by P. 

Phanor Prud’homme II62 and his wife, Marie 

Laurie Cloutier, whom he married in 1891.63

In December of 1900, Elise Elizabeth 

Prud’homme was born to P. Phanor and Laure 

Prud’homme.64 The world into which she was 

born was vastly different from the one in 

which her grandparents had lived, and would 

change even more dramatically during her 

lifetime. Electrical service would come to the 

Cote Joyeuse for the first time. The 

automobile and the airplane would make the 

carriage horses in her father’s barn obsolete. 

Indoor plumbing, gas heating, and window air 

conditioners would forever change the homes 

in which she lived. Oddly, though, her life 

would also be much the same as that of her 

grandparents. She would grow up surrounded 

by an almost endless cloud of relatives, her 

extended family being, by this time, nearly 

impossible to document. She would live, at 

the beginning of her life, in the house in which 

she was probably born. And, she would die in 

the community in which she had been born, 

been married, raised her children, and lived 

her life. Her younger sister, Marie Adele, born 

 

57 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 34. 

58 Twelfth Census, image 45 of 61. 59 Duggan, Oct. 2001. 

60 Twelfth Census, image 45 of 61. 61 Ibid. image 46 of 61. 62 Duggan, Oct. 2001. 

63 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 23. 

64 Ibid. 

in 1903,65 would follow closely in her footsteps. 

Between them, the two sisters would keep the 

Cottage occupied for many years. However, 

until they were grown, others occupied it. 

In 1901, J. Alphonse Prud’homme built a new 

house at what is now called Riverside 

Plantation for his son, P. Phanor Prud’homme 

II and his family, and this was where Marie 

Adel Prud’homme was born.66 However, in 

the thirteenth census of the United States, 

taken in 1910, it appears that they had moved 

back into the Cottage. They are enumerated a 

few families south of the J. Alphonse 

Prud’homme family, who were living in the 

Main House at Oakland. The household of 

“Eddy” Prud’homme is enumerated eleven 

families later.67 Ann Malone states that the 

home of Edward Prud’homme at that time was 

Riverside Plantation.68 By April of 1914, 

however, Edward Prud’homme appears to be 

occupying the Cottage, as evidenced by an 

entry in his journal: “Covering kitchen Old 

House (Leveques) where I now reside – 

needed badly.”69 This would have been the 

detached kitchen at the Cottage, since cooking 

facilities had not yet been moved into the 

house. 

On February 17, 1919, J. Alphonse Prud’homme 

died.70 This prompted another round of 

musical homes in the Prud’homme family. 

“His will instructed the division of the 

property, including Oakland, with Phanor 

receiving the ‘old homestead,’ the gin, the 

‘dwelling occupied by my son Edward [now 

referred to at the Cottage], and adjoining 

lands’.”71 This indicates that the Edward 

Prud’homme family occupied the Cottage in 

1919. However, in 1920, the census indicated 

that the P. Phanor Prud’homme family was 

occupying the Cottage at Oakland, while Mrs. 

J. Alphonse Prud’homme was living in the 

Main House with her daughter, Julia, and a 

 

65 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 24. 

66 Duggan, Oct. 2001. 

67 Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, 

Population Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed 

online at Ancestry.com, 2001, images 44-46 of 52. 

68 Malone, p. 109. 

69 Ibid, p. 136. 

70 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 4. 

71 Malone, pp. 148-149. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 25

cook.72 The family of Edward Prud’homme 

had moved back to Riverside Plantation.73

 

On October 10, 1923, Elise Elizabeth Lecomte, 

Mrs. J. Alphonse Prud’homme died.74 On June 

10, 1925, her granddaughter and namesake, 

Elise Elizabeth Prud’homme, married Wilber 

Guy Cloutier,75 and the newlyweds moved into 

the Cottage, Phanor Prud’homme having 

moved his family into the Main House 

between 1920 and 1925. Before the end of the 

decade, the Cloutiers had updated the old 

house by adding indoor plumbing and 

constructing a bathroom on the south of the 

building to replace the outhouse that had 

served the occupants of the Cottage for 

generations.76 The Cloutiers lived in the 

Cottage from 1925 until 1934, when they moved 

into a new house that Guy Cloutier had built 

on his own land.77 Some of their children were 

born there: Wilbur Guy, Jr. in 1926, Marie 

Laure in 1928, Louis Arnold in 1930, and Marie 

Ethelyn in 1932.78

In the meantime, Elisa Elizabeth Prud’homme 

Cloutier’s sister, Adele, had married a cousin, 

Jesse Emmett Brett in 1932.79 The Bretts moved 

into the cottage after the Cloutiers moved to 

their new home. In 1936, Adele bore twins, not 

an especially unusual occurrence among the 

Prud’hommes. The son, however, was 

stillborn; only the daughter, Doris Ann, 

survived.80 

Adele had always dreamed of owning the 

house in which she lived as a child,81 and, in 

1941, the Bretts purchased the Cottage from 

the Prud’hommes.82 The Bretts occupied the 

house for about thirteen years. Before Doris 

was born, they did not always use the southern 

 

72 Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, 

Population Schedule, Natchitoches Parish, LA, reviewed 

online at Ancestry.com, 2001, images x of x. 

73 Ibid. 

74 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 4. 

75 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 24. 

76 Stallings, p. 26. 

77 Cloutier, Arnold and Virginia, interview with 

Deborah Harvey, 19 Oct 2001. 

78 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 28. 

79 Ibid, p. 24. 

80 Ibid, p. 33. 

81 Vincent, Doris Brett, interview with Deborah Harvey, 

22 Oct 2001. 

82 Stallings, pp. 26-27. 

bedrooms themselves, but rented them out to 

some of their cousins, who were school 

teachers like Adele.83 After the Bretts moved to 

Texas, they rented the house to Guy and Lise 

Cloutier’s son, Arnold, and his wife, Virginia 

LeMeur, whom he married in 1951.84 The 

Arnold Cloutiers made some changes to the 

house, including remodeling the southwest 

bedroom that was used as a kitchen and 

tearing down the detached kitchen that had 

probably been behind the house since before 

the Civil War.85 Arnold spent nearly a year 

renovating the cottage for their use, and the 

Cloutiers moved into it in October of 1952. 

However, by December of that year, they had 

located another residence and moved out of 

the cottage.86 It was then rented for a time to 

James Alphonse Prud’homme III and Martha 

Jane Allen Prud’homme, who had also married 

in 1951.87 Alphonse and Jane had moved to 

Texas by 1954,88 however, and the house stood 

empty. In the summer of 1956, the Bretts 

returned,89 and the following year made 

significant changes to the house, updating it 

with all the modern conveniences currently en 

vogue.90

 

These changes are detailed more completely in 

the following section of this report, 

“Chronology of Development and Use.” It is 

the result of these renovations that form the 

appearance of the structure today. Jesse and 

Adele lived in the house until 1974, when Adele 

died.91 Jesse continued to live there alone until 

about 1984, when he moved to Little Rock, 

Arkansas to be near his only child, Doris Brett 

Vincent.92 He rented the house to the former 

husband of the daughter of a nephew of 

Adele’s,93 keeping intact, more or less, the 

continued residency of Prud’homme relatives 

in the Cottage. Jesse Brett died in 198794 and 

his daughter inherited the house. Doris 

 

83 Vincent, Doris Brett, e-mail to Deborah Harvey, 17 

Jan 2002, and Duggan, Oct 2001. 

84 Prud’homme, Lucile, K., p. 28 

85 Cloutier, Oct. 2001. 

86 Ibid. 

87 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 25. 

88 Duggan, Oct 2001. 

89 Vincent, 2002. 

90 Ibid, and Stallings, p. 27. 

91 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 24. 

92 Vincent, Oct 2001. 

93 Ibid. 

94 Prud’homme, Lucile K., p. 24. 
Historical Background and Context 

26 Oakland Cottage HSR 

continued to rent the house to Joe Beck Payne 

until he moved to Texas in 1994.95 Another 

relative, Margo Haas, then moved into the 

house and lived there until 1998,96 when Doris 

sold the “Cottage” and environs to the 

 

95 Vincent, Oct 2001. 

96 Duggan, Oct 2001. 

National Park Service to enhance their 

acquisition of the property known as Oakland 

Plantation, which would be included in a 

newly- created national park, the Cane River 

Creole National Historical Park.97 

 

97 Vincent, Oct 2001. 

The Cottage, 1938. Picture courtesy of Doris Brett Vincent.
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 27

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE 

It seems certain that the Cottage was originally 

built for the use of members of the 

Prud’homme family. Indeed, that is the use to 

which it was largely put during the 

approximately 165 years since its construction. 

The home is believed, based on available data 

and physical evidence, to have been built as an 

adjunct to the Main House. It is not built on 

the scale of the typical Creole style Manor 

Houses; the profile is lower, the rooms 

smaller, the materials, finishes, and details 

more restrained. The probability is that the 

earliest part of the house was built between 

1834 and 1840 as a residence for Pierre Phanor 

Prud’homme I and his bride, Susanne Lise 

Metoyer Prud’homme. 

In discussing the chronology of the 

development and use of this structure, and in 

later discussions regarding the physical 

description and ultimate treatment and use, it 

was found useful to number each of the rooms 

in the house since their use often changed over 

time, making textual descriptions rather 

cumbersome. The plan below indicates the 

numbers assigned to each of the currentlyexisting rooms in the house. 

Early Construction (1834- 1840) 

The earliest identifiable assembly represents a 

traditional Creole cottage with front and back 

gallery, hipped roof, interior fireplace, and two 

rooms (now Rooms 101, 102, 105, part of 106, 

and 109). This assembly may not be the earliest 

incarnation of the house, but it is the earliest 

that could be identified with some certainty 

based on the information that is available. 

Characteristics in the floor framing within the 

identifiable Creole structure deviate from a 

straightforward presentation of structural 

framing, leaving open the potential for earlier 

phases of the building or other variations of 

the building’s evolution. A significant 

character- defining feature of this assembly is 

that all the exterior and interior walls in this 

Room Number Key Plan 
Chronology of Development and Use 

28 Oakland Cottage HSR 

part of the structure are of bousillage

construction. 

The locations of the bousillage walls and the 

hand- hewn timber, connected with mortiseand- tenon or dovetail joints provide clues to 

the extent of the house before the 1870s. The 

heavy 8x9 timbers framing the portion of the 

house that is now the living room, kitchen, 

southeast bedroom and east half of the 

southwest bedroom probably define the 

original home, which was likely a two room 

structure with front and back galleries covered 

by a steeply pitched hip roof, typical of Creole 

construction of the time. Longitudinal and 

transverse sections of this portion of the house 

exhibit, despite some remodeling in the 

intervening years, the profile of typical Creole 

framing discussed in Cazayoux’s “Climatic 

Adaptation of French Colonial Architecture.”98

Significant character- defining features of the 

Creole cottage presentation that are no longer 

visible include the hip roof, chamfered gallery 

columns, and a two- rail railing, indicated by 

the dados on the inside of the chamfered 

columns inside the existing boxed front gallery 

columns. Sufficient remnants of the hip 

framing remain in the attic to provide 

reasonable assurance that, at an earlier time, 

the structure had a hip roof. It is not clear if 

what are now the front windows were double 

shutters or doors as would have typically been 

the style of opening onto a front gallery in a 

Creole cottage. Further investigation will be 

required to determine if openings onto the 

front gallery generally corresponding with the 

existing window openings exist in the front 

bousillage walls. 

Also, the timber supporting the house on the 

north end, between the original construction 

and the 1880 addition, was replaced with 

slightly smaller members, perhaps when the 

1880 addition was made. There is currently no 

evidence of early cooking facilities associated 

with this structure. A review of the culture of 

the times indicates that the Phanor 

 

98 Cazayoux, Edward, AIA, “The Climatic Adaptation of 

French Colonial Architecture into the Louisiana Raised 

Cottage” (http;//ecepl.usl.edu/ecep/drafting/a/appa.html), reviewed online 16 Jan 2001. 

Creole Cottage (circa 1834-1840) 

 

Plan (dark walls are bousillage) 

East Elevation 

North Elevation
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 29

Prud’homme family may have taken their 

meals at the Main House when they were not 

out visiting friends and relatives and supping 

with them.99 However, a detached kitchen was 

built at some time, the framing indicating that 

it existed before 1870.100

It has been suggested that the earliest part of 

the Cottage is actually the original house built 

on then- Bermuda Plantation by Pierre 

Emmanuel Prud’homme.101 Documentary 

evidence indicates that this is probably not the 

case, though there may be some parts of the 

house older than the suggested construction 

date of the house. It is entirely possible that 

parts of other earlier structures were used for 

framing this dwelling. Indeed, remnants of 

wallpaper found adhered to framing members 

exposed in the attic suggest that the earliest 

identifiable part of the cottage was at least 

partially constructed of recycled materials. 

This finding provides a significant indication 

that the earliest part of the cottage was not the 

original Main House. Wallpaper such as exists 

on the attic beams would be typical of the type 

used in the main plantation house. Therefore, 

the conclusion may be drawn that part of this 

house was constructed from parts of either the 

original house or the existing Main House, 

which underwent several modifications 

between the time it was first constructed and 

the mid- 1830s. 

However, researchers at the current Main 

House believe that any materials taken from 

that structure would have been used for 

modifications to the same structure,102 so the 

probability is that materials in the Cottage that 

are older than the 1830s came from the original 

house or, possibly, from some other structure 

owned by the Prud’hommes. 

 

99 Prud’homme, Pierre Lestan, diarist, “Diaries” 1850-

1852, Irma Sompayrac Willard Collection, Cammie G. 

Henry Research Center, Watson Memorial Library, 

Northwestern University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. 

100 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 101 Miller and Wood, p. 29. 102 Tommy Jones, National Park Service, to Deborah 

Harvey, 18 Jan 2002. 

Modifications between 1834 and 1870 

A number of modifications were made to the 

house for which a specific date or narrow 

period of likely construction can not be 

established. However, it appears that all were 

made between the time of initial construction 

of the Creole cottage and 1870, the date of the 

enclosure of the south end of the front gallery 

for a doctor’s office. 

A curiosity that remains to be clarified is the 

fact that there are four bousillage walls that 

appear to have projected onto the rear gallerylike floor framing on the rear of the Creole 

cottage portion of the structure. The floor 

gallery is similar to the floor framing of the 

front gallery. While it is not unusual to have 

Creole cottages with rear cabinets, the walls of 

the cabinets would have typically been simple 

plank walls like the north and south walls of 

room 201 in the Main House and not of 

bousillage construction such as exists on what 

would have been the rear gallery of the 

Cottage. In fact, the west walls of what would 

be rear gallery cabinets do not contain 

bousillage. The characteristics of the framing 

of the west wall of the would- be cabinets (the 

west wall of Room 105 is the only remaining 

wall that could potentially be an enclosure for 

a rear cabinet) are not known. When taken 

with the evidence presented above, suggesting 

the creation of the interior hall (Room 101) by 

adding a non- original bousillage wall inside 

the house seems to further support the 

possibility that the original Creole cottage was 

further modified at a time not discovered in 

the historical research. 

It is probable that the interior hall bousillage

walls and the rear cabinet bousillage walls were 

a later modification to the original 

construction. While evidence points to the 

possibility that interior and back gallery 

bousillage walls were added after the original 

construction, the characteristics of the west 

walls of the back cabinets remain a mystery. 

Based on available information, it seems most 

likely that the north hall wall and the 

bousillage walls over what would have been the 

back gallery of the Creole cottage, would not 
Chronology of Development and Use 

30 Oakland Cottage HSR 

have been a part of the expansion of Room 

106. This view is based on the odd floor 

framing under the south and north walls of the 

hall and the logic that, if the north and south 

bousillage wall projections onto the rear 

cottage gallery were added with 

the southwest room expansion, the entire 

exterior wall of the expansion would have 

been a bousillage assembly. 

One possible explanation for the unusual 

configuration of bousillage walls is a set of 

modifications in the early 1840s. In his journal 

of 1841, Phanor Prud’homme I refers to 

beginning “the expansion of the house” in 

January and to hiring a painter to “paint the 

two houses” in February.103 It is not certain 

that these entries refer to the Cottage, but it is 

probable, since the last major modifications to 

the Main House were made around 1835. 

Based on the framing of the floor and attic, it is 

evident that the house was remodeled at least 

once before 1870, when Dr. Leveque obtained 

permission to make changes to it. The 

 

103 Tom Thomas, “Historic Resource Study – Oakland 

Plantation” draft copy, National Park Service, n.d., p. 

32. 

improvements referred to by Phanor may have 

involved either enclosing the gallery on the 

west side to form cabinets for sleeping, a 

common method of providing some privacy,104

or expanding an existing cabinet to the west to 

the current dimensions of Room 106. A 

telephone conversation with Ms. Carolyn 

McConnell Wells, an authority on domestic 

architecture of colonial Natchitoches, was 

conducted to explore explanations for the 

seemingly unusual usage of bousillage in a 

secondary structure such as the Cottage. Ms. 

Wells indicated she had not encountered a 

central hallway or rear cabinets of bousillage. 

She offered that it was unusual for the 

subordinate house to have a more “stylish” or 

formal plan (i.e. with a center hall) than the 

Main House. Though she could not explain 

the interior and rear bousillage wall 

configuration, she further speculated that 

those characteristics might suggest an older 

structure than the colonial period. Although 

documentary and physical evidence and 

family tradition do not support this theory, 

that possibility, however remote, does exist. 

The bousillage construction that form the 

 

104 Cazayoux, 2001. 

Cottage Expansion, 1834-1870 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 31

exterior walls of the “Creole cottage” portion 

of the house and the bousillage walls forming 

the hall provide a time frame for the 

construction of this part of the house, since 

bousillage was not much used after the Civil 

War. It is known that bousillage was used until 

the Civil War because the overseer of the 

Prud’homme plantation at the time, Seneca 

Pace, built his “new” house of bousillage

construction in 1861. That house stands in a 

field to the west of the Cottage, and exhibits 

many characteristics of typical Creole 

construction that originally formed the 

appearance of the Cottage. 

Expansion of Southwest Room – 

Room 106 (Pre- 1880) 

The modification of Room 106 produced a 

dramatic change in the character of the 

cottage, most notably the loss of the hip roof 

and the introduction of the vertical gable ends 

of the house. This modification clearly came 

after the introduction of the rear cabinets as 

the bousillage walls over the rear gallery are 

incorporated into the expansion of the 

southwest room. The current ceiling of Room 

106 was installed after the original cabinets 

were created, when the cabinet was expanded 

to the current dimensions of Room 106, 

evidenced by the fact that it is higher than that 

of the adjacent rooms, Rooms 101 and 109. 

That the original ceiling of the cabinet was on a 

plane with that of Room 109 can be 

determined by examining the empty dovetail 

joints in the attic framing between Rooms 109 

and 106. Additionally, the flooring, which runs 

consistently east/west, rather than north/south 

as in Rooms 101 and 109, was probably 

installed when the expansion took place. The 

creation of Room 106 from an enclosed cabinet

on the rear gallery required a modification of 

the roof pitch that was difficult to achieve with 

the hip framing of the Creole cottage. 

Consequently, the hip framing was modified 

to accommodate the gable roof configuration 

and lower pitch of the new room. It would 

appear that the creation of Room 106 required 

the removal of nearly every bit of construction 

of the southwest cabinet except the floor 

framing and the bousillage walls. 

