In Land of cypress and Pine: 

An Environmental History of the 

santee Experimental Forest, 

1683-1937

Hayden r. smith

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

southern 

research station

General Technical 

Report SRS–155
Cover

Limerick Plantation, 1916. Note: Live Oak drive in foreground. Photograph 

by W.B. Barrows, courtesy of the Forest History Society, Durham, NC; USFS 

negative number 26336A.

Author:

Hayden R. Smith, Ph.D. Candidate, The University 

of Georgia, Department of History, Athens, GA 30602.

May 2012

Southern Research Station

200 W. T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov
AbstrAct

The Santee Experimental Forest is a 6,100-acre research facility located 

within the Francis Marion National Forest, SC. Situated within the Huger 

Creek watershed in the headwaters of the East Branch of the Cooper 

River, the Santee Experimental Forest supports research in forest ecology, 

silviculture, prescribed fire, forest hydrology, ecosystem restoration, and 

wildlife management. Although the Santee Experimental Forest came into 

existence based on early 20th-century timber practices and the resulting 

needs for information on sustainable forestry practices, its boundaries 

have supported a wide array of human development for over 300 years. 

This paper provides an overarching history of land use on the Forest and 

regional perspectives. This environmental history also explains how 

Huger Creek ecosystems influenced people’s alteration the landscape. 

Livestock, naval stores, rice, cotton, and truck farming represent human 

production on the land from the colonial to postbellum eras. Logging and 

forest management replaced the earlier industries as political, social, and 

economic factors evolved at the turn of the 20th century. By documenting 

human development upon the land, a clear understanding of changing 

landscapes and ecological succession provides needed context for the 

Santee Experimental Forest’s scope and mission. This environmental 

history also provides the basis for considering the influences of past uses on 

the delivery of ecosystem goods and services in a restored forest landscape.

Keywords: Environmental history, forest history, forest succession, 

Limerick Plantation, rice culture, Windsor Plantation. 

Foreword

Rich in resources like swamps and freshwater tidal creeks, 

the southeastern coastal plain has always attracted human 

settlement, starting with Native Americans in prehistoric 

times. By the 18th and 19th centuries, a mosaic of uses 

marked the landscape. Settlers converted forested swamps 

to rice cultivation and used uplands for crops, naval store 

products, lumber, and grazing. In 1937, as agriculture 

waned and forest growth rebounded, the Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, established the Santee 

Experimental Forest to provide information needed to 

restore and manage these forested lands. Over the past 

75 years, research on pine and hardwood silviculture, 

prescribed fire, and wildlife management has been 

instrumental to developing approaches to ensure forest 

sustainability. Today, that legacy continues with the 

Santee Experimental Forest providing research essential to 

resolving some of the most pressing environmental issues 

facing today’s rapidly urbanizing southeastern Atlantic 

coastal plain. 

Missing from this research is an appreciation for historical 

context. Ecological perspectives derived from research 

on the Santee Experimental Forest are best understood if 

based on the long and complex history of agriculture and 

exploitive lumbering that dates back to the early 1700s. 

This legacy of agricultural use, which continued into the 

20th century, is still evident on more recently forested 

land; however, until the advent of new remote sensing 

data, the extent of this legacy wasn’t known. The area’s 

environmental history continues to affect ecological 

processes, albeit in ways we’re only now beginning to 

understand. Conversely, the dynamic and productive 

forests of today demonstrate an incredible resilience. These 

evolving conditions make the Santee Experimental Forest 

vital in its role as a reference forest landscape to the rapidly 

changing urban and suburban landscape of the south 

Atlantic coastal plain. 

This publication provides a significant introduction to 

the environmental history of the Santee Experimental 

Forest, and it will serve as a foundation for better 

understanding today’s coastal forested landscape. Over 

the last three centuries, the lands that make up the Santee 

Experimental Forest have gone from minimally disturbed 

forests to intensively worked lands to managed forests. 

Understanding the environmental implications associated 

with that history provides insights into the historical uses 

as well as the contemporary ecosystems of the forest 

today. In the 1800s, freshwater tidal creeks attracted the 

plantation development; today, these tidal creeks provide 

an opportunity to study how sea level rise may affect 

ecological processes. 