Expansion of Southwest Room 
Chronology of Development and Use 

32 Oakland Cottage HSR 

The sash- sawn lumber in the framing of this 

expansion suggests the room was added after 

the earlier hand- hewn construction period of 

the 1830s and before the circular sawn period 

of the 1880 addition. The ceiling framing over 

Room 106 is 2 1⁄4” x 6” sash sawn framing on 3’-

6” centers. The ceiling framing is 13” above the 

top of the adjacent framing of the original 

structure, much less than the 19” height above 

the top of the original roof framing structure 

of the circular sawn ceiling framing of the 1880 

addition. With the southwest room expansion 

came the addition of the second fireplace in 

the house. An examination of the floor 

framing for Room 106 indicates that a side 

porch (now an enclosed closet, Room 107) was 

built at the same time as the floor framing 

beyond the original rear gallery framing that 

supports the east half of the floor of Room 106. 

A door on the south wall of Room 106 

accessed this porch. 

Detached Kitchen (1841- 1870) 

In addition to the expansion of the house, it is 

possible that Phanor built a detached kitchen 

to the west of the house. According to oral 

history, the kitchen was a two- room structure 

constructed on posts and brick piers resting 

directly on the ground, each room being about 

10’x12’, and was accessed from the house by a 

short, elevated plank walk leading to the 

kitchen porch, which ran along the south side 

of the detached kitchen. The room closest to 

the house was used for cooking, containing a 

wood stove and dry sink, and the back room 

was used for pantry storage.105

 

This kitchen still existed until 1951 when 

Arnold Cloutier dismantled it.106 Stallings 

states that Dr. Leveque built this kitchen,107 but 

the construction method of pegged mortiseand- tenon jointing discovered by Arnold 

Cloutier108 suggests that the kitchen pre- dated 

the occupation of the house by Dr. Leveque. 

Additionally, the evidence from the census 

records and farm journals that at least two 

doctors occupied the house before Dr. 

Leveque suggests that the kitchen was 

probably built before 1860 to accommodate 

persons living in the house who were not 

going to be taking all their meals with the 

Prud’homme family. 

Enclosure of Doctor’s Office -

Rooms 110 and 111 (circa 1870) 

The enclosure of the “Doctor’s Office”, the 

small room at the south end of the front 

gallery (Room 110) was created in 

approximately 1870. The sketches suggest the 

character of the structure at the time of this 

 

105 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 106 Ibid. 107 Stallings, p. 6. 108 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 

Southwest Room Expansion: East Elevation, 

top, North Elevation, center, floor plan, 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 33

modification. The north elevation did not alter 

significantly with this change. About 1870, Dr. 

J. A. Leveque, who had moved into the house 

in 1866 with his family,109 received permission 

from the Prud’hommes to make some changes 

to the house.110 Dr. Leveque enclosed a portion 

of the front gallery to create an office in which 

he could see and treat patients.111 On the north 

wall, he built three cabinets of shelves covered 

by glass doors from floor to ceiling to hold his 

 

109 Stallings, p. 1. 110 Miller and Wood, p. 29. 111 Stallings, p. 6. 

medical equipment and supplies.112 Doris Brett 

Vincent described the doors to the cabinets as 

having metal rods attached to the inside, at the 

top and bottom of the glassed openings, with a 

fabric stretched between the rods to conceal 

the contents of the cabinets.113 The Doctor’s 

patients entered by a door in the south wall of 

the room, and the office was connected to the 

house through a door in the west wall of the 

room.114

 

The construction of this addition is visible in 

the attic of the house, where the boards used 

to create the north wall rise several inches 

above the ceiling of the adjacent porch. It is 

apparent that these boards were recycled from 

an earlier structure, as remnants of white paint 

still adhere to the portions of the boards 

protruding into the attic. The ceiling in this 

room is about 6” higher than the ceiling in the 

adjoining southeast room. A small, square 

scuttle hole in this ceiling gives access to the 

attic. Whether it was installed by Dr. Leveque 

or later is not known. 

North Addition – Rooms 103 and 104 

(1880) 

In 1880, Dr. Leveque’s daughter, Lucie, 

married into the Prud’homme family. She 

married August Lambre Prud’homme on June 

17, 1880,115 and Dr. Leveque built the 

substantial, one- room addition on the north 

to house his daughter and her husband.116

 

Though today this room is referred to as 

“Lucie’s Room,” it was also occupied by her 

husband, Lambre, and their daughter, June. 

The framing of the addition is closer to the 

conventional “stick” framing to which we are 

accustomed today. 

The addition extended the house and front 

gallery to the north toward the main house by 

approximately 23’. This construction retained 

the gable roof of the earlier modification to the 

Creole cottage, extended the front gallery, 

 

112 Ibid and Vincent, 2002. 113 Vincent, 2002. 114 Ibid and Stallings, p. 27. 115 Prud’homme, Lucile K., Prud’homme Family Bible, no 

page number. 

116 Stallings, p. 8. 

1880 addition: plan, top; east elevation, 

center; south elevation below
Chronology of Development and Use 

34 Oakland Cottage HSR 

maintaining the established column spacing, 

and added the third fireplace on the south wall 

of the addition common with the north 

bousillage wall of earlier Creole cottage. The 

gallery extension provided the new addition 

with direct access to the outside, eliminating 

the necessity of traversing the original house. 

No door was provided between the existing 

parlor and the new addition when it was 

originally built. The third fireplace possesses 

hearths on both sides and serves both the 

original north room of the Creole cottage 

(Room 102) and the 1880 addition (Rooms 103 

and 104). Dr. Leveque raised the ceiling in this 

room to a more fashionable height, 

approximately 21” above that of the original 

house. At some point, though not necessarily 

during the original construction, a closet or 

foyer was constructed in the northwest corner 

of this addition. 

Historic research and site observations suggest 

there was no rear gallery constructed as part of 

the new addition. The most notable changes 

to the exterior character of the house included 

boxing in the front columns to allow a 

consistent column presentation across the 

front of the house and installing a new front 

gallery picket railing, a change from the simple 

two rail railing of the earlier Creole cottage. 

Dr. Leveque may have also added the west 

cistern and a north cistern that has since been 

filled and dismantled, though the two cisterns, 

while similar in construction, apparently 

varied drastically in height, the west cistern 

being only about 6” above grade and the north 

cistern reportedly rising 3’ above grade.117

In 1890, Lucie, with her mother, her daughter, 

and her brother, left for New Orleans to 

enable Lucie to study for the opera.118 They did 

not return until three years later, after both 

Lambre Prud’homme and Dr. Leveque had 

died.119 After the death of Dr. Leveque, the 

house was returned to the use of the 

Prud’homme family, though it seems that, due 

to the tenure of Dr. Leveque, it was long 

afterward referred to as “Leveque’s”120 or “the 

doctor’s cottage.”121

Between 1893 and 1914, various members of the 

Prud’homme family moved in and out of the 

Cottage. Repairs were in order by the spring of 

1914, when Edward Carrington Prud’homme, 

younger brother of P. Phanor Prud’homme, 

remarked in his diary that he was “covering 

kitchen, Old House (Leveques) where I now 

reside.”122 This would have been the earlier, 

detached kitchen that has since been removed. 

The tongue- and- groove bead board that 

covers the walls and ceiling of Room 106 and 

the ceiling of Room 109 was probably installed 

before 1925. It doubtless pre- dates the 

bathroom addition of the late 1920s, as 

evidenced by indications of a window 

 

117 Vincent, 2002. 118 Stallings, p. 9. 119 Ibid. 120 Malone, p. 136. 121 Stallings, p. 25. 122 Malone, p. 136. 

Floor plan, top, and north elevation, bottom, 

after addition of Doctor’s Office. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 35

originally in the south wall of the older part of 

the Room 106 that has since been covered with 

bead board to match that on the rest of the 

walls. Bead board installed in Room 105 was 

installed at a different (probably later) date 

than that in Room 106; it does not match the 

dimensions of the bead board in Room 106. 

Bathroom Addition (1925) 

It was apparently more than ten years before 

any other major renovations were made to the 

house. By that time, it was occupied by 

another set of newlyweds, Elise Elizabeth 

Prud’homme, grand- daughter of Jacques 

Alphonse Prud’homme, and her husband, 

Wilbur Guy Cloutier, who married June 10, 

1925.123 The Cloutiers added a modern amenity 

to the house by building a bathroom (Room 

108) on the south side.124 Though Stallings 

asserts that the Guy Cloutiers built both the 

bathroom and the utility closet,125 the 

foundation and framing of the bathroom 

contradict this statement. The joists of the 

bathroom are smaller than those of the 

adjoining utility room, and are supported 

independently. It is more probable that it was 

the Cloutiers who enclosed an earlier back 

porch to create what is now the utility closet 

and provide access to the bathroom from 

Room 106. A door from this room opened to 

the south, and wooden stairs descended from 

it to the yard.126

The Cloutiers ran water lines to the bathroom 

facility, but a water heater was not installed 

until more than 20 years later.127 Arnold 

Cloutier, who was born in the house, stated 

that his father used a French door turned on 

its side to create the pivoting window in the 

bathroom.128

 

Guy Cloutier completed the construction of 

his own house in 1934 and moved into it with 

his family.129 About 1935, Adele Prud’homme 

 

123 Prud’homme, p. 24. 124 Stallings, p. 26. 125 Ibid. 126 Vincent, 2002. 127 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 

Brett and her husband, Jesse Emmett Brett, 

moved into the Cottage,130 and, in 1941, the 

Bretts purchased it from the Prud’hommes.131

 

It may have been the Bretts who first added 

electricity to the Cottage. They were also the 

first to install cooking facilities in Room 106. 

Doris Brett Vincent remembers that the 

detached kitchen was in use when she was 

very small. She enjoyed “helping” the cook 

wash the dishes in large dishpans of water 

heated on the wood- burning stove. In the 

early 1940s, the kitchen was moved to Room 

106, and Room 109 was used as a dining 

room.132 She remembered a wood- burning 

stove in front of the fireplace in Room 106, 

probably vented through the chimney. She 

also remembers her father heating milk for her 

on the pot- bellied stove in the bedroom she 

shared with her parents between 1936 and 

1948, the 1880 addition,133 so it appears that all 

of the fireplaces, with the possible exception 

of the one in Room 102, had, at one time or 

another, if not simultaneously, wood- burning 

stoves installed in front of them with chimneys 

vented up the existing fireplace chimneys. 

About 1944, the Bretts removed the potbellied stove in the 1880 addition and replaced 

it with a butane heater to provide heat for the 

room. In 1946, there was great excitement in 

 

130 Stallings, p. 27. 131 Ibid. 132 Vincent, 2002. 

Plan view after 1925 bathroom addition 
Chronology of Development and Use 

36 Oakland Cottage HSR 

the family when the Bretts bought their first 

electric refrigerator and installed it in the 

dining room, Room 109, east of the fireplace. 

Between 1936 and 1948, Doris slept in the 

portion that is now Room 104, and her parents 

slept in the portion that is now Room 103.134

 

Room 105, designated by Stallings as a 

bedroom,135 was actually called “the back hall” 

and used only occasionally as a spare 

bedroom.136 Before Doris was born in 1936, the 

Bretts usually did not use the two southern 

rooms (Rooms 106 and 109); they rented each 

of them out to teachers who were related to 

Adele, also a teacher.137 After Doris was born, 

it appears they abandoned this practice. 

Vivian Duggan recalled playing with Doris in 

the Doctor’s office under the stern 

admonition of Adele to “be careful of the glass 

walls,”138 indicating that, before 1948, the 

shelves that Doctor Leveque built were still 

intact, though Doris says that, by that time, the 

glass in the doors, which was very thin, was 

broken, and the admonition was that they 

were not to cut themselves on it!139

 

A photograph of the Cottage taken in 1938 

shows that part of the front yard was 

surrounded by a picket fence resembling the 

one in front of the Main House and that the 

 

133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Stallings, p. 27. 136 Vincent, 2002. 137 Ibid and Cloutier, Oct 2001. 138 Duggan, Oct 2001. 139 Vincent, 2002. 

roof was, at that time, corrugated metal on the 

earlier portion of the Cottage and V- groove 

over the 1880 addition. Tommy Jones, of the 

National Park Service, indicates that the Vgroove roof was probably original to the 

addition, and the corrugated metal was added 

later to replace a wood shingle roof over the 

earlier part of the Cottage.140 Doris Brett 

Vincent recalled that, by the mid- 1950s, the 

roof over the 1880 addition had deteriorated to 

the point that, when it rained, it was necessary 

to scatter pans around the room (Rooms 103 

and 104), to catch the water coming through 

the roof.141

Arnold Cloutier, who lived in the house as a 

boy in the early 1930s, remembered that, 

within the picket fence around the front of the 

house, were formal gardens similar to the ones 

at the Main House, with brick walkways edged 

with bricks as well as with rocks collected over 

time from the Kisatchie forest.142 Doris Brett 

Vincent could remember the layout of the 

garden walkways and the flowers that 

populated the area.143 To the east of the picket 

fence, between the fence and the road, ran a 

wagon- path of hard- packed dirt. It wound 

from a gate in the southeast corner of the yard, 

facing the bridge, at an angle across the yard, 

to the northeast corner of the picket fence, 

turned west past the house and garage, and 

then south to the barn in the back yard.144 A 

portion of this wagon track can be seen in the 

1957 photo of the Cottage on page 42. Arnold 

also recalled that there was a root cellar 

beneath the house at the back.145 Doris Brett 

Vincent remembered the root cellar, but said it 

was just a large bowl- like depression, about 2’ 

deep, where she liked to crawl in with the dogs 

to cool off in the summer.146 A depression such 

as she describes still exists below the house to 

the southwest of the fireplace between the 

original house and the 1880 addition. Though 

Arnold described it as a “root cellar,” Doris 

 

140 Tommy Jones, NPS, to Deborah Harvey, 10 Jan 2002. 141 Vincent, 2002. 142 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 143 Vincent, 2002. 144 Ibid. 145 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 146 Vincent, 2002. 

1938 Photo of Cottage with picket fence 

(Photo courtesy of Doris Brett Vincent)
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 37

says the Bretts did not used for this purpose 

because it filled with water when it rained.147

In 1951, Arnold Cloutier, son of Guy and Lise 

Cloutier, received permission from the Bretts 

to remodel the house for himself and his bride, 

Virginia LeMeur, to inhabit. Arnold spent 

nearly a year on the renovations.148 The 

account of Arnold and Virginia Cloutier 

regarding their renovations is somewhat at 

variance with that of Stallings,149 who based her 

account on the recollections of Doris Brett 

Vincent. According to Arnold and Virginia, 

their renovations included the installation of 

hot water lines and a water heater (probably in 

Room 107), the house previously having only 

cold running water.150 Arnold stated that he 

closed up the outside entrance to the Doctor’s 

office, Room 110, turning it into a window,151

but Doris Brett Vincent said that her father 

closed up the door and created the window.152

Arnold added a wall in the Doctor’s office, 

making the shelved area into a closet (Room 

111).153

What became of the original shelving is 

uncertain, though it may have remained in 

place until 1957, when Jesse Brett used the 

shelves to create new storage shelves for his 

daughter, Doris.154 These shelves still remain 

and are located on the south wall of Room 111 

to the left of the door as one enters the closet. 

Doris Brett Vincent believes that the original 

doors to the cabinets were removed at this 

time and stored in the barn.155 Arnold and 

Virginia updated the kitchen in Room 106, 

purchasing the most modern sink then on the 

market, but, when they moved, they removed 

the sink and gave it to Arnold’s mother for her 

kitchen.156 Arnold also stated that he installed 

the gas lines and gas heaters in most of the 

formerly wood- burning fireplaces, though 

they did not add the mortar to fill the 

 

147 Ibid. 148 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 149 Stallings, pp. 26-27. 150 Cloutier, Oct. 2001. 151 Ibid. 152 Vincent, 2002. 153 Cloutier, Oct. 2001. 154 Vincent, 2002. 155 Ibid. 156 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 

fireplaces.157 They did not install gas- heat in 

the firebox in the 1880 addition; it had already 

been installed by the Bretts. They did not use 

this room in any case because Adele was still 

using it for storage, since the move to Texas 

was intended to be temporary.158 However, 

Doris stated that her father installed the gas 

heaters, and specifically mentioned one in the 

bathroom that was used to heat water for 

bathing.159 It is possible that Jesse Brett 

installed the butane heaters in the bathroom 

and the 1880 addition, and Arnold Cloutier 

installed the rest. Arnold also painted the 

interior of the house.160 Arnold demolished the 

detached kitchen, first trying to knock it over 

with his tractor, and then, finding that it 

wouldn’t budge, disassembling it.161

After all this work, Arnold and Virginia were 

finally ready to move into the house. A week 

before the move, Arnold discovered that the 

walls of the 1880 addition on the north were 

 

157 Ibid. 158 Ibid. 159 Vincent, 2002. 160 Vincent, 2002, and Duggan, Oct 2001. 161 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 

Mid-20th century plan and north elevation 
Chronology of Development and Use 

38 Oakland Cottage HSR 

filled with a huge colony of honeybees. 

Summoning a friend for help, the two calmed 

the bees. The following day, they carefully 

removed the siding to expose the honeycomb 

beneath. Virginia stated that the amount of 

honey and comb retrieved filled three #3 tubs. 

Friends and relatives, hearing of the find, came 

from miles around with jars and containers to 

relieve the Cloutiers of their sweet burden, for 

which Virginia was very grateful, having no 

way to use that much honey. Arnold 

remembered that he was stung three times in 

the effort to remove the honey from the 

walls.162 Doris Vincent recalled that they often 

had bees in the walls of that addition.163 This 

phenomenon may explain the absence of the 

bousillage in the west wall of Room 105. It may 

have been removed in an attempt to mitigate 

another insect infestation. 

Three months after Arnold and Virginia 

moved into the cottage, they moved out again, 

in December of 1951, having found another 

house in which to live.164 The house remained 

vacant for about a year until J. Alphonse 

Prud’homme and his wife, Martha Jane Allen 

Prud’homme, moved into it in 1954.165 The 

Prud’hommes rented the house until the 

Bretts returned from Texas in 1956 to retake 

possession. Alphonse and Jane moved the 

kitchen from Room 106 to the small hall 

behind the living room (Room 105).166 Arnold 

Cloutier stated that the linoleum on the floors 

of Room 105 and in the hall (Room 101) was 

installed by Alphonse and Jane. Arnold 

recalled that, when he was living in the house, 

it was possible to see the ground below the 

house through cracks between the 11” wide 

floorboards in the hall.167 According to Doris 

Brett Vincent, the floors in the bedrooms 

(Rooms 106 and 109) and in the living room 

(Room 102) were covered only with large area 

rugs, and, what with no insulation below the 

floors, the rooms could be a bit “drafty” on 

cold, winter days.168

 

162 Ibid. 163 Vincent, 2002. 164 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 165 Ibid, and Duggan, Oct 2001. 166 Cloutier, Oct 2001. 167 Ibid. 168 Vincent, 2002. 

In 1957, the Bretts set about making 

renovations and improvements, the last of the 

identified significant sets of modifications. It 

is this set of modifications that forms much of 

the appearance of the Cottage that is evident 

today. “Paul Cardino & crew from 

Natchitoches” were hired to assist in the 

renovations.169 As part of these modifications, 

they attempted to level the house, which was 

decidedly tilted, and to eliminate a deep “V” 

groove that had developed at the threshold of 

the door between the living room (Room 102) 

and the kitchen (Room 105). The attempts to 

level the house were unsuccessful, for, when 

they raised the house in one place, it tilted in 

another, the result of the bowing of the 

ancient 8x9 beam that supported the house in 

that location. Eventually, they settled for 

leveling the floors as much as possible rather 

than trying to level the support beam.170

Mid- 20th- Century Modernization 

The Bretts removed the existing closet in the 

1880 addition and divided it into two rooms, a 

family room (Room 103) on the east side and a 

dining room (Room 104) on the west side. In 

addition, they installed a doorway with a pair 

of French doors between Room 103 and Room 

102.171 They closed up the door from the 

outside to the utility room (107), converting it 

to a window and removing the exterior steps. 

They installed “modern” glass panes in the 

new window in Room 107 and in the window 

on the south side of Room 110.172 They in- filled 

the fireplaces with mortar.173 Using the 

shelving from the Doctor’s cabinet, Jesse Brett 

created shelving in Room 111 for his daughter, 

Doris, who used it as storage for bed linens, 

scarves, and sweaters.174 He also removed the 

door that had existed between Rooms 109 and 

110 and replaced it with the current halfglassed French doors. Half- inch gypsum 

wallboard, a sheet material that was then 

replacing plaster as a modern finish material, 

was installed over what appears, from 

 

169 Ibid. 170 Vincent, 2002. 171 Stallings, p. 27. 172 Vincent, 2002. 173 Stallings, p. 27. 174 Vincent, 2002. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 39

sampling, to be wood wall and ceiling boards 

on the walls and ceilings of Rooms 101, 102, 103, 

104, 110, and 111. It appears that they nearly 

rebuilt the front porch. Because the Cottage 

had never had gutters, the edges of the 

floorboards of the front porch had rotted. 

The floorboards were removed and replaced, 

and they replaced wooden exterior porch 

steps on the front gallery with concrete stairs 

and brick stair walls. The Bretts added a back 

porch that extended from the north side of the 

extended southwest room (106) to the north 

end of the 1880 addition, thus providing 

covered entry to both the new dining room 

(Room 104) and the hall (Room 101). The 

floorboards used for this porch were salvaged 

from the boards that had been removed from 

the front porch. The rotted ends were cut off 

and the old boards attached to the new porch 

framing.175 This is a typical example of how 

materials from another structure or part of a 

structure were re- used, if at all possible, rather 

than discarded. This habit of reusing older 

 

175 Vincent, 2002. 

materials in new construction has complicated 

the determination of dates of construction for 

various features of the Cottage, but has also 

served to preserve materials and methods that 

would otherwise have been lost. 

The Bretts covered the majority of the earlier 

lapped siding exterior of the house in rigid 

asbestos shingle siding. 176 However, walls 

protected by the porch roofs were not covered 

with the asbestos shingles; the horizontal 

board siding remains exposed. It is likely that, 

at this time, two of the chimneys (the 

chimneys in room 106 and 109) were removed. 

The entire house was re- roofed with asphalt 

shingles.177 It is believed that at least some, if 

not most, of the house was re- wired at this 

time as well. According to Doris Brett 

Vincent, the garage, which was torn down 

earlier by her father, was not replaced in the 

1957 upgrade, but later in the life of the 

house.178 By 1957, the picket fence and garden 

 

176 Stallings, p. 27. 177 Vincent, 2002. 178 Ibid. 

House after 1957 renovation 

(Photo courtesy of Doris Brett Vincent and Sandra Prud’homme Haynie)
Chronology of Development and Use 

40 Oakland Cottage HSR 

with brick walks had also disappeared. The 

north cistern was still in existence until some 

time between 1984 and 1994. It was topped 

with an old plantation bell inherited by Jesse 

Brett and attached to two huge timbers. 179

 

However, photographs of the house in 1957 do 

not show this construction, so it must have 

been installed later. Though these 

modifications significantly altered the earlier 

character of the house, with the exception of 

the perceived functional value of the exterior 

asbestos tile siding and, perhaps, the loss of 

the garage, the majority of the 1957 

modifications were generally cosmetic in 

nature. 

Today, the Cottage appears much as it did 

after the renovations of 1957. At some point, 

 

179 Ibid. 

probably in the 1980s, the light- colored 

asphalt shingle roof installed in 1957 was 

replaced with a dark asphalt shingle roof. To 

date, the National Park Service has embarked 

on only the priority construction activities 

necessary to prevent further deterioration of 

existing structures and resources. It is quite 

remarkable that this house, so simple in 

construction methods and materials, has 

managed to survive flood, fire, war and 

generations of inhabitants. From about 1835 to 

1998, the house was home to at least twelve 

families, only two or three of which were not 

related to the Prud’hommes. In itself, this 

makes the Cottage a significant contribution to 

the understanding of the lives of the 

Prud’hommes and the development of 

Oakland Plantation.
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 41

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 

This section contains the results of a careful 

evaluation of the Cottage to identify its earliest 

characteristics and those of progressive 

modifications that render the present 

character, features, room configurations and 

relationships. The information used in 

constructing the following description is based 

in large part on a Conditions Assessment 

prepared by Hartrampf, Inc and the Office of 

Jack Pyburn, Architect, Inc. in the fall of 2000 

and on- site investigation conducted in the fall 

of 2001 by Jack Pyburn, AIA, Historic 

Preservation Architect, Deborah Harvey, 

Historian with Hartrampf, Inc. and Tommy 

Jones, Architectural Historian with the 

Southeast Regional Office of the National Park 

Service. 

The Cottage is a one- story wood framed 

structure set on brick and concrete (not 

original) piers and measuring approximately 

60’- 8 1/2” by 40’- 9 1/2”, approximately 2,525 

square feet including the front and rear open 

galleries. The primary components of the 

structure include a front and rear gallery, 10 

distinct rooms, and all or part of three 

fireplaces. Today, the gable roof extends the 

full length of the building with a change in 

pitch over the southwest quadrant of the 

house (Room 106). A cabinet- like enclosure of 

the south end of the front gallery has created a 

small room that is purported to have been 

used as a doctor’s office. In the southwest 

corner of the house, either a rear cabinet was 

extended or an open back gallery extended 

and enclosed to create what today is Room 

106. The existing rear porch was constructed 

well after the Room 106 expansion, in the 

1950s. There is no evidence that the existing 

rear porch ever extended the full length of the 

rear of the house. Overall, the structure is in 

sound and stable condition with only localized 

structural deficiencies resulting from 

inadequate original member sizing, inadequate 

joining and/or insect damage. The house is 

currently vacant, but has been used for storage 

at times and was last occupied as a residence in 

1997. 

Summary of Historic Character 

At least six major phases in the structure’s 

evolution that were identified during the 

course of the investigation and research for 

this report. It is probable that the earliest 

phase(s) were not completely identified and 

documented herein, as there remain 

unexplained clues associated with the earliest 

identified phase. They include the timing and 

characteristics of the north hall wall, and the 

characteristics of the flooring in room 109. 

However, the primary characteristics of the 

later phases of change appear to have been 

substantially determined. 

Consistent with the other buildings located at 

Oakland Plantation, the Cottage reflects the 

simple design and construction techniques 

common in Louisiana vernacular architecture 

of the 18th and 19th centuries, including 

significant remnants of a traditional Creole 

cottage. Although the building received a 

number of modifications and additions over 

the years, vernacular characteristics are still 

evident. The most notable characteristic, 

hand- hewn logs joined together with 

mortise- and- tenon and dovetail joints, 

support most of what is believed to be the 

earliest part of the structure. Several of the 

beams in the attic display signs of white paint 

and remnants of wallpaper, suggesting that 

materials were reused from other structures to 

construct parts of this structure. Holes 

without pegs and open dovetail joints further 

suggest the likelihood that recycled materials 

were used in the construction and 

modification of the house. In the older part of 

the house, above rooms 101, 102, 105 and 109, 

markings placed in the typical Frenchinfluenced way on the hand- hewn beams, 

identifying the placement of the members in 

the structure, can be seen. 

The basic structure is a typical Creole cottage 

consisting of rooms 101, 102 and 109. With the 

exception of the north wall of the center hall, 

the interior configuration of the earliest 
Physical Description 

42 Oakland Cottage HSR 

structure is substantially consistent with the 

typical Creole cottage floor plan. The creation 

of Room 106 by either the expansion of a back 

gallery cabinet to the west or the expansion 

and enclosure and expansion of the southwest 

part of an open rear gallery had a dramatic 

effect on the overall character of the cottage. 

The hip roof was converted to support the 

new and lower pitch roof slope required to 

roof what is now Room 106. The creation of 

the doctor’s office enclosed the south portion 

of the front gallery. In 1880, the size of the 

house was increased significantly with the 

approximately 23’ extension to the north to 

accommodate Lucie Leveque, her husband 

and later, their child. The addition retained 

the basic character of the earlier, gabled 

cottage while adding features to unify the 

appearance, such as boxing in the front 

columns of the earlier cottage to produce a 

consistent column type and changing the 

railing from a two rail railing design of the 

earlier cottage to a style more in vogue, a 

picket railing. In the 1920s, plumbing was 

added to the house with the addition of the 

south bathroom and the enclosure of the small 

adjacent south porch. Subsequent changes to 

the house included the change in roofing 

material in the earliest cottage from wood 

shingles to metal and then composition 

shingles in the 20th century, the addition of 

drywall to portions of the interior, and the 

addition of a rear porch in the late 1950s 

Associated Site Features 

The Cottage complex evolved as both a 

freestanding compound and an integral part of 

the larger Prud’homme plantation complex. 

Consequently, the complex includes a series of 

improvements and structures that supported 

the cottage. The improvements and structures 

include: 

Cisterns: There 

are two cisterns 

currently located 

at the building, 

one on the south 

end of the 

building and one 

on the northwest end of the building. Both 

cisterns appear to be constructed of brick and 

are approximately 3’- 4” square and rise 

generally 6” above grade. The northwest 

cistern appears to be circular on the inside, 

possibly constructed of concrete or ‘plastered’ 

on the inside with concrete. The southern 

cistern has a square concrete cover. The cover 

on the western cistern, if there was one, is 

missing. Oral history indicates that a third 

cistern, now filled and dismantled, was located 

at the north side of the house. A fourth cistern 

is located behind the garage.

Several outbuildings are associated with the 

site. 

Barn: The barn, constructed circa 1870, has 

overall dimensions of 20’2” x 25’7”, exclusive 

of the shelter attached to three sides. The 

structure is of heavy- timber construction with 

board and batten siding. The barn has been 

rehabilitated by the National Park Service and 

currently serves as a shop and storage area for 

the maintenance staff. 

Two- Hole Privy: 

The privy’s overall 

dimensions are 6’ 

x 5’- 6”. The 

construction date 

for the privy is 

unknown. This 

structure is a 

poteaux- sur- solle 

(post on sills) 

framing type and 

possesses an 

interesting “V” 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 43

design for the stools that have been retained in 

the rehabilitation. The National Park Service 

rehabilitated the structure in 1999. 

Grist Mill: The gristmill, also a poteaux- sursolle structure, has overall dimensions of 14’-

5” x 11’- 2”. The construction date is unknown. 

This structure is wood post and beam 

construction with rough- cut wood plank 

sheathing. The mill equipment is still in place 

in the mill. Other items related to the mill are 

still stored in the 

building. This 

building is 

currently in the 

process of being 

rehabilitated by 

the National 

Park Service. 

Chicken Coop: The chicken coop’s overall 

dimensions are 19’- 1” x 8’- 4” with an 4’- 2” x 

3’- 10” addition. The construction date for the 

chicken coop is unknown. The structure is 

poteaux- en- terre (post in ground) 

construction with varying sizes of rough- cut 

boards used for the walls. It is likely that most 

of the material used in the construction of this 

structure was reused from some other 

structure on the 

plantation. The 

structure is in a 

state of 

deterioration and 

was partially 

stabilized by the 

National Park 

Service in Fall 

2000. 

Garage: To the north of the house is a onevehicle pole in the ground structure sheathed 

in corrugated metal. A garage has been 

documented in photographs to have existed as 

early as the 1930s, but, according to Doris Brett 

Vincent, that 

garage was torn 

down before 

1956 and 

replaced with 

the current 

structure. She is 

unsure of the 

date of construction of the current garage, but 

said that the Bretts did not have a garage for a 

“few years” after they returned from Texas in 

1956, and that her father may have reused 

materials from the earlier garage to construct 

the existing one.180 This structure was not 

included in the previous condition assessment 

of the complex. 

Foundation 

Brick piers and concrete pylons support the 

structure. Piers are generally about 17” x 14”. 

Precast concrete pylons were used to replace 

deteriorated brick piers and/or supplement 

earlier foundation support in certain areas, 

most notably on the northwest corner of the 

building, the area of the 1880 addition. The 

concrete 

pylons were 

installed in 

1998 and 1999. 

Many of the 

remaining 

brick piers are 

in various 

stages of 

deterioration, 

specifically in 

the mortar joints. It is likely that the earlier 

piers have no sub- grade foundation 

component to their assembly. In some cases, 

wood blocking has been inserted into exposed 

masonry joints to help stabilize the piers. 

Wood blocking between the wood beams and 

the brick piers were noted at some piers. This 

type of blocking is typical of construction at 

the plantation 

and in the 

region. Cedar 

blocking, 

generally the 

thickness of a 

masonry unit, 

was inserted 

between the 

brick and the 

beams to 

prevent 

 

180 Vincent, 2002. 
Physical Description 

44 Oakland Cottage HSR 

wicking of moisture from the ground through 

the bricks and into the beams. The small 

wood blocks were more easily replaced when 

deteriorated than the large framing beams 

holding up the house. 

Structural System 

The structural system is wood frame on 

masonry piers, the remaining early brick 

masonry piers, and recent- vintage pyramidal 

precast concrete piers. The characteristics of 

the structural system, materials, framing and 

connections, are 

distinctly 

different in each 

identified 

addition or 

modification. 

The likely oldest 

identified part of 

the house is 

timber frame 

using handhewn structural 

members and 

pegged mortise- and- tenon and dovetail 

joints. This structural assembly appears to 

coincide with the areas of bousillage found in 

the walls of the older part of the building. The 

floor plans produced by Hartrampf, Inc. and 

the Office of Jack Pyburn, Architect for the 

Conditions Assessment Report for this 

structure indicate sizes of structural members 

in the floor, ceiling and roof systems. The 

members in the walls were not exposed during 

the investigation for this report. 

The addition to the north of the older timber 

frame section appears to be sawn timber frame 

as well, but little of the structure in this area 

was exposed which hampered a definitive 

determination of the structural characteristics 

of the walls in this part of the house. This 1880 

addition consists of circular- sawn timber 

members as indicated by the exposed 

structural members in the attic and crawl 

space. The roof rafters in this area are nailed 

with cut nails. 

Like the timber 

characteristics in 

the attic, the floor 

framing reveals 

considerable 

information, 

though not 

altogether 

conclusive, on the 

evolution of the 

structure and, 

thus, the house. In fact, there are 

characteristics in the floor framing that are not 

consistent with the characteristics in the roof 

framing. Two primary areas are in the 

southwest bedroom and at the south end of 

the rear porch. In the case of the bedroom, 

the floor framing is complex and incongruous 

with both the interior floor plan and roof 

framing, which is more straightforward and 

consistent in its layout. On the earlier rear 

porch, now enclosed as a part of the kitchen, 

hall, and rear bedroom, the floor framing is 

substantially uniform, while there is a 

bousillage wall extending across part of the 

rear porch at the existing rear door. In this 

same area, the roof and ceiling framing is quite 

complex, revealing, in part, modifications 

associated with the reframing of the southwest 

roof. 

Roof 

Evidence in the attic indicates that the building 

at one time had a hipp roof, probably covered 

with wood shingles. The wood nailing strips 

to support wood roofing remain under the 

existing plywood 

decking. In the 19th

century, the roof 

configuration was 

changed to a gable 

end roof covered 

first in wood 

shingles, then with 

corrugated metal 

over the older, south 

part of the house. A 

V- groove (12” on 

center) galvanized 

metal roof probably 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 45

was original to the north addition. Asphalt 

shingles were installed as a part of the 1957 

renovations. The existing roof was installed 

more recently. The existing roofing tabs have 

an exposure of approximately 7” with an 

approximately 12” wide tab. 

The slope on the largest portion of the roof is 7 

1⁄2” per foot on the front and the rear. The 

existing 7 1⁄2”/foot pitch appears to be the 

earlier pitch of the front and back slope of the 

Creole cottage. A change in the roof slope to 

5”/foot occurs at the rear southwest bedroom 

(106). The south bathroom (108) addition has 

a shed- type roof sloping down to the south at 

a pitch of 5- 3/8” per foot. 

Exterior Siding 

The majority of the exterior is finished with a 

vertically striated composite asbestos shingle 

with an exposure of 10 1⁄2” x 24” and a reverse 

curved bottom edge. The walls on the front 

and rear porch are finished with wood lap 

siding with a 5” 

exposure. It is 

expected that 

the asbestos 

shingle siding is 

installed over 

siding similar to 

that exposed 

under the porch roofs. The addition of the 

asbestos siding was made during the 1957 

renovations. Overall, the asbestos siding is in 

sound condition. 

Front Gallery 

The current front gallery consists of two parts: 

the earliest section and an addition on the 

north; the division is noted by the occurrence 

of a ceiling beam dividing the two sections and 

a change in the size of the ceiling boards. 

Additionally, the earlier section of the porch is 

framed on 6” x 8” beams and 3” x 8” joists. 

The addition is framed on 6” x 6” beams and 

3” x 8” joists. 

The gallery is supported by 

seven 8” x 9” columns with 

two- part molding trim at the 

top, creating capitals, and 

simple 1x plinth trim at the 

bottom. Investigation reveals 

earlier columns encased within 

these square columns on the 

main section of the gallery. The 

original columns are of sawn 

wood with chamfered edges 

and a square base. Notches in 

these earlier columns indicate 

the previous existence of two 

horizontal rails, presumably 

wood, that probably comprised 

the front porch railing. 

Rear Gallery 

Oral history places the 

construction of the rear gallery 

as part of the 1957 renovation. 

The gallery is framed on 4” x 4” beams and a 

mix of joists measurements: 2” x 4”, 3” x 4”, 4” 

x 4”, 2” x 5”, 5” x 4”, 4” x 5”. The variety of 

sizes of framing material suggest that the 

gallery was constructed of at least some 

material salvaged from elsewhere rather than 
Physical Description 

46 Oakland Cottage HSR 

new, standard- dimensioned wood. The 

gallery roof is supported by six 3” x 4” posts. 

The ceiling of the gallery is the exposed 

underside of the butt jointed roof decking 

above. The flooring is tongue- and- groove 

planks measuring 4 1⁄4”. The National Park 

Service repaired the gallery floor and ceiling 

framing and roof in 1999/2000. 

Windows

The following inventory of window 

characteristics is keyed to the floor plan above. 