Environmental history is the basis for linking different 

stages of landscape development across the centuries. It 

also is a way to better understand that what we perceive as 

“natural” in the landscape is actually part of an ongoing 

evolution of how people interact with the natural world. 

And the better our understanding of that process, the more 

likely we are to manage our resources wisely.

Carl C. Trettin

Team Leader, Center for Forested Wetlands Research

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Southern Research Station

Cordesville, SC

In Land of cypress and Pine: An 

Environmental History of the santee 

Experimental Forest, 1683-1937

Hayden r. smith
2

Introduction 

In 1779, Alexander Hewatt published a narrative history 

of colonial South Carolina. In the sweeping overview of 

political, military, and economic developments shaping 

the colony, Hewatt devotes a chapter to the agricultural 

development of the Lowcountry cash crops, explaining that 

topography played an important foundation in the colony’s 

land use history.1 “Nature points out to [the planter] where 

to begin his labours,” Hewatt writes, “for the soil, however 

various, is everywhere easily distinguished, by the different 

kinds of trees which grow upon it.” The Santee Experimental 

Forest spans three centuries of Hewatt’s connection between 

people and the environment (Hewatt 1779).

1 The South Carolina lowcountry (or Lowcountry) is both a geographical 

and cultural region, defined in this paper as the Outer Coastal Plain and 

Coastal Zone. The South Carolina Lowcountry extends the length of the 

coast and inland approximately 50 miles. 

Located on the Huger Creek watershed, the landscape 

Hewatt describes directly contributed to the South Carolina 

Lowcountry’s distinctive agricultural history (fig. 1). Rice, 

cotton, and indigo were three cash crops that fueled South 

Carolina’s plantation enterprise. After the Civil War, timber 

became the region’s central commodity. 

The foundation of South Carolina’s Lowcountry 

agricultural history is the watershed’s topography. High 

land ridges and low-lying wetlands provided zones where 

the plantations of Huger Creek profited from successful 

agricultural endeavors, and where timber stands attracted 

logging industries in the 20th century. The history of the 

6,100-acre Santee Experimental Forest is also a story of 

how the natural landscape shaped people’s lives, because 

topography dictated settlement patterns and commercial 

pursuits. How the region’s residents—both free and 

enslaved—related with the environment contributed to a 

broader story of social and cultural identity in the South 

Carolina Lowcountry and the Southeastern Coastal Plain.

Figure 1—Location of the Santee Experimental Forest in the Francis Marion National Forest; located in Berkeley County, 

outside of Charleston, SC. (Data source: http://cybergis.uncc.edu/santee/searchf.php Web GIS portal of Santee Experimental 

Forest Land Resource Data. Prepared by Lee Moreland)
3

This report presents the history of land use on three centrally 

located plantations and three marginal plantations within 

what are now the Santee Experimental Forest boundaries. 

Colonial settlement in this area began in 1683. English and 

French Huguenot colonists established rural settlements 

in the upland pine stands, while slaves provided labor for 

the agricultural ventures of the colonists. The cultivation 

of crops took hold by the beginning of the 18th century, 

with slaves carving out miles of embankments and canals 

to successfully irrigate the crop. By the 19th century, rice 

farming influenced almost every aspect of life along South 

Carolina’s Coastal Plain, with the cash crop providing 

a foundation for the region’s economic success, social 

hierarchy, and unique cultural formation. 

Huger Creek residents faced new social and economic 

decisions in the post-emancipation era. Former slaves 

restructured their lives, encountering the joys and 

challenges of newfound freedom. African-American 

residents grappled with whether to continue pursuing a 

livelihood in rice farming or to embark on new economic 

and agricultural courses. Former plantation owners, on 

the other hand, struggled to keep up with rapidly changing 

markets. Huger Creek property owners initially maintained 

cotton and rice farming, but they eventually sold their 

plantations to timber companies. Timber harvesting 

changed the spatial landscape once again, as logging 

moved land use away from rice and cotton fields and 

into timber stands. This report documents 50 years of 

the timber industry’s impact on the region, and describes 

subsequent events that led to the Santee Experimental 

Forest’s creation in 1937.