The windows are generally consistent in size 

and configuration, with a couple of exceptions 

noted below. The typical window is wood, 

double- hung, with a fixed upper sash, and 6/6 

lights measuring 1’ x 9 1⁄2”. Each window, with 

the exception of the four rear windows and 

the bathroom window, is fitted with exterior 

louvered shutters. The shutters measure 1’- 5 

1⁄4” x 5’- 4” with 2” slats; only the lower portion 

is operable. The majority of the windows have 

had temporary ventilating grills inserted in 

them by the National Park Service to provide 

natural air circulation in the building during 

this vacant period. 

W- 1 Sash is 2’- 7 1⁄2” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter. 

W- 2 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter. 

W- 3 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

Key Plan for Window Inventory 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 47

exterior shutter. 

W- 4 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter. 

W- 5 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter. 

W- 6 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter. 

W- 7 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter; contains wood support latch 

on the exterior; no ventilation louvers 

installed. 

W- 8 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, 6/6; typical 

exterior shutter; one side of the operable 

portion of the shutter no longer works. 

W- 9 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, typical exterior 

shutter only on one side with hinges still 

existing for missing shutter. 

W- 10 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, no shutter. 

W- 11 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, no shutter, two 

cracks evident in two of the lights. 

W- 12 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”, no shutter, crack 

evident in one of the lights. 

W- 13 Sash is 2’- 10” x 5’- 2”, pair of windows 

separated by a 5 1⁄2” mullion. 

W- 14 Sash is 2’- 9” x 5’- 2”, typical exterior 

shutter, contains wood support latch on 

exterior, top sash nailed into place. 

W- 15 Sash is 1’- 5” x 5”, horizontal 6/6 

ribbon window pivoting in the center; lights 

measure 8 1⁄2” x 6 1⁄2” with one crack evident; 

unit has been nailed so that it only pivots 

approximately two inches; a projecting box 

screen covers the window while still allowing 

it to be opened. 

W- 16 Sash is 2’- 8” x 5’- 2”; typ. ext. shutter. 

W- 17 Sash is 2’- 10” x 5’- 2”; typical exterior 

shutter; lower sash is broken and the top sash 

has been nailed shut. 

Interior Materials, Finishes and 

Characteristics 

The interior finish of the cottage is basically 

simple made complex by the number of 

changes and modifications that have taken 

place over time. To assist in clearly 

communicating the characteristics of each 

room, a schedule of existing finish 

Typical Window with Shutter

Room 

No. 

Floor/ 

Direction 

Ceiling Wall 

S E N W 

Base 

S E N W 

Crown 

Molding 

S E N W 

Light 

Fixture 

101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

102 2/NS 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 none 

103 2/NS 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 none 

104 2/NS 2 1 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 

105 1 3 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 3 

106 2/EW 4 7/8 8 7/8 7 6 6 6 6 see plan` 4 

107 3/EW 5 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 7 8 5 

108 3/NS 3 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 none 2/6 

109 4/NS 4 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 4 4 3 /4 4 7 

110 2/EW 1 4 4 4 2 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 

111 2/EW 6 4 4 4 2 11 11 11 11 none 8 

Schedule of Existing Finish Characteristics 
Physical Description 

48 Oakland Cottage HSR 

characteristics is presented here along with a 

legend that begins below and presents each 

finish characteristic identified. The schedule is 

then supplemented by narrative descriptions 

of each room to communicate further any 

characteristics or facts unique to that room. 

Legend 

Flooring Types 

1. Cream colored with 41⁄2”x 41⁄2” simulatedtile patterned sheet vinyl flooring on 3⁄4” 

particle board over hardwood tongue- andgroove flooring (dimension not known). 

2. 4 1⁄2” – 5 1⁄2” random width tongue- andgroove hardwood or pine stained a reddish 

tint. 

3. 3 1⁄2” cypress running east to west, no finish, 

section of sheet vinyl in area of water heater. 

4. 5”- 10” cypress flooring running north to 

south, joint at approximately 6’ from north 

wall, sill- like insert at joint. 

Ceiling Types 

1. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard with stipple paint 

finish over wood ceiling. 

2. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard with stipple paint 

finish; unsure of wood ceiling condition at 

sloped ceiling condition. 

3. 3 1⁄4” tongue- and- groove bead board 

running east to west, painted. 

4. 3” tongue- and- groove bead board running 

north to south, painted. 

5. 6 1⁄4” butt jointed board running north to 

south painted. 

6. 16” butt jointed boards running north/south. 

Wall Types 

1. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard with stipple paint over 

board wallboards on bousillage wall. 

2. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard with stipple paint 

over wood wallboards. 

3. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard on conventional stud 

wall. 

4. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard on wood wallboards 

on stud or frame construction. 

5. 3 1⁄4”x 1⁄2” tongue- and- groove beaded board 

painted run horizontal on wood frame 

bousillage construction. 

6. 3 1⁄4”x 1⁄2” tongue- and- groove beaded 

board painted run horizontal on wood frame. 

7. 3” tongue- and- groove beaded board 

painted, run horizontal on frame construction. 

8. 3” tongue- and- groove beaded board 

painted, run horizontal on bousillage. 

9. 10”- 12” butt jointed boards run horizontal 

on frame construction, painted. 

10. 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard above 43”, 3” 

tongue- and- groove wainscoting run vertical 

below with 3⁄4” wood cap, painted.
National Park Service 49

Base Types 

 

Base 1 Base 2 Base 3 Base 4 

 

 

 Base 5 Base 6 Base 7 Base 8 

 Base 9 Base 10 Base 11 
Physical Description 

50 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Crown Molding Types 

 Crown Molding 1 Crown Molding 2 Crown Molding 3 

 Crown Molding 4 Crown Molding 5 Crown Molding 6 

 Crown Molding 7 Crown Molding 8 Crown Molding 9 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 51

Light Fixture Types 

As can be seen from the following photos, the 

fixtures in the house are typical of mid 20th

century style and assembly. One can see some 

similarity or consistency between fixtures but 

a rather broad range from the industrial- type 

two bulb fluorescent fixture in the kitchen 

(105) and the pendent fixture in room 104. 

 

Fixture Type 1 Fixture Type 2 Fixture Type 3 Fixture Type 4 

 

Fixture Type 5 Fixture Type 6 Fixture Type 7 Fixture Type 8 

Doors & Door Casings 

There are a variety of doors and casing 

characteristics in the house. To most clearly 

identify them, each is presented in the 

following schedule and Legend. 

The following schedule and its accompanying 

legend identify the characteristics of each door 

in the Cottage. Except for the rear hall door, 

Door D- 9, all doors and casings in the house 

are painted. A preliminary paint analysis was 

carried out in this report; however, a detailed 

paint analysis should be performed to identify 

the appropriate finishes for the established 

period of significance. 
Physical Description 

52 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Door Schedule of Existing Characteristics 

 

Door 

No. Width Height Thickness Type Panels 

Stile 

Width 

Door 

Finish 

Panel 

Profile 

Lock 

Set 

Knob 

Type 

 

D1 2'- 11" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR w 3PT 4 4 3/4" Paint 1 M G 

D2 2'- 11" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 4 4" Paint 1 M G 

D3 4'- 0" 6'- 9" 1 1/2" SR/FR two/five 5 1/4" Paint 2 C B 

D4 2'- 11" 6'- 11" 1 1/4" SR 4 5" Paint 3 M G 

D5 4'- 0" 6'- 9" 1 1/2" SR/FR two/five 5 1/4" Paint 2 C B 

D6 2'- 11" 6'- 11" 1 1/4" SR 4 5" Paint 3 M G 

D7 2'- 11" 6'- 11" 1 1/4" SR 4 5" Paint 3 M G 

D8 2'- 8" 6'- 8" 1 1/4" SR 4 4 1/2" Paint 4 M G 

D9 2'- 11" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR w 3PT 4 4 3/4" Stain 5 M 

Blk 

Resin 

D10 2'- 8" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 4 4" Paint 6 R G 

D11 2'- 11" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 4 5" Paint 3 R G 

D12 2'- 8" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 4 4 1/8" Paint 7 R G 

D13 1'- 9" 6'- 7" 1 1/4" SR 5* 3 1/2" Paint 8 Pull Pull 

D14 2'- 5" 6'- 6" 1 3/8" SR 5** 4" Paint 9 R G 

D15 2'- 8" 6'- 9" 1 3/8" SR 3*** 2 1/2" Paint 10 R 

Red 

Resin 

D16 2'- 0" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 2 4 1/2" Paint 9 Pull Pull 

D17 2'- 8" 6'- 9" 1 1/4" SR 4 4 `1/8" Paint 6 R G 

D18 2'- 8" 6'- 9" - No Door - - - - - - 

 

D-6

D-5

D-4

D-9

D-3

D-8

D-1

D-2

D-7

D-13

D-11

D-10

D-17

D-12

D-15

D-14

D-16

D-18

Door Key Plan
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 53

Legend 

SR Stile & Rail 

SR w3PT Stile & Rail w/ 3 panel glass transom above 

SR/FR Stile & Rail Pair of French Doors 

* Five Panel Door, 4 glass panels over one raised panel, see detail 

** Five Panel Wood Door 

*** Two Glass Panels over one Wood Panel 

M Mortise Lockset 

C Cylindrical Lockset 

R Rim Lockset 

Pull Door Pull Only 

G Glass Knob 

B Brass Knob 

BR Black Resin Knob 

RR Red Resin Knob 

Door Stile/Panel Profiles 

 

Door Profile 1 Door Profile 2 Door Profile 3 

 

 Door Profile 4 Door Profile 5 Door Profile 6 

 Door Profile 7 Door Profile 8 Door Profile 9 
54 National Park Service 

Narrative Summary of Door 

Characteristics 

D- 1 Opening is 2’- 11” x 6’- 9”; door is 

four- panel, mortise- and- tenon construction 

with a transom containing three lights 

measuring 10” square; porcelain knob intact; 

deadbolt added; 3 1⁄2” x 3 1⁄2” brass butt hinges 

that are not original. 

D- 2 Opening is 2’- 11” x 6’- 9”; door is 

four- panel, mortise- and- tenon construction; 

porcelain knob intact; 3” x 4” butt hinges 

appear to be original. 

D- 3 Opening is 4’ x 6’- 9”; French doors 

with 10 lights in each door; 3 1⁄2” x 4” butt 

hinges have been installed on the jamb and the 

outside of the door. 

D- 4 Opening is 2’- 11” x 6”- 11”; door is 

four- panel with a transom similar to D- 1; 

white porcelain knob intact; 3 1⁄2” x 3” butt 

hinges; notches on door jamb show that earlier 

hinges existed. 

D- 5 Opening is 4’ x 6’- 9”; same 

characteristics as D- 3. 

D- 6 Opening is 2’- 11” x 6’- 11”; door is 

four- panel, mortise- and- tenon construction; 

3 1⁄2” x 3” butt hinges; screen door is installed 

on outside of door - screen is missing. 

D- 7 Opening is 2”- 11”x 6”- 11”; same 

characteristics as D- 6; no transom; 3 1⁄2” x 3” 

butt hinges; hook on door jamb but no eye 

exists on door. 

D- 8 Opening is 2’- 8” x 6’- 8”; four- panel 

door; hook installed on door, and eye installed 

on doorjamb. 

D- 9 Opening is 2’- 11” x 6’- 9”; four- panel 

door; no mortise- and- tenon construction; 

transom above, with three 10” x 10” lights; 

brown mineral knob; latch on inside of door; 

this is the only door that is not painted but 

rather stained in a dark walnut color; notches 

on door jamb indicate earlier hinges existed. 

D- 10 Opening is 2’- 8” x 6’- 9”; four- panel 

door, porcelain knob and applied lockset are 

not operable; mortise- and- tenon 

construction; a piece of wood has been added 

to the top of the door, indicating that the 

house has settled in this area. 

D- 11 Opening is 2’- 11 x 6’- 9”; door is fourpanel, mortise- and- tenon construction; rim 

lock set with 

white porcelain 

knob that is not 

operable; 3 1⁄2” x 

3” butt hinges; 

one top panel is 

split. 

D- 12 Opening 

is 2’- 8” x 6’- 9”; 

same 

characteristics as 

D- 10. 

D- 13 Opening is 1’- 9” x 6- ’7”; door 

contains four 1’1” x 11 1⁄4” lights over one 1’1” x 

19 1⁄2” panel; glass pull knob; slide latch; hook 

and eye closure; 3” x 3” butt hinges. 

D- 14 Opening is 2’- 5” x 6’- 6”; five 1’- 10” x 

10” panel wood door; rim lockset with white 

porcelain knob; hook and eye hardware; 3” x 

3” butt hinges. 

D- 15 Opening 

is 2’- 8” x 6’- 9”; 

two 21” x 1’- 9” 

glass lights over 

one 11” wood 

panel; mortiseand- tenon 

construction; 

lock set with 

brown porcelain 

knob; slide latch 

and pull 

hardware; 4” x 

3” butt hinges. 

D- 16 Opening is 2’ x 6’- 9”; door is twopanel; pull on outside; 3 1⁄2” x 3” butt hinges. 

D- 17 Opening is 2’- 8” x 6’- 9”; same 

characteristics as D- 12. 

D- 18 Opening is 2’- 8” x 6’- 9”; door is 

missing; notches in door jamb indicate the 

existence of a door at one time. 

Door Casing Characteristics 

There are a variety of frame casing profiles in 

the house. In order to best document the 

combinations of profiles and characteristics, 

the following schedule of characteristics was 

developed with an accompanying graphic key 

to communicate each profile clearly. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 55

Schedule of Existing Door Casing Characteristics 

Door No. 

Room 

Side 

Head 

Profile 

Jamb 

Profile Threshold Door No. 

Room 

Side 

Head 

Profile

Jamb 

Profile Threshold 

 

D1 Out - - 1 D10 101 1 1 3

 101 1 1 1 106 3 3 3

D2 101 1 1 2 D11 106 4 4 1 

 102 1 1 2 107 4 4 1 

D3 102 2 2 3 D12 106 3 3 1 

 103 2 2 3 109 3 3 1 

D4 103 1 1 1 D13 107 5 5 1 

 Out - - 1 108 5 5 1 

D5 103 2 2 1 D14 108 5 5 1 

 104 2 2 1 109 6 6 1 

D6 104 1 1 1 D15 109 3 3 1 

 Out - - 1 110 3 3 1 

D7 104 1 1 2 D16 110 7 7 - 

 105 1 1 2 111 - - - 

D8 105 1 1 2 D17 110 3 3 3

 102 1 1 2 101 1 1 3

D9 101 1 1 1 D18 105 1 1 2 

 Out - - - 101 1 1 2 

Door Casing Profiles 

 

 Head/Jamb 1 Head/Jamb 2 Head/Jamb 3 
Physical Description 

56 Oakland Cottage HSR 

 

 Head/Jamb 4 Head/Jamb 5 Head/Jamb 6 

Head/Jamb 7 

 Threshold Type 1 Threshold Type 2 Threshold Type 3 

Summary Description of Interior 

Conditions 

Hall (101)

The central hallway connects the front and 

rear galleries by exterior doors and contains 

four interior doors leading to the adjacent 

rooms in the cottage. The hallway is 5’- 9” 

wide and 22’- 11” in length. The presence of a 

central hall is a unique feature of this part of 

what appears to otherwise be a traditional 

Creole cottage. The hall is formed by two 

bousillage walls. The south hall wall appears to 

be original. There is some question about the 

time and installation of the north hall wall and 

the framing that supports it. At a minimum, the 

creation of the hall appears to be a very early 

modification of a typical two room Creole 

cottage. There is evidence of a Creole cottage 

throughout the southern half of the house. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 57

The significance of the presence of a hall is 

that it is atypical of a Creole cottage and it 

represents a floor plan of higher standing or 

style than would be expected for a secondary 

cottage when the main house did not possess a 

central hall. 

Floors: The hall flooring consists of creamed 

colored and square patterned sheet vinyl, 

likely installed in 1954. This flooring is laid 

over a plywood or particleboard sub- floor. 

Examination of the hall flooring from under 

the house indicates that plank flooring 

remains at the lowest strata of flooring in the 

hall. The interior threshold conditions reveal 

the relationship of the plywood layer in 

relation to the earlier and, possibly, original 

layer of flooring. 

Walls: Testing confirms that both hallway 

walls are of bousillage construction. Walls are 

finished with gypsum wallboard (1957 vintage) 

that has been painted off- white. In this room, 

the gypsum wall board is attached to an earlier 

wood plank wallboard. The characteristics of 

the underlying wood wallboard are not known 

as it was not exposed and invasion into the 

wall assembly was limited to a 1” coring in a 

few selected areas. The wood siding was 

approximately 3⁄4” in thickness. Two of the 

doors entering into the bedrooms (106), (109) 

are the same in size and style. The opening 

into the kitchen is the same dimension as the 

two bedroom door openings. The openings 

for the front, rear, and into the living room 

(102) possess similar characteristics. (See 

Finish Schedule). 

Ceiling: The ceiling is 9’- 2” high and is 

finished with gypsum wallboard painted white 

over an earlier wood ceiling above. From 

observations in the attic, the earlier ceiling 

finish was 11”- 12” wide boards running in a 

north south direction, the short dimension of 

the hall.

Trim: See Finish Schedule for millwork 

profiles. All millwork in this room is painted. 

Utilities: One surface mounted light fixture in 

the center of the hall exists. (Type 1.) There are 

no duplex outlets. One phone jack is mounted 

on the base of the north wall. 

Living Room (102) 

At the time of the NPS purchasing the 

property, this room appears to have generally 

functioned as what is thought of today as a 

Living Room or parlor, given its location as the 

first room off the central hallway. 

Investigation reveals that all four walls of the 

room are of bousillage construction, making it 

one of the earliest rooms of the house. Given 

the unusual central hall configuration of the 

house and the existence of what was the 

original fireplace in the house on the south 

hall wall, if the hall is in fact a modification of 

an earlier traditional Creole cottage plan, this 

room would have originally included the 

central hall in its dimension. 

Floors: Flooring is 4” to 5 1⁄2”- wide finished 

tongue- and- groove heart pine. There are two 

layers of flooring as revealed by the threshold 

(See Door Schedule) at the doors in the room. 

The floors appear to have been sanded and 

stained with a reddish stain finish. The 

flooring in this room is in excellent condition. 

There is a floorboard oriented in an east west 

direction in the otherwise north- south 

oriented flooring located 5’- 9” to the north of 

the south wall of the room. The reason for this 

flooring anomaly is not known. 

Walls: The walls are finished with gypsum 

wallboard over wood wallboards and painted 

a light green. The gypsum wallboard finish was 

added as a part of the 1957 renovations. 

Testing confirms bousillage in all four walls of 

this room. 
Physical Description 

58 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Ceiling: The ceiling is also covered with 

gypsum wallboard over 11”- 12” ceiling boards 

running north- south. The gypsum wallboard 

is painted white. 

Trim: See the Finish Schedule for the profiles 

of millwork in this room. All moldings in this 

room are painted white.

Utilities: The room has an exposed junction 

box for a light in this room but no fixture 

exists. There are three duplex outlets in the 

base of this room. 

Miscellaneous Features: The room contains a 

fireplace on the north wall. The flue opening 

has been plugged with mortar and the 

firebrick covered with mortar or portland 

cement. A gas- heater has been inserted into 

the firebox. The wood mantle is simple in 

style and is painted white. The mantle in this 

room corresponds with the character of the 

mantle in room103 in detail and size, dating it 

to the 1880 period of improvements. See photo 

and detail below. 