cypress barony and Early Plantation 

Agriculture 

barony Development

The current political boundary of the Santee Experimental 

Forest overlaps the northeastern half of the colonial 

Cypress Barony. The barony was a 12,000-acre tract 

that the Lord Proprietors granted to Landgrave Thomas 

Colleton in August 1683. The Lord Proprietors—eight 

English nobility who served as the ruling landlords of 

the proprietary colony—gave these baronies as rewards 

to English and Barbadian gentry, who in turn managed 

the landed estates like old-world feudal estates. Thomas 

Colleton was the second son of Sir John Colleton, one of 

original Lord Proprietors of Carolina. The elder Colleton 

supported Charles I’s unsuccessful campaign to maintain 

the Crown during the English Civil War. The overthrow 

of Charles I in 1648 forced Colleton to flee England for 

Barbados, where he developed large and profitable sugar 

estates. Upon Charles II’s rise to power in 1660, Colleton 

was rewarded as one of eight proprietors to the newly 

established Carolina (Dunn 1972, Weir 1997).

Cypress Barony land use represented the agro-economic 

experimentation occurring upon these large tracts during 

the late 17th century. Planters experimented with a variety 

of enterprises that reflected economic demands of the 

time. Furs, cattle, naval stores, provisional crops, timber, 

rice, and indigo were all popular commodities during the 

colonial period. Thomas Colleton was an absentee owner 

living in Barbados, so he depended upon Elias Horry to 

manage Cypress Barony. Horry, a French Huguenot, owned 

Hampton Plantation on the Santee River but oversaw the 

enslaved laborers living on highland settlement later called 

Limerick Plantation. In comparison, Thomas’ brother, 

Governor James Colleton, grew rice, barley, wheat, peas, 

cotton, indigo, and Indian corn on his Wadboo Barony 

approximately 8 miles northwest of Cypress Barony. 

James’s overseer, John Stewart, most notably experimented 

with rice cultivation, along with cotton and silkworm 

production (Lees 1981). 

cattle ranching

Of the diverse agro-economic experimentation, cattle 

ranching became the most profitable enterprise in Cypress 

Barony at the turn of the 18th century. Ranching required 

relatively little labor and capital as colonists practiced 

free-range livestock throughout the undeveloped plantation 

landscape. Hogs and cattle foraged freely in the woods 

and savannahs throughout the summer while migrating 

down to the marshland canebrakes during the winter. 

Savannahs were open grassland and shrub breaks within 

larger longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or cypress-hardwood 

communities. To improve savannahs by removing 

encroaching plant species, Carolinians adopted the Native 

American custom of burning woodlands during the winter.2

Colonists sought to satisfy the demand in New England, 

Jamaica, and Barbados for salted beef and pork. By 1682, 

meat products were the most profitable exports in the 

colony. As herds increased in numbers, greater demand 

for slaves to tend to the cattle also increased. When Peter 

Colleton sold Cypress Barony in 1707, he advertised 

800 head of cattle and 15 slaves living on the property. 

Contrary to Colleton’s advertisement, cattle hunter Peter 

Herrington stated in a 1708 deposition that he could find 

“noe more cattle then the Number of four hundred & Sixty 

head both great & small & that there were never was more 

to his knowledge and during his time of Imployment on 

the sd. Barony then the Number of five hundred and fourty 

head of cattle brought in one year” (Lees 1981). 

By 1708, at least 1,000 of the 1,800 slaves in South 

Carolina tended to cattle. Roaming to forage for food, 

the cattle grazed throughout the tidal marshes, upland 

2 This practice was an example of human manipulation of naturally 

occurring forces that led to the evolution of fire resistant communities 

and the development of distinct ecosystems relying on fire. For more 

information on fire and culture, see Pyne (1997).
4

savannahs, and bottomland stream floodplains. Whereas 

the European settlers might have had little reason to 

venture into less desirable landscapes, slaves were 

forced to navigate through these landscapes to round up 

livestock, thus familiarizing themselves with the subtly 

changing ecosystems. A writer in 1708 observed of the 

“1000 good Negroes that knows the Swamps and Woods, 

most of them [are] Cattle-hunters.” Slaves served as the 

“middling” between plantations and wilderness, while 

planters attempted to define boundaries between the two 

spatial environments. Their everyday exposure to the 

environment, combined with individual knowledge of land 

use, enabled these enslaved people to creatively envision 

how to put the landscape to work for their own benefit. 

Whether actively herding animals for their enslavers 

or temporarily escaping into the wilderness for a brief 

reprieve, these early cattle-hands served as a conduit 

between the desirable and undesirable landscape (Edelson 

2006b, Otto 1987, Ver Steeg 1975, Weir 1997). 

Peter Colleton sold Cypress Barony to Barbadian 

merchants John Gough, Dominick Arthur, and Michael 

Mahon on July 18, 1707. The Lord Proprietors approved 

Colleton’s sale on April 14, 1709, as the fundamental 

constitutions of Carolina—the legal foundation of the 

proprietary colony—prevented Landgraves from selling 

property outside of bloodlines after 1701. Colleton divided 

the barony into three divisions, where Gough and Mahon 

purchased 3,500 acres apiece, and Arthur purchased 

5,000 acres. The Santee Experimental Forest would later 

exist on the Mahon and Arthur divisions (Smith 1911).

Colleton’s division of Cypress Barony created lasting 

political boundaries that would define plantation borders. 

Gough’s property would become Kensington, Hyde Park, 

and St. James Plantations. Mahon’s parcel became Limerick 

plantation. Arthur’s portion became Limerick, Nicholson, 

Windsor, Fishbrook, and Silk Hope Plantations. Upon 

receiving these proprietary land grants, Gough, Mahon, 

and Arthur immigrated to Carolina from Barbados. Mahon 

named his division “Lymerick” after his native Irish town 

but devoted only 4 years to Limerick’s plantation enterprise. 

By 1713, he sold 3,415 of the original 3,500 proprietary 

acres to Daniel Huger (II) and subsequently returned 

to Barbados. Judging from the £800 price, Mahon had 

not established a definitive economy from Limerick’s 

landscape. While Mahon acquired “planter” status by 

the land transaction, more than likely his agricultural 

endeavors consisted of agricultural experimentation, cattle 

ranching, and timber harvesting (Lees 1981, Smith 1911).

Naval stores

Naval stores provided additional revenue during the first 

three decades of the 18th century. Pinelands led colonists to 

extract tar and pitch, while the pine and mixed hardwood 

forests provided timber. Shipbuilders adhered pitch to 

caulk ship hulls, while turpentine served as a varnish and 

paint thinner. Tar provided a wood preservative, rigging 

protection, and deck coating. England imported tar and pitch 

from Baltic countries during the 17th century, but rising 

prices from the Stockholm Tar Company and diminishing 

supply during Sweden’s war with Russia (1699-1721) 

motivated the English Parliament to pass the bounty act of 

1705. The bounty encouraged colonial production tar and 

pitch, turpentine, rosin, hemp, and lumber (Weir 1997).

By the second decade of the 18th century, naval stores 

became the central commodity for South Carolina. In 1718, 

exports from South Carolina to Great Britain included 

27,660 barrels of tar and 18,414 barrels of pitch, plus 

additional imports to the West Indies of 5,677 barrels of tar 

and 4,187 barrels of pitch. However, parliament terminated 

the bounty in 1724, resulting in depressed prices. Sweden’s 

higher quality of tar and pitch lessened the demand of 

Carolina production, where global economic demand 

shifted to the Baltic methods after the 1724 bounty expired. 

By 1731, shipments dropped to 2,063 barrels of tar and 

10,754 barrels of pitch. Exports further declined by 1748, to 

5,521 barrels of pitch (Gray 1933).