Living Room (103) 

This room was added c.1880- 1881 when Dr. 

Leveque built an addition on the north end of 

 

Photo detail, section through living room mantle, 

and plan view at surround 

the house for his daughter, Lucie, and her 

husband. Oral history indicates that the room 

eventually served as a living room, while the 

original living room was used only for formal 

occasions.181

Floors: The flooring is heart pine or cypress 

flooring running in a north/south direction, 4” 

to 5 1⁄2” wide with a reddish stain finish similar 

to that found in room 102. The flooring is in 

good condition. 

Walls: The walls have been covered with 1⁄2” 

gypsum wallboard. The walls in this room are 

painted a light green. The ceiling measures 

10’- 10” in height. The west wall of this room, 

common with Room 104, was added in the 

1957 phase of improvements. It appears to be a 

conventional wood- frame construction in a 

modern stick- built manner. This room has 

two interior door openings consisting of a pair 

of French doors leading into the living room 

(102) and another to the dining room (104) and 

one four- paneled exterior door (D4) 

connecting the room to the front gallery. Two 

window openings are located on the north 

side of the room and two flanking the exterior 

door on the east side. All windows but one 

have temporary louvered ventilation installed 

by the NPS. 

Ceiling: The ceiling finish is 1⁄2” gypsum 

wallboard over 4” tongue- and- groove ceiling 

boards. The ceiling is painted white. 

Trim: See Finish Schedule for trim profiles. 

The trim is wood and is painted white. 

 

181 Duggan, Oct 2001. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 59

Utilities: There is no light fixture in this room. 

There are three duplex outlets at the base and 

one 220 outlet on the north wall of the room. 

Miscellaneous Features: The room contains 

one fireplace on the south side of the room. 

The fireplace has the same detailing as the 

fireplace in Room 102. Both were constructed 

as a part of the 1880 addition. As in Room 102, 

the flue opening has been in- filled with 

cement or mortar, and a natural- gas space 

heater has been installed in the firebox. The 

wood mantle is painted white. A photo and 

profiles of the mantle are presented below. 

Dining Room (104) 

This room was originally part of the room 

built for Lucie Leveque (Rooms 104 and 104). 

Oral history places the creation of this room 

by the installation of the conventionallyframed east wall as part of the 1957 

improvements made by Jesse and Adele Brett. 

This room was most recently used as a dining 

room.

 

Photo detail, section through mantle, and plan 

view at surround 

Floors: The flooring measures 4” x 4 1⁄4”- wide, 

running in a north/south direction and is the 

same heart pine or cypress material and 

reddish stain finish as the living room (102) 

and the family room (103). 

Walls: The walls have been covered with the 

1⁄2” gypsum wallboard as is found in the living 

room (102) and the family room (103). The 

walls are painted pink. The room has two 

interior door openings into the family room 

(103) and the kitchen (105) and one exterior 

door opening onto the rear porch with a 

transom above. The room contains two 

window openings, one in the north and one in 

the west elevation. 

Ceiling: In this room, the original 4” tongueand- groove ceiling boards are concealed by 

the 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard. The ceiling is 

painted white

Trim: See the Finish Schedule for molding 

profiles. The molding is painted white. 

Utilities: There are two duplex outlets in the 

east wall. The room has a light fixture in the 

center of the room (Fixture Type 3). An 

electrical panel box is located on the north 

end of the room. 
Physical Description 

60 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Miscellaneous Features: There is a fire 

extinguisher hanging on the west wall. It is 

expected that the extinguisher was placed 

there by the National Park Service as a fire 

protection measure. 

Kitchen (105) 

There is some speculation as to the original 

use of this room. The floor framing plan 

indicates that this room was framed as a porch. 

Room 105 is one of the smaller rooms in the 

house. Bousillage construction was found in 

all but the exterior wall. Often, in the Creole 

style cottage, cabinets, smaller rooms generally 

used for sleeping, were constructed on the 

back gallery. However, the walls were typically 

simple plank walls. The north and south 

bousillage walls extending into what 

dimensionally appears to have been the rear 

gallery provides a strong clue that there may 

have been cabinets, albeit non- conventional 

cabinets, on the rear of the Creole cottage 

vintage structure. If this is the case, there 

would have not been any significant open rear 

gallery on this house, only a small hall- like 

porch, enclosed on three sides in the middle 

rear of the structure. Oral history states this 

room was used in recent memory as a hall, an 

occasional bedroom, and as a kitchen.

Floors: The floor is a cream- colored, square 

patterned sheet vinyl like that found in the 

hall. When the National Park Service removed 

the fixtures, an area under the kitchen cabinets 

on the west side of the room revealed the 

wood floors beneath a plywood layer to which 

the vinyl was applied. The oldest flooring 

observed was 5 1⁄2” tongue- and- groove 

floorboards running east/west. 

Walls: The walls are 3 1⁄4” tongue- and- groove 

bead board paneling painted yellow. The 

beaded board in this room differs in 

dimension by 1⁄4” from that in Room 106. There 

are three door openings in the room; one 

leading into the dining room (104), one leading 

into the living room (102) and one leading into 

the hallway (101). The hallway opening has 

evidence indicating that a door once hung in 

the opening, although there is currently no 

door hanging in this opening. There are two 

windows in the west side of this room. 

Ceiling: The ceiling is 3 1⁄4” tongue- and- groove 

bead board paneling painted yellow.

Trim: See Finish Schedule for trim profiles. 

The trim in this room is painted yellow.

Utilities: Existing 1 1⁄2” black PVC line for the 

sink drain and 1⁄2” copper tubes for hot and 

cold water service are stubbed out of the floor. 

The room contains a two bulb fluorescent 

fixture (Fixture Type 4). There are three 

duplex outlets in the baseboard. Since the 

plywood sub- flooring covers part of the base 

and outlet covers, it is clear that the plywood 

sub- flooring was installed after the electrical 

outlets were installed in the base. 

Miscellaneous Features: The National Park 

Service has removed all the fixtures with the 

exception of an oven hood. 

Bedroom (106) 

It is believed that this room was added to the 

original house during the pre- 1870 period of 

improvements. Bousillage construction was 

found in portions of three walls. Testing 

reveals that the east wall is bousillage. The east 

half of the north and south walls, as indicated 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 61

by joints in the wallboards, are bousillage. The 

transitions from bousillage to an open framed 

wall correspond with the floor framing of the 

rear gallery. Known functions for which this 

room has served include a bedroom, dining 

room, and kitchen.

Floors: The floorboards are wood and 

measure 3- 3/8” wide installed in east/west 

direction. The floorboards are rough in 

condition and unfinished. It is understood that 

this room was carpeted when the National 

Park Service acquired the property. Doris 

Brett Vincent stated that the rooms of the 

house were not carpeted when she was living 

there (pre- 1960).182

Walls: The walls are 3” tongue- and- groove 

bead board paneling painted white and 

running in a north- south direction. The bead 

board in this room is common to the rooms on 

the south end of the building and varies by 1⁄4” 

from that found in the kitchen. There are 

three door openings in the room: one leading 

into the 

hallway (101), 

one to the 

closet/utility 

room (107), 

and one to the 

east bedroom 

(109). There is 

one window 

opening on the 

west wall 

containing a 

 

182 Vincent, 2002.

pair of 6/6 double- hung windows. A “ghost” 

of a window can be discerned on the south 

wall, now paneled in bead board to match the 

rest of the room. This may indicate that the 

bead board was installed before the bathroom 

was built. 

Ceilings: The ceiling is 3” tongue- and- groove 

bead board paneling painted white and 

running in a north south direction.

Trim: See Finish Schedule for trim profiles. 

The trim in this room is interesting in that it 

changes as one moves around the room. The 

change takes place at the joint between the 

earlier bousillage walls and the portion of the 

room that extends beyond the original rear 

gallery. The key to the location of various 

molding profiles in this room is presented 

below.

Utilities: The room has a single light fixture in 

the center of the room (Fixture Type 5). Five 

duplex outlets and phone jack are installed in 

this room. Two of the outlets are at the 

baseboard level and two are on the wall above 

the base. 

Photo Detail, Section through Mantle, Plan View 

at Surround 
Physical Description 

62 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Miscellaneous Features: The fireplace located 

on the north wall of room 106 appears to have 

been added at the time the room was 

expanded and the gable roof profile created, 

providing heat and, later, cooking capability to 

the larger room. The firebrick has a mortar or 

cement layer covering it. A natural gas space 

heater is located in the firebox. Between 1940 

and 1951, a wood- burning cook stove stood 

before the fireplace, vented through the 

fireplace chimney. It may have been removed 

when Arnold Cloutier updated the kitchen 

then in this room. The wood mantel appears 

earlier in style than the mantles in rooms 102 

and 103, more simple in its detailing. However, 

under the Room 106 mantle top there is a piece 

of trim similar to that found on the mantles in 

rooms 102 and 103. This suggests that this 

mantle was modified with the simpler trim 

after the 1880 addition mantels were installed. 

A photo and details of the Room 106 mantle 

are presented below. 

Closet (107)

Oral history places the enclosure of this closet 

in the mid- to- late 1920s. An examination of 

the floor framing in this area suggests that the 

floor structure of this room occurred 

simultaneously with that of Room 106. The 

original floor structure of this room may have 

been an exterior porch prior to being enclosed 

for a closet. The roofline of the closet is 

notably different from the structure to which 

it is attached, suggesting that construction 

most likely occurred at different times. The 

plumbing indicates this room was also used as 

a laundry room. Doris Brett Vincent stated 

that the laundry features were installed by 

herself and her husband in the 1990s when 

Margo Haas was renting the Cottage from 

them.183

Floors: The flooring is tongue- and- groove 

wood floorboards measuring 3 1⁄2” wide, 

installed in east/west direction. This flooring is 

unfinished and in fair to poor condition. A 

square of the vinyl sheet flooring that is in the 

hall is laid in the northeast corner of the room, 

providing protection of the wood floor from 

an inactive water heater resting on it. 

Walls: The room has two door openings, one 

into bedroom (106) and bathroom (108). The 

room contains one window opening on the 

south wall, which was originally a door 

opening. The walls mostly consist of 9 1⁄4” 

boards butted together. Beneath the window 

opening, the boards are of smaller dimensions 

where the door opening was filled. 

Ceiling: The ceiling is 12” wide butt jointed 

wood boards painted white. 

Trim: See Finish Schedule for trim 

characteristics in this room. All trim is painted 

white in this room. 

Utilities: The room contains a Rheem 40-

gallon water heater. It is not know if the water 

heater is in working order because it is 

disconnected. The water heater has a 3” flue to 

the exterior, 3⁄4” hot and cold water supply 

lines, and a 1⁄2” gas line. All other laundryrelated fixtures have been removed. A 2” PVC 

drain line and vent stack and two 1⁄2” PVC 

supply lines for hot and cold water service for 

a washing machine still exist. The room 

contains one 220V outlet and one 110V outlet, 

a typical layout for washer/dryer installations.

 

183 Vincent, 2002. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 63

Bathroom (108) 

According to oral history, the bathroom was 

added by Guy Cloutier when he and Elise 

Elizabeth Prud’homme Cloutier were renting 

the house. Since the two did not marry until 

June 10, 1925, the bathroom was most likely 

added in the latter part of the 1920s. 

Floors: The floors are similar as in Bedroom 

(106) in both size and finish, 3- 3/8” wide 

tongue- and- groove wood; however, they 

were installed in a north/south direction. The 

flooring is unfinished and in fair condition. 

Walls: The walls are gypsum wallboard 

painted blue with a vertical bead board 

wainscot to 42” above finished floor, including 

an 8” wood baseboard and a 1” wainscot cap. 

The wainscot has an off- white paint finish. 

The room contains door openings into closet 

(107) and bedroom (109) 

Ceiling: The ceiling is gypsum wallboard over 

12” wide butt- jointed wood.

Trim: See the Finish Schedule for trim 

profiles. 

Utilities: There are two light fixtures (Fixture 

Types 6 and 2) in this room. No electrical 

outlets were identified in this room. Existing 

plumbing fixtures include a white, floormounted tank type toilet, a wall- mounted, 

enameled cast- iron lavatory, and a white 

enameled cast- iron tub with claw feet. There 

is also a gas space heater located in this room. 

Miscellaneous Features: The bathroom 

includes a series of wire type towel bars and a 

complementary toothbrush holder. There are 

two towel holders on the east wall, one on the 

south wall and two on the north wall. The 

toothbrush holder is located to the right of the 

sink on the north wall. 

Bedroom (109) 

This room is sometimes referred to as the 

Doctor’s Office, although a smaller area 

(closet 110) actually served as the office. The 

early uses of this room are unclear. While it is 

attached to the room most commonly 

understood to be the Doctor’s office, if this 

room was a support room, such as a waiting 

room, one would have had to enter the waiting 

room through the central hallway, thus having 

sick patients coming into the living area of the 

house. This seems unlikely. The room in all or 

part may have provided support to the medical 

functions of the adjacent room but was 

probably not a waiting area. One of the most 

unique features of this room is the 

configuration of the floor (described below). 

While unusual in its configuration and 

underlying framing, this room has been in this 

configuration for a long time and most 

probably as far back as the original Creole 
Physical Description 

64 Oakland Cottage HSR 

cottage. This 

room has also 

served as a 

bedroom and 

a dining 

room. 

Floors: The 

flooring in 

this room 

displays 

characteristic

s different from other rooms in the cottage. 

While the entire floor consists of unfinished 

worn floorboards, there is an unusual 

arrangement of the floorboards. On the north 

side of the room, north of an east- west line 5’-

9” from the north wall are 6” +- floorboards 

running north/south. In an area around the 

fireplace and still north of the east west line 5’-

9” off of the north wall, floorboards measuring 

between 11” and 131⁄2” wide are installed in 

front of the hearth. Approximately centered 

on door D12 and running from the threshold 

of that door eastward is a single floorboard 

measuring 41⁄2”x 3’- 3”’ wide set in the 

otherwise north- south running flooring. In 

the same east- west alignment as the oddly 

oriented floorboard at door D12 but on the 

east side of the room is another board 4 1⁄2”x 5’ 

from the east wall. South of the abovedefined east west line 5’- 9” from the north 

wall are floorboards of 4”+_ and running 

north/south. Currently, no explanation has 

been found for the piecemeal arrangement of 

these floorboards. However, it is possible that 

the floor around the fireplace was damaged, 

either from fire or wear, and replaced. 

Walls: The walls are 3 1⁄4” beaded tongue- andgroove wood paneling painted white and 

similar to bedroom (106). There are four door 

openings in the room: into the bathroom (108), 

closet (110), bedroom (106) and the hallway 

(101). There are two window openings on the 

south and east walls. 

Ceiling: The ceiling is 3 1⁄4” beaded tongueand- groove wood paneling painted white 

similar to the other areas with exposed beaded 

tongue- and- groove wood paneling.

Trim: See the Finish Schedule for trim profiles 

in this room.

Utilities: There is one light fixture in the center 

of the room (Fixture Type 7) and three duplex 

outlets in the base.

Miscellaneous Details: The fireplace in this 

room contains a plaster over brick firebox 

with a gas space heater similar to the heaters in 

the other fireplaces in the building. The 

mantle, likely the oldest in the house is quite 

simple in its detailing and may be original to 

the room. Details of this mantle are presented 

below. The masonry chimney of this fireplace 

has been removed to approximately the 

mantel height, exposing the bousillage north 

wall of the room when viewed from the attic. 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 65

has been removed to approximately the 

mantel height, exposing the bousillage north 

wall of the room when viewed from the attic. 

Closet (110) 

Closet (110) with closet (111) are believed to 

have been the original doctor’s office. The 

larger of the two existing rooms (Room 110) 

appears to have been notably modified with 

the subdivision into room (111). The room was 

covered with gypsum wallboard at the time of 

the 1957 improvements. 

Floors: The flooring is wood tongue- andgroove boards measuring 5” to 6 1⁄2” wide, 

unfinished, running in an east/west direction 

over the north south floor framing of what was 

originally the open front gallery. 

Walls: The walls are 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard 

likely over wood wallboards on wood framed 

walls on the north, south and east elevations of 

the room. The wallboard is painted blue on 

the walls and white on the ceiling. The room 

has two door openings, into bedroom (109) 

and closet (111). There are two window 

openings on the south and east walls. The 

south window was formerly a door accessing 

the Doctor’s office from outside. It was closed 

and converted to a window in the 1950s. The 

ceiling contains the only access to the attic. 

Ceiling: The ceiling is gypsum wallboard over 

butt jointed planks of 16” width. The ceiling is 

painted white.

Trim: See the Finish Schedule for the profiles 

of the trim in this room. 

Utilities: There is only one ceiling- mounted 

light fixture in this room (Fixture Type 8). No 

other utilities were observed in this room.

Closet (111) 

The division of the doctor’s office to create 

this closet was a part of improvements to the 

house completed in 1951. 

Floors: The floors are similar to the adjoining 

room (110), 4 1⁄4” – 5 1⁄2” tongue- and- groove 

wood running in an east- west direction. 

Walls: The walls are 1⁄2” gypsum wallboard 

likely over wood wallboards on wood framed 

walls on the north and east elevations of the 

room. The south wall is a stud partition of 

narrower dimension than the unfinished door 

casing. The wallboard is painted blue and the 

ceiling white. The room has one opening into 

Closet 110. There are no windows in this 

room. 

Ceiling: The ceiling is gypsum wallboard over 

butt- jointed planks 16” wide. The ceiling is 

painted white.

Trim: See Finish Schedule for trim profiles 

Utilities: There is one light fixture in the center 

of the room (Fixture Type 8). 

Miscellaneous Features: Oral history identifies 

the north wall as originally being lined with 

three cabinets of shelves with glass doors 

enclosing them. The shelving no longer exists 

in the original location. However there is a 

built- in wood shelving unit on the south wall 

west of the door. Oral history indicates that 

these shelves are from some of Dr. Leveques’ 

original shelving, used by Jesse Brett, probably 

during the 1957 renovations, to make shelves 

for his daughter’s use in this closet. Hinge 

marks on the shelves indicate the presence of 
Physical Description 

66 Oakland Cottage HSR 

doors on the shelves, though the existing 

shelves do not have doors. 

Summary of Materials Research 

Findings 

Twenty five material samples were collected 

from the building to assist in identifying the 

characteristics of the wall systems. Presented 

below are the detailed findings related to each 

sample. Welsh Color and Conservation, Inc. 

of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, evaluated the 

samples. The focus of the sampling and 

testing was to establish a baseline set of 

information about the wall compositions for 

the building to assist in identifying dates or 

characteristics to aid in constructing the 

sequence and characteristics of each phase in 

the evolution of the structure. While 

bousillage was submitted to testing as well as 

wood and drywall strata of the wall sections, 

the bousillage itself did not reveal any notable 

findings beyond the earth with plant material 

binder that was expected. However, there was 

evidence of coatings on the bousillage that are 

of note. Sample 8B, 19 and 25 exhibit some 

finish material in proximity of the bousillage. 

Of particular interest is sample 19, which 

reveals several layers of finish in proximity to 

the bousillage including a layer of sand plaster. 