The Southern forest’s prime longleaf ecosystem created 

a desirable landscape for naval store entrepreneurs. The 

longleaf pine has a high resin content compared to the 

New England white pine (Pinus strobus), so Southern 

colonists could extract higher yields. Colonists dotted the 

forest with tar kilns, stacking pine trees a story high and 

igniting the timber to burn out the tar. A pipe at the bottom 

of the kiln would funnel the tar away from the fire and 

collected in a barrel. They would dig shallow depressions 

and line them with clay, which would form a saucer to 

collect extracted tar. Colonists placed tar kilns in between 

navigable waterways and bountiful pine stands. A barrel of 

tar consisted of 31.5 gallons and eight barrels could weigh 

up to a ton, so waterways were ideal for shipping this heavy 

commodity. Tar kilns located on the northwest corner 

of Limerick plantation provide an example of the spatial 

boundaries between forest and river. The 18th-century site 

existed on the sandy highlands adjacent to Little Hell Hole 

Swamp and the public road. From this location, enslaved 

laborers transported barrels to Limerick Plantation’s 

landing, shipped by boat down the East Branch of the 

Cooper River to Charles Town (Hart 1986, Weir 1997).

African Diaspora and Inland rice 

cultivation 

Inland rice cultivation resulted in the first significant 

plantation development in colonial South Carolina. 

Productive inland rice cultivation led to massive rural 

development and increasing demand for backcountry 

infrastructure. The successful rice economy also led to 

increasing demand for labor that fueled the trans-Atlantic 
5

slave trade and African diaspora in South Carolina. Inland 

rice plantations, in turn, provided an economic foundation in 

the Lowcountry. Charles Town became the central trading 

destination and South Carolina became a model mercantilist 

colony. The accumulation of capital helped induce the 

colony’s economic expansion, which was seen in society, 

religion, and government. Inland plantations became a 

landscape where people, influenced by the dramatic cultural, 

political, and economic currents occurring throughout 

the Atlantic world, constructed distinctive identities 

that still exist today. European, African, Caribbean, and 

Native American customs played out in plantation labor, 

architecture, food ways, language, and religion. Finally, 

inland rice culture led to the development of the task system. 

This method of controlling enslaved people allowed planters 

or overseers to enforce work in the fields until specific 

assignments, or tasks, were finished on a daily basis. This 

system was unique to Lowcountry rice plantations, and it 

provided slaves some freedom to tend to subsistence needs, 

yet gave planters less responsibility to maintain basic care 

for their laborers (Morgan 1998).

Providence rice culture

Limerick, Windsor, and Fishbrook’s plantation economy 

and social formation took a dramatic shift with the 

introduction of rice cultivation in the early 18th century. 

Early Carolinians originally grew rice in a “providence” 

style on savannahs and small-stream floodplains. This 

method resembled typical English farming practices of 

tilling the soil and broadcasting seeds, where the crop 

then depended on the dampness of the soil from rainwater 

or freshets. Freshets occurred when storms or hurricanes 

provided more rain than the soil could absorb and streams 

could channel, causing “rapid torrents” that were “sudden 

and violent” as they flowed downhill (Catesby 1977). 

Colonists, however, experienced difficulties cultivating rice 

in the providence style. Planters could not plow the land as 

they would in England because stumps and roots hindered 

initial tilling. Also, early rice planters encountered 

competition with unwanted vegetation suffocating the crop 

from sunlight and nutrients. Without methods to eradicate 

weeds, through flooding and weeding, the providence 

practice became, to some, “more drudgery and charge than 

it was all worth” (Stewart 1931).

Colonists originally saw swamps and low-lying areas as 

“wastelands.” Early colonialists saw wooded wetlands as 

evil or “dismal” because the dense, impenetrable landscape 

challenged their norms of orderliness and presented 

an incomprehensible, chaotic landscape. Also, malaria 

and other diseases carried by the Anopheles mosquito 

took their toll on people living near wetlands during the 

summer months. The flat and narrow watercourses—in 

Fox Gully, a tributary of Turkey Creek—were located 

above tidal influenced rivers and received water runoff 

from higher elevations to form creeks and streams flowing 

into the Cooper River and surrounding tributaries. The 

small-stream floodplains were “dominated by swamp 

trees with a herbaceous ground cover or cane-breaks.” 

Soil permeability dictated the dominant tree species of 

black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet gum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua), live oak (Quercus virginiana), red maple (Acer 

rubrum), and longleaf pine (P. palustris) (Porcher, in press).