This sample is of interest because it is from 

one of the rear gallery bousillage walls for 

which a clear link to the evolution of the 

structure is not yet established. This sample 

suggests that the wall is different from and 

possibly a higher level of finish than other 

bousillage walls. It suggests that plaster was 

applied to the bousillage. However, since this 

sample is the only one revealing these 

characteristics, it is not appropriate to draw 

too many conclusions from the finding. The 

balance of the samples identified finish 

materials from the late 19th to mid 20th century. 

Analytical Results from Samples 

Sample 1/ South wall of Room 103 

Location/Description: Drywall, South wall of 

living room. 

Layers and Comments: First Layer, white 

textured coating, Second Layer, light green, 

mid 20th century latex. 

24

15

23

13

12

14 11

3 2

25

18

22

8

16

17

5

6

10

9 19

1

4

21

Key Plan for Sample Analysis
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 67

Sample 2/ Front Gallery Boxed Column at 

North (1880) Addition 

Location/Description: Gallery side of front 

gallery boxed column second from north end 

of porch . 

Layers and Comments: Very weathered/ aged 

wood surface, 1st finish very thin residue of 

white lead based oil paint (chalky), 2- 4 layers 

of finish, whites, middle 20th century. Note: 

Not a good sample location to find full 

layering. Look up at top of column where 

more protected from weather. 

Sample3 /Front Gallery Chamfered Column, 

Bousillage Section 

Location/Description: Gallery side surface of 

Chamfered Column, fifth column from north 

end of gallery. 

Layers and Comments: 1st layer very thin, 

chalky (residue) white- probably whitewash 

(totally consumed by HCI), 2nd layer lt. Pink 

(oil paint), old. 

Sample4 /Wood Siding at North Elevation, East 

Side 

Location/Description: Wood siding under 

asbestos tile siding at east corner. 

Layers and Comments: Very degraded wood 

surface, not a good sample location- too 

exposed to the weather. There is a trace of an 

old olive colored paint in the open grain of the 

wood. Recommend testing another location 

for more complete color analysis. 

Sample5A /Room 103, East Wall, North Side

Location/Description: East wall of 1880 

Addition, Test includes drywall and wood 

layer below. 

Layers and Comments: 

Wood: 1st Layer, Brownish Pink Coat of 

Primer, 2nd Layer, Finish coat of Brownish 

Pink. The first two layers are lead based oil. 3rd

and 4th Layers are finish coats of yellow/green, 

mid 20th century. 

Drywall: 1st Layer white textured paint, 2nd

Layer, light green, latex, mid to late 20th

century. 

Sample 5B /Room 102, East Wall North Side 

Location/Description: Bousillage sample that 

was taken in plug core with Sample 5A. 

Layers and Comments: Clays and plant fibers. 

No paints or coatings on any surface of this 

sample. 

Sample 6A /Room 102, West Wall, North End 

Location/Description: Multi layer plug on 

west wall close to floor and above base 

Layers and Comments: 

Wood: Same as Sample 5A. 

Drywall: Same as 5A 

Sample 6B /Room 102, West Wall, North End 

Location/Description: Bousillage sample that 

was taken in plug core with Sample 6A. 

Layers and Comments: 

Wood: Same as Sample 5B. 

Drywall: Same as Sample 5B. 

Sample 7 /East Wall, 1880 Addition 

Location/Description: Plug sample through 

drywall and wood interior wall boards. 

Layers and Comments: 

Wood: Weathered wood, aged, no coatings at 

all. 

Drywall: Same as Sample 1. 

Sample 8A /Room 109, West Wall 

Location/Description: Core Sample of wood 

wallboard. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, Medium 

Green, Lead based oil paint, late 19th century, 

2

nd Layer, Medium Green, Lead based oil 

paint, late 19th century, 3rd Layer, Medium 
Physical Description 

68 Oakland Cottage HSR 

yellow, led based oil paint, early 20th century, 

Layer 4 &5, pink, white, mid to late 20th

century. Note: Medium green separates from 

wood with ease, but there is no dirt on wood 

surface. 

Sample8B /Room 109, West Wall 

Location/Description: Bousillage plug taken 

with sample 8A. 

Layers and Comments: Clays and plant fibers. 

There are several pieces of white lime 

whitewash, each has between 3- 5 layers. 

Sample 8C /Room 109, West Wall 

Location/Description: Wood post in wall (this 

sample happened to hit an interior framing 

member. This sample is the wood taken from 

that member.) 

Layers and Comments: No paints, just residue 

of bousillage. 

Sample 8D /Room 109, West Wall, North Corner 

Location/Description: Beaded tongue- andgroove. 

Layers and Comments: Same as Sample 8A. 

Sample 9A / Room 105, East Wall, North Corner 

Location/Description: Beaded tongue- andgroove wall boards. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, Lt. Gray, no 

lead, early to mid 20th century, 2nd Layer, Dark 

Green, no lead, early to mid 20th century, 3rd

and 4th Layers, yellows, no lead, mid 20th

century. 

Sample 9B /Room 105, East Wall, North Corner 

Location/Description: Bousillage taken in core 

with Sample 9A. 

Layers and Comments: Bousillage, clays, etc. 

No evidence of any paint finishes on this 

sample. 

Sample 10 /Room 105, West Wall, North Corner 

Location/Description: Beaded wood 

wallboard. 

Layers and Comments: Same as Sample 9A. 

Sample 11/ Room 106, North Wall 

Location/ Description: Tongue- and- groove 

beaded wall board. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, Medium 

Gray, Lead based paint, early 20th century, 2nd

Layer, Light Green, middle 20th century, 3rd

Layer, white, late 20th century. 

Sample 12 /Room 108, Bathroom, North Wall 

Location/Description: Bousillage sample. 

Layers and Comments: No paint evidence. 

Sample 13- 14 /Room 107, North Wall 

Location/Description: Bousillage. 

Layers and Comments: Clays and plant fibers, 

No paint evidence. 

Sample 15 /Behind Fireplace at Room 109 

Location/Description: Bousillage. 

Layers and Comments: Clays and plant fibers, 

no paint evidence. 

Sample 16/ Room 106, Bousillage at Chimney 

Location/ Description: Bousillage taken from 

attic at the location of the fireplace chimney. 

Layers and Comments: Clays, but no plant 

fibers. 

Sample 17 /Room 105, Door to Room 102 

Location/Description: Sample on door facing. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, White Lead 

based Oil paint, Late 19th century- early 20th

century, 2nd Layer, Same as first, 3rd Layer, same 

as first, 4th and 5th Layers, yellows, early 20th

century, 6th layer, Dark Green, mid 20th
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 69

century, 7th, 8th and 9th Layers, Lt Yellows, mid 

20th century. 

Sample 18 /Room 102, Door to Hallway 

Location/Description: Wood door. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, white, lead 

based oil paint, late 19th- early 20th century, 2nd

Layer, same as layer one, 3rd Layer, same as 

layer one, 4th and 5th Layers, yellows, early 20th

century, 6th Layer, Dark Green, mid 20th

century, 7th+ Layer, Light Yellow, mid 20th

century. Sample is missing top layers seen on 

Sample 17. 

Sample 19 /Room 105, North wall 

Location/Description: Bousillage, plaster and 

wood taken in a core. 

Layers and Comments: 

Bousillage: Clays with plant fibers and a large, 

white fragment consisting of the following 

layers: 1st Layer, white lime wash, 2nd Layer, 

Sand Plaster, 3rd Layer, light pink lime wash, 4th

Layer, white lime wash. The age of these 

washes is unknowable. It is most likely they 

are 19th century. All are consumed by acid. 

Wood: 1st Layer, Yellowish Gray, no lead, early 

to middle 20th century, 2nd Layer, Light Gray, 

no lead, early to middle of 20th century, 3rd

layer, dark green, no lead, middle 20th century, 

4th and 5th Layers, yellows, middle to late 20th

century. 

Sample 20 /Room 104, West Wall near Doorway 

to Kitchen 

Location/Description: Wood and drywall 

samples taken in a core . 

Layers and Comments: 

Wood: unpainted, aged surface. 

Drywall: 1st Layer, Beige textured paint, middle 

to late 20th century, 2nd Layer, Medium Pink, 

middle to late 20th Century. 

Sample 21 /Shutter, North Elevation 

Location/Description: Wood. 

Layers and Comments: Weathered wood, 1st

Layer, Residue of red iron oxide in wood 

grain, 20th century, 2nd to 5th Layers, Dark 

Green, middle to late 20th century. Note: The 

early layers are missing due to weathering. 

Sample 22 /Room 102, East Window, Interior 

Casing 

Location/Description: Wood casing. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, white, lead 

based oil paint, late 19th century, 2nd Layer, 

same as 1st Layer, Layer 3, white, lead based oil 

paint, early 20th century, 4th and 5th Layers, 

Grayish Greens, early to mid 20th century. 

Sample 23 /Room 109, Door to Room 101 

Location/Description: Wood door. 

Layers and Comments: 1st Layer, white lead 

based oil paint, late 19th century, 2nd Layer, 

same as 1st Layer, 3rd- 4th Layers, light yellows, 

early 20th century. 5th Layer, Medium Green, 

mid 20th century, 6th

- 7th Layers, Light Yellow, 

White, middle to late 20th century. 

Sample 24 /Room 109, Flooring 

Location/Description: Wood flooring. 

Layers and Comments: Dirt on worn wood 

surface, no coatings. 

Sample 25 /Room 102, South Wall 

Location/Description: Core of bousillage, 

wood and drywall. 

Layers and Comments: 

Bousillage: Thin white lime wash. 

Wood: Same as Layer 5A. 

Drywall: Same as Layer 5A. 
Physical Description 

70 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 71

DRAWINGS 

The following drawings are based on measured drawings prepared by the Denver Service Center of 

the National Park Service. The original drawings were provided in electronic format to the preparers 

of this Historic Structure Report as base drawings on which findings and other information relative to 

this report could be recorded for inclusion in the Historic Structure Report.
Physical Description 

72 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 73
Physical Description 

74 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 75
Physical Description 

76 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 77
Physical Description 

78 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 79
Physical Description 

80 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 81
Physical Description 

82 Oakland Cottage HSR 
Part I: Developmental History 

National Park Service 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Breedlove, Carolyn, “Bermuda/Oakland 

Plantation, 1830- 1880.” Unpublished 

masters thesis. Northwestern State 

University of Louisiana. 1999. 

Brown, Sharon Sholars, ed., “Papers of the 

Fifth Grand Reunion of the Descendants 

of the Founders of Natchitoches” 

(Conference held July 1984, Northwestern 

State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana), 

Special Collection, Northwestern State 

University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. 

Carver, Marshall H. – Letter to Lester Hughes, 

n.d., quoted from American State Papers, 

Vol. II, p. 717, and from enclosure entitled 

“Land Claims Filed with the United States 

Government.” 

Cazayoux, Edward, AIA, “The Climatic 

Adaptation of French Colonial 

Architecture into the Louisiana Raised 

Cottage” 

(http://ecep1.usl.edu/ecep/drafting/a/appa.html. 16 Jan 2001). 

Census Records of the United States, Fourth 

through Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth through 

Fourteenth, 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860, 

1880, 1900, 1910, and 1920, Population 

Schedules, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, 

reviewed online at Ancestry.com. 2001. 

Cloutier, Arnold and Virginia. Interview with 

Deborah E. Harvey, 19 Oct 2001. 

Deblieux, Robert B. “Cane River Country, ‘La 

Cote Joyeuse’ and Kisatchie National 

Forest. An Auto Guide to the Historically 

and Architecturally Important Plantations 

of Creole Origins and a Guide to the vistas, 

Hiking Trails and Flora of the Forest of 

Natchitoches Parish. The Natchitoches 

Times, Natchitoches, 1993. 

DeBlieux, Robert B. “Natchitoches – A Guide to 

the Historically and Architecturally 

Important Buildings in the Historic District. 

The Natchitoches Times, Natchitoches, 

1989. 

Duggan, Vivan Prud’homme Flores. Interview 

with Deborah E. Harvey, 18 Oct 2001. 

Ford, Eric Z. National Park Service, Oakland 

Plantation, Natchitoches Parish, 

Louisiana. Conversation record of 

telephone conversation with Doris Brett 

Vincent, former resident of the Cottage. 

30 Aug 2001. 

Fortier, Alcee, ed., “Jacques Alphonse 

Prud’homme,” Louisiana, Comprising 

Sketches of Counties, Towns, Events, 

Institutions, and Persons Arranged in 

Cyclopedic Form, Southern Historical 

Association, Atlanta, 1909. 

Fricker, Jonathan. National Register of Historic 

Places – Oakland Plantation Addendum. 

National Register of Historic Places, 

Washington. 1989. 

Malone, Ann Patton, Ph.D. “Oakland 

Plantation, Its People’s Testimony.” Draft 

of oral history project. Unpublished. 1998. 

Miller, Christina E. and Susan E. Wood, 

Oakland Plantation – A Comprehensive 

Subsurface Investigation. Southeast 

Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 2000. 

Mills, Donna Rachal. Biographical and 

Historical Memoirs of Natchitoches Parish, 

Louisiana. Mills Historical Press, 

Tuscaloosa. 1985. Abstracted from 1890 

publication titled Biographical and 

Historical Memoirs of Northwest Louisiana 

Comprising a Large Fund of Biography of 

Actual Residents, and an Interesting 

Historical Sketch of Thirteen Counties.

Pace, Seneca, “Daily Record of Passing Events 

on Prud’homme Plantation, 1860,” 

Prud’homme Family Papers, Series 3.1.5, 

Plantation Journals and Records, 1788-

1997, Southern Historical Collection, 
Bibliography 

84 Oakland Cottage HSR 

Wilson Library, University of North 

Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

Prud’homme, Mrs. Lucile K., comp., 

“Prud’homme- Keator Family Bible.” 

Genealogical information entered by 

Lucile Keator Prud’homme on the 

Prud’homme and Lambre families. 

Prud’homme, Mrs. Lucile K., comp., “The 

Prud’homme Family” Genealogical 

information on the descendants of Jean 

Pierre Phillippe Prud’homme and his 

wife, Catherine Mesilier. Unpublished. 

Prud’homme, Mrs. James Alphonse (Lucile 

K.), and Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Williamson. 

National Register of Historic Places 

Inventory – Nomination Form. National 

Register of Historic Places, Washington, 

1978. 

Prud’homme, Pierre Lestan, diarist. Diaries of 

Lestan Prud’homme written 1850- 1852, 

Irma Sompayrac Willard Collection, 

Cammie G. Henry Research Center, 

Watson Memorial Library, Northwestern 

State University, Natchitoches Louisiana. 

Copy of original held at Howard- Tilton 

Memorial Library, Tulane University. 

Unpublished. 

Stallings, Evelyn Tudor, “Cane River Physician 

– the Practice and Letters of Dr. J.A. 

Leveque, 1832 – 1893”, unpublished paper 

submitted to the North Louisiana 

Historical Association Louisiana for 

consideration in the Graduate division 

1987 Overdyke Competition. 1987. 

Third Census of the United States, 1810, 

Population Schedules, Natchitoches Parish, 

Orleans Territory, reviewed online at 

Ancestry.com. 2001. 

Thomas, Tom A., “Historic Resource Study 

Oakland Plantation” draft report for the 

National Park Service. n.d. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Cane River Creole National 

Historical Park Draft General 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement, Denver, 2001. 

Vincent, Doris Brett. Telephone conversation 

with Deborah E. Harvey, 21 Oct 2001 and 

e- mails Jan 2002. 

Walmsley, plat of Natchitoches Parish, 1816. 

Wells, Carolyn, telephone conversation with 

Jack Pyburn, AIA, Oct 2001. 
National Park Service 85

PART II 

TREATMENT AND USE 
86 Oakland Cottage HSR 
National Park Service 87

TREATMENT AND USE 

The earliest portion of the Cottage is clearly 

one of the older structures on the plantation. 

The cottage’s evolution has paralleled the 

evolution of the management and operation of 

the plantation. The cottage is connected both 

to Prud’homme family history through the 

number of family members that occupied it 

over time and the larger Cane River 

community through its occupancy by doctors 

who served both the plantation and the 

surrounding community. In its present state 

and condition, the characteristics of the 

Cottage, the building materials, and the 

construction techniques, span the full life of 

the plantation from the traditional Creole 

cottage plan of bousillage wall construction to 

mid- twentieth century gypsum wallboard. 

The General Management Plan acknowledges 

the completeness of the setting, structures and 

artifacts of Oakland Plantation. The Cottage 

along with its support structures (chicken 

coop, barn, grist mill, and outhouse) are an 

integral part of the historical inventory of the 

site. 

The Cottage is a simple, vernacular building in 

its outward presentation but complex in its 

specific characteristics. The investigation of 

the structure conducted for this report 

identified 7 significant modifications to the 

house over its approximately 168 year history. 

The Cottage was originally constructed as a 

traditional Creole cottage (the southern 

portion of the existing house). The first 

modification was likely the enclosure of a 

portion of the rear gallery into two cabinets

with the use of bousillage walls typical of the 

original Creole cottage. At that time, or, if not, 

close to the time of the addition of the rear 

cabinets, a wall was introduced into the 

traditional Creole cottage floor plan to create a 

central hall. Later the southwest room was 

expanded to include the south cabinet. This 

expansion had a dramatic effect on the 

structure by changing the hip roof of the 

traditional cottage to a gable roof to 

accommodate the change in roof pitch 

required for the southwest expansion. The 

south end of the front gallery was enclosed in 

1870 for a doctor’s office with an entry into 

this new room from the outside via a door on 

the south side of the room. Some time after 

1834 and before 1870, a detached kitchen was 

added to the rear of the house. The last major 

expansion was a 23- foot addition to the north 

side of the house in 1880 to accommodate the 

new family created by Lucie Leveque’s 

marriage. Subsequent changes included the 

addition of a bathroom in the late 1920s, the 

demolition of the detached kitchen, the 

conversion of a back bedroom (Room 105) to 

an interior kitchen, and the 1957 renovation of 

the exterior of the house with an asphalt 

shingle roof and asbestos shingle siding and 

the interior of the house with gypsum 

wallboard. 

This section of the historic structure report is 

intended to show how a plan for treatment 

and use of the Cottage can be implemented 

with minimal adverse effect to the historic 

building while accommodating the proposed 

use of the building for park offices. The issues 

associated with the proposed use and the legal 

requirements and other mandates that 

circumscribe treatment options - 

preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration - 

will be addressed before describing the 

proposed ultimate treatment and the 

preservation of the structure with sufficient 

systems and utilities to support the assigned 

park office functions. 

Requirements for Use 

Accommodating the use of the building as a 

park office is the primary preservation issue 

for the Cottage. Given that the house is intact 

and, overall, in good condition, the primary 

issues associated with the proposed use is the 

introduction of systems to support this new 

use and occupancy. Generally, this includes 

power for office equipment, plumbing for 

restroom and break room functions, and 
88 Oakland Cottage HSR 

HVAC sufficient to support productivity in 

the house. Given the significance of the house 

to the plantation and community and the 

substantial historic characteristics embodied 

within it, the improvements to support park 

office functions should effected so as to be 

reversible. 

Character- Defining Spaces and 

Characteristics: There are a number of 

character- defining features that should be 

protected when accommodating the office 

function in the house. They include: 

On the exterior, the porches, columns, siding, 

windows, trim, stairs, and cisterns are 

significant. The roof is not significant since it 

was replaced after 1960. It should be replaced 

to match the 1957 roof and to provide 

adequate protection for the building for the 

foreseeable future. 

On the interior, the floor, wall, and ceiling 

finishes are significant, including the earlier 

layers of finish material such as board walls in 

much of the interior of the building behind the 

drywall. Mantles, hearths and space heaters 

are significant. Light fixtures are significant. 

Assignment of Office Functions to Historically 

Significant Spaces: Given the span of the period 

of significance, there is no room more 

significant than others in the building. 

However, there are rooms that more 

appropriately accommodate the functions 

proposed for the cottage. The plan presented 

below suggests an assignment of desired 

functions in the house that are most 

compatible with the historic characteristics of 

each room. 

The assignments presented are summarized as 

follows: 

Reception/Office (Room 102): The original 

larger room of the Creole cottage works well 

as the Reception/Office due to its relationship 

to the front door of the house, the natural 

primary entry to the structure. Support 

requirements for this room would include 

telephone, network computer connection, 

storage

restroom

storage

office

breakroom

library reception/

office

conference 

room

office

Recommended Assignment of Functions (Proposed Use) 
National Park Service 89

convenience power, heating and cooling, and 

lighting. 

Office (Room 103): To satisfy the private office 

requirement for the Park Office functions, 

Room 103, has a good relationship with, but 

can have privacy from, the reception area and 

has a convenient relationship with Room 104. 

Support requirements for this room would 

include telephone, network computer 

connection, convenience power, heating and 

cooling, and lighting. 

Conference Room (Room 104): The 

configuration of this room is suited for a 

conference room. It can be accessed from 

three directions: the adjacent private office, 

the rear porch, and the break room (Room 

105). It is assumed that this room would have a 

conference table, telephone, convenience 

wiring, heating and cooling, and lighting 

Break Room (Room 105): This room was at one 

time a kitchen. It has plumbing coming to it at 

this time. It is centrally located to the 

reception/office, the hall, and the conference 

room. Assuming this room would have a 

coffee bar with sink and small refrigerator, it 

could also have room for a small, freestanding 

table or an eating counter with stools. It would 

be helpful if, in the layout, a copy machine 

could fit in this room given its central location 

to the office functions in the building. 

Alternatively, the copier could go in Room 107 

off Room 106. It is expected this room (105) 

will require 220V service for a copier, if one is 

located in this room. 

Office Space (Room 106): This room is large 

enough to accommodate two or, perhaps, 

three desks. Being a multiple occupancy office 

space, access to Room 107 to get to a copier 

would be workable but more inconvenient 

than Room 105 as stated above. It is expected 

that this room would primarily have 

telephones, convenience power, computer 

network connection, heating and cooling, and 

lighting. 

Storage/Office Support (Room 107): This small 

space can handle office support functions, the 

water heater for the restroom, and limited 

general storage. 

Restroom (Room 108): It is strongly 

recommended that the bathroom be retained 

in its historic character and used as a unisex 

toilet for staff. It will be difficult to keep the 

toilet and sink functional while retaining the 

historic character of this room and also have 

the restroom be ADA accessible. Therefore, an 

alternative approach to accessible restrooms 

for handicapped staff and visitors must be 

considered if the preservation and use 

functions conflict with the ADA requirements. 

However, if the National Park Service 

determines that it absolutely must make the 

space ADA accessible, see the Ultimate 

Treatment section for recommendations. 

Library (Room 109): This room has been 

assigned as the library for several reasons. 

First, it is large enough to accommodate 

library functions and have room for a 

work/meeting table. As a public space, access 

to the restroom without passing through an 

assigned work area is preferable. Finally, 

interpretation can take place in this room that 

can present the bousillage walls on the north 

wall, the original fireplace, early, if not 

original, flooring and, potentially, floor 

framing and the doctor’s office. 

Reinforcement of the floor system will be 

required to carry the load of the library. 

Interpretation of Doctor’s Office (Room 110):

While the doctor’s office was originally a 

different configuration, having once had a 

door to the south that no longer exists, it 

remains that this room’s most notable function 

in the history of the house was as a doctor’s 

office. Being probably too small for any other 

meaningful use, it could function as a small 

interpretative space for the medical history of 

the plantation and Cane River area. 

Storage (Room 111): This room is small and can 

provide limited storage. 

While the existing spaces in the cottage can be 

configured in different ways, matching the use 

with the significant characteristics of the space 

is very important. Therefore, a clear 

understanding of both the visible characterdefining features and the significant historic 

features (i.e. the wood wall boards under the 

gypsum wall board, the bousillage, etc.) are 

protected while seeking to provide functional 
90 Oakland Cottage HSR 

space for park administration. Given the 

significance of this structure, it is very 

important to give priority to protecting and 

preserving the rich layers of history embodied 

in the Cottage. 

Requirements for Treatment 

As previously stated, the Cottage is complex 

and possesses a diverse range of historic 

features that collectively parallel the history of 

Oakland Plantation. To support the 

preservation treatment for this property, it will 

be important subordinate the installation of 

modern systems and conveniences to the 

preservation of historic integrity. It is possible 

to achieve both the use objectives and the 

treatment objectives if emphasis and care are 

given to the preservation objectives. 

Significant materials should be protected and 

preserved. Not only should the impact of 

installing modern system be considered, but 

the day- to- day wear of office functions and 

visitor traffic on the house should be 

considered in managing the resource. For 

example, undue wear on historic floors should 

be considered and measures taken to protect 

floors while maintaining as authentic an 

environment as possible. The attic is rich with 

history and historic building details and 

features. Therefore, HVAC and electrical 

systems should minimize the use and/or 

disruption of the conditions and 

characteristics there. 

Given that the period of significance ends c. 

1960, respect for the full scope of materials and 

treatments in the cottage must be provided. 

The gypsum wallboard deserves as much 

respect as bousillage for its importance to the 

history of the Cottage, the plantation and the 

larger Cane River National Historic Park. 

Historic preservation is the primary 

component of the National Park Service 

mission for the Cane River National Historical 

Park, particularly at Oakland, which the 

General Management Plan has established as 

the focus of the park’s interpretative efforts. 

The General Management Plan establishes 

that “the physical treatment of the plantation’s 

landscape, including structures, would 

generally reflect the appearance of the 

plantations when they were still family- run 

plantations reliant on a resident labor force.”184

 

This would result in few changes to the 

current configuration of plantation structures 

or general appearance of the landscape. The 

Cottage possesses a special array of 

characteristics that acknowledge many of the 

significant periods on the plantation. 

Legal mandates and policy directives 

circumscribe treatment of the Cottage. Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) mandates that federal agencies, 

including the NPS, take into account the 

effects of their actions on properties listed or 

eligible for listing in the National Register and 

give the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. NHPA regulations (36 CFR 800.10) 

mandate special requirement for protecting 

National Landmarks. Section 110(f) of the Act 

requires that the Agency Official, to the 

maximum extent possible, undertake such 

planning and actions as may be necessary to 

minimize harm to any National Historic 

Landmark that may directly and adversely 

affect by any undertaking. The NPS’ Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline (DO- 28) 

requires planning for the protection of cultural 

resources whether or not they relate to the 

specific authorizing legislation or interpretive 

programs of the parks in which they lie.” The 

Cottage should be understood in its own 

cultural context and managed in light of its 

own values so that it may be preserved, 

unimpaired, for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. To help guide compliance 

with these statues and regulations, the 

Secretary of the Interior has issued Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The 

National Park Service’s Preservation Briefs

also provide detailed guidelines for 

appropriate treatment of a variety of materials, 

features and conditions found in historic 

buildings. 

 

184 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Cane River Creole National Historical Park 

Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement, Denver, 2000, p. 42.
National Park Service 91

Alternatives for Treatment and Use 

There are four main approaches for the 

treatment of historic buildings: preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. 

Each represents increasingly more aggressive 

levels of intervention into the existing 

building. Given the significance of the Cottage 

as a whole, any invasive treatment or use will 

degrade the resource. 

The Cottage and all its components span the 

history of the Prud’homme family and the 

period of significance. The Cottage has been a 

part of the plantation and its life for nearly the 

entire period of significance. It is a significant 

structure in the history and physical 

composition of the plantation. 

The Cottage is, overall, in very good condition. 

Fortunately, the roof has remained sound until 

this time, keeping the house dry and buffered 

from accelerated deterioration often befalling 

a vacant structure. Further, the National Park 

Service has done a good job at keeping air 

circulating through the house with the use of 

louvered vents in existing windows. 

The proposed use for offices is a change from 

the structure’s original use. To accommodate 

the use proposed in the General Management 

Plan, some adaptations will be required. Given 

the significance of the structure as an artifact, 

the approaches to providing modern systems 

and features to support the modern office 

functions should first consider the protection 

of the artifact. Priority should be given to 

protection of the resource over the practice of 

hiding modern features and systems from view 

at the expense of more invasion into the 

structure. One example of an application of 

this approach would be to use a split system air 

conditioning unit with a wall- mounted air 

handler that would be quite visible in a room 

but that does not require ducting rather than 

to use a ducted- under- floor system or an 

attic- ducted system that would require the 

floor or the ceiling to be cut in numerous 

places to install registers. 

The only structure associated with the Cottage 

that has been lost and could be considered for 

reconstruction is the detached kitchen. 

However, the reconstruction of this structure 

would have to be based on information 

provided in conflicting oral histories. Further, 

the reconstruction of this building would 

conflict with the retention of the full spectrum 

of existing conditions, namely the 1957 

drywall, siding and roofing improvements to 

the house. Therefore, reconstruction of the 

detached kitchen is not recommended, but its 

presence should be noted in an interpretive 

scheme. 

The 1957 improvements to the existing Cottage 

were specifically considered for their 

relationship to the period of significance. The 

1957 improvements included the asbestos 

siding, drywall, composition shingle roofing, 

front porch repair and replacement of steps, 

and rear porch addition. At issue is the 

relevance of these improvements to the history 

and meaning of the mission statement for the 

plantation as stated in the General 

Management Plan. With these features 

removed and the previous finishes exposed, 

the house would reflect a character consistent 

with a different span of plantation history and 

function than its current presentation with the 

1957 improvements intact. Because the 1957 

improvements came within the last 3 years of 

the 167- year period of significance, their 

contribution to the character and meaning of 

the plantation may seem less important than 

the underlying features that they conceal, also 

representing the continuum of history on the 

plantation, and more specifically, the Cottage. 

This line of thinking does not diminish the 

importance of the materials used in the 1957 as 

potentially significant. It is rather more 

focused on the relationship of these 

improvements to the history and story to be 

told by the Cottage and the value and meaning 

that can be gained in telling that story. 

However, consistency is important in 

interpreting the plantation and its component 

structures. Given that materials similar to 

those used in the 1957 renovations of the 

cottage are used in other structures on the 

plantation at a similar time, it is important to 

provide a consistent presentation of the 

period. Once the decision is made to alter one 

building’s relationship to the period of 

significance, each should be evaluated in 
92 Oakland Cottage HSR 

relationship to that change. At that point, the 

approach becomes restoration rather than 

preservation. All things considered, the 

preservation approach provides the most 

consistent approach and protects the whole 

resource for future consideration, 

investigation, understanding, and 

interpretation alternatives and treatments. 

Ultimate Treatment and Use 

The recommended approach for the treatment 

of the Cottage is preservation. Given its good 

condition, preservation actions will be 

treatments to existing conditions to maintain 

existing significant characteristics. 

Preservation is defined as the act or process of 

applying measures necessary to sustain the 

existing form, integrity, and materials of a 

historic property. The emphasis should be on 

repairing and maintaining existing materials 

and features rather than replacement. This 

approach translates into the following actions: 

Preserve rather than replace the building’s 

existing features to the maximum extent 

possible. 

Replace the roof. New roofing to match the 

1957 vintage roof should be installed. 

Rehabilitate and expand the electrical system 

in the building to accommodate the 

anticipated equipment and office functions. 

Rehabilitate the bathroom, including 

refurbishing the toilet and sink to 

accommodate day to day staff use. 

Provide ADA accessibility to the house 

including a ramp and alternative restroom 

accommodation if the existing bathroom 

cannot meet ADA requirements within the 

recommended preservation treatment. 

Insertion of HVAC without the use of a 

ducted system. 

If multiple funding cycles for the preservation 

and use of the Cottage are required, the above 

overview of the improvements can be used to 

establish priorities in meeting the goals for 

treatment and use. However, beyond the 

preservation of the historic features and the 

installation of a new roof, making the building 

operational as an office will require the 

balance of the modifications. 

Individual and specific preservation decisions 

are key to the overall successful preservation 

of the Cottage. It is the effect of collective 

decisions that will determine the overall 

success of the treatment. Therefore, a 

conservative approach is recommended, in 

which existing materials are retained (patching 

rather than replacing). This is truly a concept 

where “less is more,” as the modernist say. The 

least amount of work and replacement 

required to achieve structural and material 

stability and function is the most desirable 

approach. The other components are the 

techniques, approaches, and materials used. 

They should be compatible with existing 

historic materials, reversible where at all 

possible, and have the least impact on the 

characteristics of existing materials. 

The following outlines specific actions by 

building feature or system: 

Site: The determination of historic 

significance and treatment of the Cottage site 

is a separate study. However, there are several 

items that should be taken into consideration 

in coordinating the site treatment and use with 

the preservation and use of the cottage. ADA 

accessibility is a factor. The approach to ADA 

is addressed separately. The cisterns on the 

site are significant and should be taken into 

account in the preservation and interpretation 

of the property, possibly including the one 

that was torn down after 1984. The location of 

visitor paths and interpretive signage should 

be coordinated with the functional 

requirements for use of the building for park 

offices. The site- related, office- use functional 

requirements, such as employee parking, 

employee access, and security lighting should 

be considered in relation to the preservation 

objectives. The wagon- track that cut across 

the front of the site in 1957 and wound around 

the house, finally ending at the barn,185 could 

be reinstated for park personnel vehicle 

access. It may be necessary to remove the 

existing garage, as it may not fall within the 

period of significance. However, the garage 

 

185 Vincent, 2002.
National Park Service 93

should not be removed until it has been 

definitively established that the current one 

did not exist before 1960. The garage was not 

included in the original scope of this report or 

of the Conditions Assessment Report, and, 

therefore, its history is cloudy. The picket 

fence and formal gardens of the 1938 

photograph should not be reinstalled, as they 

had vanished by 1960186. Also, little is known 

from the information available for this study 

regarding the condition, or even existence, of 

a septic tank for the Cottage bathroom and 

kitchen facilities. Park personnel indicated in 

2001 that the cistern under the bathroom had 

been used as a septic tank, and the plumbing 

under the house confirms this to be the case. 

A study should be conducted to determine if a 

septic field now exists, but a new septic field 

and drain lines would most likely be needed to 

handle the use of the existing bathroom. 

In summary: 

• Coordinate historic site treatmentand interpretation- related 

improvements with functional 

requirements of the cottage in a park 

office use, including the issue of ADA 

access. 

• Accommodate an adequate septic 

system to support the cottage 

occupancy. 

Foundation: The piers are, as a group, a 

feature of the building in the greatest degree of 

deterioration and change from the 1960 

period. Overall, the existing earlier brick piers 

are in poor condition. These piers should be 

rebuilt where necessary or otherwise stabilized 

with pointing or other lesser demanding 

actions where at all possible. Where the soil 

conditions have played a role in the 

deterioration of piers and they are to be 

replaced, a below- grade concrete footing 

should be provided under the new, 

reconstructed pier. A number of the brick 

piers have been removed and concrete 

pyramidal piers installed in 1998- 99 to 

stabilize the building. The concrete piers 

should be removed, and new brick piers 

dimensionally matching the earlier brick piers 

 

186 Ibid. 

should be installed on below- grade concrete 

footings. Care should be taken to make sure 

the appropriate archeological clearance and 

soil- bearing data is available prior to 

undertaking this action. 

In summary: 

• Replace concrete piers with brick 

piers appropriate to the structure in 

1960. 

• Repair or rebuild to historic 

dimension and layout, deteriorated 

brick piers. 

• Provide supplementary foundation 

support where necessary to stabilize 

the structure in its historically 

significant layout and character. 

Wood Structure: A detailed evaluation of the 

framing conditions was undertaken with the 

goal of retaining the original framing while 

meeting the design requirements for office 

use. An evaluation of the existing structure 

was conducted in relation to the proposed use 

to assure that office use would not overstress 

the original structure or cause undesirable 

deterioration or modification. 

Overall, the structural condition of the cottage 

is sound. However, in the structural 

evaluation, the structural engineer found that 

areas of the floor framing system were unable 

to support the desired load for office use. 

Table 1607.1, “Maximum Uniformly 

Distributed Live Loads and Minimum 

Concentrated Live Loads,” from the 

International Building Code 2000 (see the 

Conditions Assessment report for this Table) 

indicates that the minimum load for the 

occupancy of offices is 50 psf of uniform load. 

Note that the table indicates that file and 

computer rooms should be designed for 

heavier loads, based on anticipated 

occupancy. In the case of the Cottage, the 

library is also in this category. Rooms 101, 102, 

105, 108, and 109 support office loading in their 

current configuration. Rooms 103, 104, 106 

and 107, however, would require additional 

support to meet current load requirements for 

office space (see “Allowable Floor Loads” 

drawing in the Appendix). Rooms 110 and 111 
94 Oakland Cottage HSR 

might be exempted from requiring additional 

support depending on the weight of the 

equipment the National Park Service may 

choose to install in these rooms. 

Strengthening of the existing structure can be 

accomplished by decreasing the span of the 

floor joists by installing new girders and posts 

between the existing support girds. Note that 

this type of strengthening has already been 

installed at other locations under the house, 

and would, therefore, not be inconsistent with 

earlier, historic attempts to strengthen and 

level the structure. 

This method of strengthening the floor 

structure can be accomplished without 

affecting the interior of the house since all the 

work would be confined to the area beneath 

the floor, in the crawl space. Great care 

should be taken to not compromise the 

existing framing, especially in regard to the 

existing joists, by removal of existing framing. 

The framing should be supplemented only, 

not replaced. 

Of extreme importance is that the building 

wall, ceiling and roof framing should not be 

modified to accommodate the proposed park 

office use. This is a very significant part of the 

cottage. 

In summary: 

• Repair deteriorated, significantly 

deteriorated, or inappropriate, nonsignificant floor framing. 

• Protect the wall ceiling and roof 

framing from modifications to 

accommodate the proposed office use. 

• Arrange the use functions to minimize 

floor- framing supplementation to 

support office functions. 

Roofing: As previously stated, the composition 

roofing on the main portion of the house 

should be replaced to match the 1957 roofing 

material. Additional research is required to 

identify the composition and manufacturer of 

the roofing. The existing roofing is over a layer 

of plywood. It is unknown if an underlayment 

exists between the roofing and the plywood 

decking. An underlayment, such as building 

felt or a high temperature waterproofing 

underlayment should be provided in the 

reroofing. 

The metal roofing on the rear porch appears in 

sound condition. It should be properly 

flashed and secured. 

In summary: 

• Reroof the main portion of the cottage 

with composition shingles to match 

the 1957 roofing. 

• Assure existing metal roofing on the 

rear porch is securely attached and 

properly flashed. 