Although colonists first experimented with growing rice 

on open upland fields in the late 17th century, the grain 

also represented a component of the Afro-Caribbean 

culture transferred from Barbados to South Carolina. Rice 

was a central part of West African culture before colonial 

contact. As the slave trade connected West African ports to 

Barbados, slaves simultaneously transferred their cultural 

identity to the New World. Once slaves came to the New 

World to work on South Carolina plantations, they brought 

their cultural, social, and economic practices relating to 

the production and consumption of food. Cereals (such as 

rice, millet, and sorghum), yams, black-eyed peas, sesame 

(benne), muskmelons, okra, and Guinea squash were 

subsistence crops transferred from Africa to Carolina. 

Slave-ship captains relied on these African staples to keep 

their enslaved cargo alive during the Middle Passage.3

 Just 

as Africans formed a diaspora throughout the Lowcountry 

topography, so did the “shadow world of cultivation” that 

represented African subsistence diets. Rice was just one 

of many staples transferred through the Middle Passage 

that appeared in the gardens of African slaves (Carney and 

Rosomoff 2009).

The close connection of African slaves to Lowcountry 

wetlands and small-stream floodplains provided access 

for subsistence agriculture. The proximity of plantation 

settlement highlands and low-lying wetlands enabled 

17th-century slaves to construct nearby rice fields “on the 

plantation periphery” (Carney and Rosomoff 2009, Price 

1991). Early plantation settlement patterns consisted of 

the plantation owner and enslaved houses close together 

on highland knolls or ridgelines. The Lowcountry 

topography’s highland swells—caused by Pleistocene 

deposits and resulting erosion—created a landscape of 

high land surrounded by bays, streams, creeks, and rivers. 

For select West Africans transplanted in this New World 

environment, nearby wetlands provided similar spatial 

zones for growing rice. Relying on cultural memory, these 

enslaved cultivators constructed embankments where 

they could grow patches of rice in similar fashion to their 

homeland. Working away from the plantation settlements, 

slaves also noted potential sites when cutting cypress or 

herding cattle in swamps. As Peter Wood (1974) notes, 

3 The Middle Passage is defined as the middle leg of a three-part voyage 

trading cargo between Europe, Africa, and the New World. The second, 

or middle, leg of this trade route began with European traders exchanging 

iron, cloth, alcohol, firearms, and gunpowder in return for slaves. Ships 

departed central West African ports for the Americas, where the surviving 

slaves were exchanged for sugar, rice, tobacco, and other commodities.
6

these “black pioneers” were a mobile population that 

negotiated through a landscape often avoided by EuropeanAmericans. As part of the “numerous aspects of their 

varied African experience” in the Lowcountry, rice became 

one of many subsistence crops slaves grew upon the 

unwanted land (Edelson 2006a).

The appearance of rice in the subsistence fields of African 

slaves coincided with the age of experimentation by 

colonists, with prospective planters seeking out plants that 

would take root in the fertile soil for both subsistence and 

profit. By the late 17th century, English colonists were 

questioning how best to incorporate rice into their diet 

while also cultivating rice as an exportable crop. John 

Stewart (1931), for example, recommended substituting rice 

for barley to make beer and ale. South Carolinian colonists 

incorporated rice into their staple diet, first by subsidizing 

ground rice flour for wheat and corn to simulate England’s 

“fine wheaten bread” unavailable in the New World. The 

grain also provided additional “fodder” for poultry and 

livestock. The versatility of rice as a food for both Africans 

and Europeans distinguished it from other plants grown for 

consumption and profit (Edelson 2006a).

reservoir rice cultivation

Once European colonists recognized the importance of 

impounded water to simultaneously irrigate the rice crop and 

eradicate competing vegetation, a dramatic shift in landscape 

perceptions and activity occurred from the upland and 

savannah ecosystems down to the cypress-hardwood stream 

systems (fig. 2). Colonists looked beyond the “wasteland” 

to see unlimited potential in transforming the low-lying 

small-stream floodplains into orderly agricultural zones. The 

flow of water through wetlands fed the dense vegetation that 

added to the apparent “inexhaustible fertility” of the South 

Carolina Lowcountry (Anonymous 1845). Colonial naturalist 

Mark Catesby (1977) noted that inland swamps similar to the 

Huger Creek watershed were “impregnated by the washings 

from the higher lands, in a series of years are become vastly 

rich, and deep of soyl [sic] consisting of a sandy loam of 

a dark brown colour.” One rice planter described inland 

swamps having a “better foundation and soil than any other 

lands” and “by nature more durable” for cultivation because 

of rainfall running down-stream “fine supplies of decayed 

vegetable, which are deposited while the waters are passing 

over said lands” (Anonymous 1828).

Soil that provided a foundation for these plantations varied 

in material, from sandy soils in higher well-drained pinebarrens down to less permeable loam and clay in low-lying 

wetlands. Although inland fields were localized in distinct 

watersheds, the microenvironments used for inland rice 

cultivation contained the same soil features. Meggett loam 

was the soil series often associated with inland rice zones. 

The Meggett series had a mixture, or a loam, of sand, clay, 

silt, and organic matter (Latimber 1916, Long 1980).

The slow water permeability and high water-holding 

capacity of Meggett loam were two characteristics that 

benefited inland rice cultivation. Slow water permeability 

means that the soil content prevents water from efficiently 

Figure 2—Inland rice fields, developed in the floodplain 

swamp, used a reservoir and an irrigation system to regulate 

water supply. This example is exemplified by fields illustrated 

from a 1790 Windsor Plantation plat (detail). [Plat of Windsor 

Plantation (detail) courtesy of the Charleston County Register 

Mesne Conveyance, Charleston, SC; Book: D6, page: 199. 

Schematic of the inland rice fields drawn by Lillian Trettin.]
7

draining through the ground. This feature allowed rice 

cultivators to effectively retain water in the reservoirs 

and the fields. Because of their low water permeability, 

soil from these zones was also used to construct the 

embankments. By reinforcing the retaining walls with 

clay, slaves created a basin to hold water within the natural 

terrain. South Carolina Governor James Glen (1761) wrote 

that “the best land for rice is a wet, deep, miry soil; such 

as is generally to be found in Cypress Swamps; or a black 

greasy Mould with a Clay Foundation; but the very best 

lands may be meliorated by laying them under water at 

proper Seasons.” However, the compacted soil that created 

desirable conditions for retaining water also provided 

hardship for enslaved laborers shaping the landscape.

The ability to draw a steady amount of water was the 

second characteristic that planters needed to successfully 

cultivate inland rice. The Huger Creek topography provided 

planters and slaves consistent access to water for rice field 

irrigation. Unlike tidal rice cultivation, where planters and 

slaves harnessed the “estuary hydraulics” of the river’s ebb 

and flow, inland planters relied on precipitation and water 

simply flowing from higher elevations down to the fields 

(Stewart 1996). These cultivators had to contain the natural 

resource from reliable surface and ground water sources—

represented in drainage basins, swamps, bays, and springs. 

Watersheds composed of Meggett loam were relatively 

level, so water flow through these zones was a slow-moving 

current. Water flowing through these inland watersheds 

posed erosion problems only in extreme situations of flash 

floods, called freshets.

Colonial planters used enslaved West African labor to 

utilize water sources with the available land. The basic 

inland rice field consisted of two earthen dams enclosing 

a low-lying area bordered by ridges. Slaves built up the 

embankments with available fill from adjoining drainage 

trenches. The dam on higher elevation contained stream 

or spring fed water to form a reservoir, or a “reserve,” that 

would provide a water supply to the lower rice fields. Once 

cultivators released water from the reservoir, a second dam 

retained this resource to irrigate rice plants and kill off 

competing vegetation. Located between these two earthen 

structures was a series of smaller embankments and 

ditches to channel and drain water effectively during the 

cultivation process (Hilliard 1975).

Water control for inland rice cultivation required not only 

precise construction of earthen embankments but also 

an understanding of the topography. Inland cultivators 

had to choose where reservoirs and fields would exist in 

relation to watercourses and terrain. To retain water in the 

reservoir and rice fields, the soil required a substantial clay 

foundation to prevent impounded water from seeping out. 