Porches 

Front Porch: There are no major requirements 

for the front porch other than making sure the 

porch railings are properly and soundly 

secured and the finishes appropriate in color 

and detail. There is an opportunity to interpret 

the earlier Creole cottage by exposing one of 

the earlier chamfered columns within the 

1880s boxed column on the south end of the 

front gallery. The exposure of the inside 

surface of the earlier column will reveal the 

column profile and the size and means of 

attachment for the original two rail porch 

railing. This interpretative station can be 

achieved with little or no distraction from the 

exterior appearance of the building from the 

yard or the visitor experience on the front 

porch. 

The porch steps are in need of repair. The 

steps on the north end of the front porch must 

be righted. It will likely be necessary to install a 

footing under the steps. This will necessitate 

rebuilding them. The same treatment may be 

required for the east steps to the front porch. 

Currently, only photographic evidence exists 

to provide a guide to the reconstruction of the 

steps on the north, and these photographs may 

not show details clearly. Otherwise, isolated 

repair to the masonry will be required. The 

steps will get more use than they have had in 

the entire history of the house when the 

Cottage is converted to office use. Therefore, 

the decisions related to the treatment of the 
National Park Service 95

steps, particularly related to providing a 

foundation for them, should be carefully 

considered. 

In summary: 

• Using maintenance practices 

consistent with original construction 

techniques, assure all porch flooring 

and railings are sound and properly 

attached. 

• Interpret one of the original porch 

columns on the south end of the 

porch by removing a portion of the 

enclosing column at a location not 

visible from the front of the building. 

• Repair steps, including the installation 

of a concrete footing if deemed 

appropriate. 

Rear Porch: Though within the period of 

significance, the rear porch was a late addition 

to the house. However, earlier materials from 

the front porch were used in the flooring. It 

appears in sound condition and needs only 

maintenance and the treatments required to 

coordinate with the provision of ADA access 

at the rear of the house. It may be necessary to 

obtain a variance from the ADA requirements 

to install the access at the rear, rather than the 

front of the house, but the maintenance of the 

presentation of the front of the house at the 

end of the period of significance should take 

priority. No documentation was found for this 

report indicating when the concrete steps to 

the rear porch were installed. 

Doris Brett Vincent described the earlier, 

wooden porch steps as being single, wide (11”) 

planks with no risers or handrails, but she was 

unclear about whether such steps were 

installed when the rear porch was built or 

concrete steps were installed instead.187 They 

should be replaced with a set of steps that 

were appropriate to the house in 1960, if, in 

fact, it can be determined that the concrete 

steps are more recent. The south stairs should 

be improved to a sound, stable condition. The 

addition of a handicapped- accessible ramp to 

the rear porch should be coordinated with the 

repair of the steps. 

 

187 Vincent, 2002. 

In summary: 

• Using maintenance practices 

consistent with original construction 

techniques, assure all porch flooring 

and railings are sound and properly 

attached. 

• Repair steps, including the installation 

of a concrete footing if deemed 

appropriate. 

Exterior Finishes 

Asbestos Siding: The asbestos siding is in sound 

condition. Replace broken slates. A gentle 

washing of the siding should remove dirt 

buildup and produce an acceptable level of 

appearance. Photographs indicate that the 

house was painted white in 1957; it should be 

repainted. 

Exposed wood siding: This condition exists 

under protection of the porch roofs. The 

primary requirement is to properly paint and 

maintain this feature. 

Trim: There is a limited amount of decorative 

millwork on the exterior. Any deteriorated 

millwork should be first repaired with a 

consolidating material, if feasible, or, at a 

maximum, where extensive deterioration 

exists, be replaced to match existing only in 

the areas of such deterioration. Painting 

sound and properly attached millwork should 

suffice in the treatment of this feature. Paint 

sample No. 21 indicates that the shutters of the 

house were painted dark green in the mid to 

late 20th century. All other trim was painted 

white. 

In summary: 

• Replace broken asbestos shingles and 

clean with a gentle detergent and 

water. 

• Maintain proper paint applications on 

the siding and trim consistent with an 

understanding of the appropriate type 

and color based on the paint analysis. 

Windows: The windows are, overall, in sound 

condition. Each frame and sash should be 

carefully examined to determine if any repair 
96 Oakland Cottage HSR 

and maintenance is required. Beyond remedial 

repair of existing conditions, routine 

maintenance and painting should substantially 

address the needs of the windows in the 

buildings. Cracked or broken glass should be 

replaced with glass matching existing. 

In summary: 

• Perform minor repairs as required. 

• Develop and implement an 

appropriate maintenance program for 

the windows. 

Doors: The doors in the structure are deemed 

to be significant within the period of 

significance. No extensive deterioration was 

identified in any of the doors. Only one door 

in the cottage was not painted, the rear hall 

door, D9. D9 is stained and should remain 

stained. Restoration of the stain may be 

appropriate. Therefore, cleaning and repair of 

hardware, and preparing and painting of the 

doors as deemed appropriate based on the 

paint analysis represent the majority of the 

work associated with this feature. 

In summary: 

• Clean and repair door hardware. 

• Prepare and paint doors, except D9, 

which should retain its stained finish. 

Floors: There are several floor treatments to 

be addressed in the improvement program. 

There are the older, worn floors in the south 

end of the house, the sheet vinyl floors in the 

hall and kitchen, and the newer and refinished 

floors in the north end of the house. The wood 

floors should be retained and protected from 

inappropriate wear associated with office use. 

Types of inappropriate wear include but are 

not limited to chair caster and slide wear, desk 

leg scaring, and file cabinet damage. 

Protection should be provided under all 

furniture. Clear runners and area protection 

can be provided in especially heavily- used 

areas. It is believed that the current finish of 

the wood floors reflects the finish at the end of 

the period of significance. This is the 

condition the preservation treatment will 

respect. Therefore, no significant refinishing 

or other treatment is anticipated other than 

protection of the existing finishes. 

The sheet vinyl should be repaired as 

necessary and its attachment secured where it 

has been pulled away. Otherwise, it should be 

retained and protected as necessary to 

minimize accelerated wear. 

If the construction crews are going to have 

access to the office on any regular basis after 

occupancy, areas where their access is greatest 

and routine should have heavier protection 

such as red resin paper with plywood on top. 

The grit and debris National Park Service and 

contract field personnel can bring into the 

house will cause significant damage to wood 

floors in a relatively short period of time. In 

addition, having walk- off protection for the 

general access to the house will be important. 

In summary: 

• Protect floor condition and finish 

throughout 

• Repair and secure sheet vinyl as 

necessary for safe function and 

appropriate wear. 

Walls: The walls are, overall, in very good 

condition. There are two primary wall 

conditions: gypsum wallboard and bead board 

paneling. Both are in sound condition. Both 

primarily require paint. There may be a limited 

amount of drywall tape and joint repair. There 

may be an opportunity to interpret the wall 

structure, possibly in the entrance hall or the 

library, by revealing the layers of construction 

sequentially back from the gypsum wallboard 

to the hand- hewn timber frame. This 

interpretation should be protected from the 

effects of the environment and visitors by the 

installation of glass or clear plastic covering. 

While this would obviously invade the 

structure, this opportunity to educate the 

public on construction methods over the life 

of the Cottage should be considered. 

In summary: 

• Perform limited joint and surface 

repair to wall surfaces 
National Park Service 97

Prepare and paint walls and associated trim 

based on the results and guidance of the paint 

analysis. 

Consider a means of interpreting the wall 

structure to the public. 

Ceilings: The ceilings, like the walls, are, 

overall, in very good condition. There are two 

primary ceiling conditions, gypsum wallboard 

and bead board paneling. Both are in sound 

condition. Both primarily require paint. There 

may be a limited amount of drywall tape and 

joint repair. 

In summary: 

• Perform limited joint and surface 

repair to ceiling surfaces. 

• Prepare and paint ceiling and 

associated trim based on the results 

and guidance of a detailed paint 

analysis.

Electrical: To allow the Cottage to be used for 

office space, it is recommended that the entire 

existing electrical system be replaced, 

including the main entrance panel, feeders, 

and branch circuits, with new electrical service 

in compliance with the National Electrical 

Code requirements. As much as possible, the 

existing electrical system should be 

abandoned in place, including panels, outlets, 

and lighting, where it will not compromise the 

safety of the National Park Service staff to do 

so. Any removed electrical components 

should be cataloged, and the item or typical 

samples stored in the park archives. 

Service Outlets: Where possible, the location 

and mounting characteristics of convenience 

outlets should be retained and reused to 

support office functions. Supplemental power 

outlets should be surface mounted as low to 

the floor as is practical to accommodate the 

use function, either attached to the base, 

drywall or beaded wall boards, The absolute 

minimum number of penetrations of the floor, 

preferably where the flooring is in the worst 

condition, should be created to provide 

electrical service to the rooms. Surfacemounted conduit and wiring is preferable to 

recessed installations. Some types of wire 

mould may be a suitable approach to both 

minimize impact and provide as finished and 

unobtrusive an installation as possible. In no 

case should wiring penetrate walls. 

Light Fixtures: Most of the light fixtures in the 

house are significant. They should be retained 

and restored to be sound and safe in their 

function. If they cannot be restored, they 

should be replaced with fixtures to match the 

original and the original fixtures should be 

archived. Additional lighting requirements to 

support office functions should be task- based 

rather than expanding the ceiling- or wallmounted fixed lighting in the house. 

Special Power Requirements: Special power 

requirements for fixtures and equipment like a 

copier, microwave, etc. should follow the 

guidance provided in the Service Outlets 

discussion above. 

In summary: 

• Install new service, wiring and outlets 

to support office functions, 

minimizing the invasion into the 

historic materials and features of the 

cottage. 

• Restore light fixtures in the building to 

provide ambient light for the rooms. 

• Use task lighting for balance of 

functional lighting requirements in the 

house. 

• Minimize impact on historic materials 

and fabric when installing special 

wiring requirements. 

Plumbing: There are three locations in the 

house where plumbing is required: the 

bathroom, the break room, and for a fire 

suppression system. 

Bathroom: The primary focus on the plumbing 

for the bathroom is to provide proper service. 

To make the bathroom ADA compliant, the 

tub must be removed and the sink and toilet 

must be replaced with fixtures meeting ADA 

requirements and current building codes. 

Handicapped access to the bathroom would 

then be possible through Room 109. However, 

maintaining an open passageway to this space 

would seriously diminish the available space 

for use in Room 109. If the fixtures are 
98 Oakland Cottage HSR 

removed, they should be stored until such 

time as it is determined whether or not the 

interior of the Cottage will be restored to its 

original appearance during the period of 

significance, or, if not to be restored, the 

fixtures should be archived. If the fixtures are 

not removed, the bathroom cannot be made 

ADA compliant. The recommendation is to 

provide handicapped bathroom facilities 

elsewhere and preserve the existing bathroom. 

If the decision is made not to make the 

bathroom ADA compliant, the sink and toilet 

should be refurbished and reused. It is 

preferred that the existing faucets and controls 

remain, if possible, though replacements may 

be required. If these features must be replaced, 

they should match existing. The tub should 

remain and be refurbished but be for 

interpretive purposes only. It will require only 

a dummy plumbing assembly through the 

existing openings in the floor. For the sink and 

toilet, new plumbing connections can reuse 

existing floor penetrations. All galvanized 

water piping should be abandoned in place 

where possible or removed where necessary 

and replaced with Type “L” copper pipe. The 

existing hose bibb at the south of the Cottage 

should be replaced with new copper pipe, 

properly supported. The hose bibb should be 

connected to a new sill cock with tee handle, 

and a shut- off valve provided on the supply 

line to the hose bibb. All above- grade piping 

should be insulated. Supply piping to the 

washing machine that was removed by the 

National Park Service should be removed to 

below grade and capped. A properly- vented 

drain system for the fixtures connected to the 

sanitary drain system below grade should be 

designed, and the sanitary drain should be 

connected to a new septic field. Existing gas 

pipe to the water heater should be abandoned 

in place where possible or removed where 

necessary and replaced with schedule 40 black 

steel, and a drip leg, shut- off valve and union 

should be provided at the connection of the 

pipe with the water heater. The existing gas 

lines to the gas- fired heaters in the former 

fireplaces and in the bathroom should be 

abandoned in place. The criterion for whether 

or not to remove piping or abandon it in place 

is whether the installation of new piping will 

require new penetrations into the structure if 

the existing piping is not removed. If new 

piping will not require new penetrations, the 

existing piping should not be removed. If it 

must be removed, only the amount necessary 

to allow the installation of the new piping 

should be removed, and the removed material 

should be cataloged and archived. 

Breakroom: The break room needs only a 

small, stainless- steel, drop- in counter sink in 

new casework. It should be located over the 

plumbing service left over from the old sink 

location, eliminating the need for more floor 

penetrations. Provide new water and sanitary 

service to the sink, taking extra care to ensure 

that water will not damage the existing historic 

materials. 

Sprinkler System: To provide appropriate fire 

protection to the house, a dry system 

consistent with similar systems used in other 

structures on the plantation should be 

installed. It is likely that such a dry fire 

protection system will require installation in 

the attic. As stated earlier, any work in the attic 

must be done with extreme care, as there are 

significant details, features, and assemblies 

there. A fire protection system will also require 

penetration of the ceiling boards and gypsum 

wallboard to get heads into the rooms. Again, 

the absolute minimum number of penetrations 

should be installed to achieve the objective. 

This improvement is a little different than the 

plumbing for the office use of the bathroom 

and break room because the sprinkler system 

will be useful for the long term use of the 

building, whether for office or interpretive 

functions. Therefore, a more permanent 

approach can be taken, though not at the 

expense of the historic fabric of the building. 

In summary: 

• Provide new plumbing service (hot 

and cold water and sanitary drain) to 

the bathroom, re- using existing 

openings in the floor. 

• Provide new plumbing service (hot 

and cold water and sanitary drain) to 

the break room 

• Install dry sprinkler system into the 

house for fire protection. 
National Park Service 99

Heating, Ventilation and Cooling: Heating 

and cooling to support office functions will be 

one of the single most significant intrusions 

into the historic environment of the house. 

 

Insulation: There is currently no insulation in 

the house. Both the attic and crawl space 

could be insulated with little or no impact 

beyond the risk of damage during installation, 

particularly in the attic. Further consideration 

could be given to the energy saving benefits of 

insulating the attic and under the floor. With 

the number of bousillage walls in the house, 

there are limited opportunities to physically 

accommodate wall insulation. However, wall 

insulation can cause more damage to the 

historic materials than it would provide in 

energy efficiency. Insulation of the walls is not 

recommended, and insulation of the attic and 

floors should proceed most cautiously, if at all, 

to avoid damage to the historic fabric. 

Heating and Cooling: Any remaining existing 

window air conditioners should be removed. 

All gas space heaters should be abandoned in 

place, as they represent a feature of the period 

of significance. A new HVAC system should 

be designed to satisfy load requirements for 

the space. The system selected should favor 

protection of historic features and materials 

rather than protection of the historic setting. 

For example, exposed AC units are favored 

over a remote, ducted system. Consideration 

should be given to a split system with a wallmounted air handler that requires two small 

penetrations per unit for routing condensate 

lines and refrigerant lines to a small, remote 

condenser. This type of system is capable of 

heating and cooling multiple adjacent rooms 

with the use of multiple air handlers accessing 

the same condensing unit. Depending on the 

size of the unit, it may be possible to conceal 

the condensing units under the house. 

Additionally, the system should be designed to 

meet ASHRAE Standard 62- 1989, with 

addendum, “Ventilation for Acceptable 

Indoor air Quality” for fresh air requirements. 

This standard requires that a minimum of 

20cfm per person of outside air be introduced 

to the inside to meet acceptable levels of fresh 

air ventilation. This may require a new air 

intake louver, which must be installed so as 

not to intrude unnecessarily on the 

appearance of the historic fabric. 

Bathroom Exhaust: A route for the exhaust of 

the restroom should take the line of least 

impact. Consider the floor as a potential route 

for exhaust. 

In summary: 

• Consider the design the benefits of 

insulating the attic and underside of 

the floor. Insulate the attic only with a 

very carefully devised plan to protect 

the historic features in the attic. 

• Design and install a new HVAC 

system that respects the historic fabric 

of the Cottage. Consider wallmounted split systems to condition 

the Cottage. Multiple smaller systems 

are a preferred approach over a single, 

larger, and ducted system. 

Handicapped Accessibility: There are four 

primary accessibility issues related to the use 

of the house for park offices. 

 

Ramp: The first is accessibility to the house 

from the exterior. The most appropriate 

location for ramp access, given the historic 

nature of the house, is at the rear gallery. 

Generally, a ramp running parallel with the 

porch would be the least intrusive. The 

location of a ramp in this location must be 

coordinated with the location and repair of 

the rear steps. Further, the materials and 

techniques for the ramp should be selected to 

be compatible with the house and the 

installation should be designed to be reversible 

(that is, removable with little negative impact). 

 

Thresholds: The thresholds in the house are 

close to 3⁄4” in height, well above the ADA 

requirement of 1⁄2” with beveled sides. Where 

the flooring is built up with plywood or a 

second level of flooring, as is the case in the 

hall (101), living room (102), and kitchen (105), 

the access should be satisfactory between 

these rooms. However, the threshold at the 

back door, the main point of accessibility with 

a rear ramp and between the other rooms will 
100 Oakland Cottage HSR 

require either a variance or modifications to 

the thresholds for accessibility. 

Restroom: Given the historic nature of the 

bathroom, and the character of the balance of 

the other rooms, an accessible restroom must 

be located outside the house to avoid both 

significant intrusions into the house and 

significant reduction of usable space in the 

house. This will likely require a preservation 

variance to the strict application of the 

provisions of ADA. Obtaining this variance is 

recommended rather than installing an ADAcompliant restroom inside the house at the 

expense of the historic materials. 

Door Sizes: Generally, the door sizes north of 

the hall are greater than the 2’- 8” clear width 

required by ADA. The width of the doors 

south of the hall in the house are mostly at, or 

less than, the 2’- 8” minimum width. This 

situation on the south side of the building can 

likely be resolved with a variance given the 

historic significance of the Cottage and the 

fact that many wheelchairs can clear openings 

of 2’- 8” in most cases. 

Hazardous Materials: In the course of the 

preservation and maintenance of the Cottage, 

the National Park Service should keep in mind 

the presence in the structure of hazardous 

materials, both those that have been detected 

and the possibility of those that have not. 

Hazardous materials would include the 

asbestos siding, possible lead in painted areas 

that have not been analyzed, and the presence 

of bird and rodent droppings, particularly in 

the attic. The asbestos siding on the house is 

not friable, and will not pose any hazard as 

long as it is not removed and is properly 

maintained and kept painted. Lead has been 

detected in some of the paint samples, in layers 

of paint beneath the current layer. The house, 

and especially the attic, should be thoroughly 

cleaned to remove animal debris. 

Interpretation: There is a significant 

opportunity to interpret components of the 

house while it is being used as an office. 

Features that can be interpreted include: 

• Bousillage walls, 

• The variety of framing techniques 

used in the house, 

• The original front gallery columns 

from the Creole cottage, 

• The evolution of the house, 

• The doctor’s office. 

The specific approach to the interpretation of 

these features should be integrated into the 

larger interpretative plan for the site and the 

expected use of the Cottage for National Park 

Service personnel office space. 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, 

the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands 

and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values 

of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through 

outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The department also has a major responsibility 

for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under 

U.S. administration. 

NPS D-81 January 2002

Cane River Creole National Historical Park

Oakland Plantation, The Cottage

Historic Structure Report