The subtle elevation change, in some cases just 3 or 4 feet 

from sandy highlands to alluvial swamps, allowed different 

types of vegetation to take root, depending upon the ground 

permeability. This provided cultivators some insight into 

soil composition. For example, longleaf pine and oak 

communities grew in well drained sandy soil while cypress 

and tupelo gum communities grew in less permeable 

soil. To aspiring rice cultivators, who did not have access 

to the insights of soil science until the mid-19th century, 

the distribution of trees and other plants directed them 

toward appropriate inland sites.4

 The importance of water 

management explains why inland rice cultivators required 

“careful observance of topography and water flow” to 

properly retain and release water (Carney 1996).

Dense hardwoods, such as bald cypress (Taxodium 

distichum), tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica), and sweet gum 

(L. styraciflua) were removed with axes and saws. Clearing 

the dense forests took an unimaginable amount of labor, 

and meant slashing and burning trees. Slaves cleared 

the colonial rice fields, first by burning underbrush, then 

by hoeing the weed roots to prevent recurring growth 

of competing vegetation. Field hands spent January and 

February, “down” months in the agricultural cycle, to burn 

existing rice fields or clear new acreage. Once vegetation 

was removed in South Carolina inland tracts, slaves had 

to level potential fields to prepare for rice planting and 

water drainage. After fields were developed to drain 

standing water, slaves constructed precise quarter ditches 

that removed floodwaters more effectively. Geometrically 

shaped fields eventually replaced the fluid landscape, 

redefining the nonhuman landforms of streams, banks, and 

knolls (Carney 2001, Clifton 1978, Littlefield 1981).

Rice cultivators used gates, or “trunks,” to control 

waterflow from reservoirs onto the rice fields. Originally 

made from hollowed out trees, trunks were traditional 

African devices to regulate waterflow through a conduit 

by plugging the end of Brassus palms. Slaves substituted 

cypress for this device. Field engineers placed trunks in 

sloughs, or stream channels, so water ran efficiently out 

of the holding pond from the embankment’s lowest point. 

Sloughs were an important natural feature for draining 

the wetlands, for they served as a “gutter” or a depression 

in the subtle elevation change. After these floodwaters 

nourished the soil and rice crop, and killed competing 

weeds, slaves drained the fields through trunks located at 

the second embankment. The water released from these 

fields flowed downhill toward nearby tidal rivers (Carney 

2001, Doar 1936, Littlefield 1981).

Development of Limerick, Windsor, and Fishbrook during 

the first half of the 18th century represents the gradual 

transformation of these plantations into active inland 

rice environments and plantation settlements. From the 

first introduction of reservoir-irrigated rice to 1740, these 

4 Joyce Chaplin (1993) notes that, although soil sciences did not evolve 

until the mid-1800s, people developed a basic understanding of which 

soils were fertile and which soil did not allow proper drainage.
8

plantations developed basic inland rice cultivation systems. 

Daniel Huger (II) devoted 89 percent of Limerick’s 

plantation capital to rice and livestock by his death in 

1754. By 1724, Christopher Arthur devoted 24 slaves in 

maintaining 250 acres “which are now improved and 

cultivated” at the confluence of Nicholson and Turkey 

Creeks. In his will, Arthur does not specifically address 

rice cultivation, but he emphasizes that his heirs Patrick 

Roche and Bartholomew Arthur cultivate 150 and 

100 acres, respectively, to “make fit to produce such Corn 

and Grain and other commodity as that country affords.” 

Each heir received 12 people from Christopher Arthur’s 

enslaved labor force, so a reduced enslaved population of 

could maintain limited acreage (Lees 1981).

Patrick Roche of Windsor Plantation ordered his enslaved 

laborers to sculpt fields out of the Nicholson Creek cypress 

bottomlands by 1725. Fishbrook Field, named after the 

neighboring plantation on Turkey Creek, was the result 

of cutting trees, removing cypress stumps, and shaping 

45 acres of land. Nicholson Creek’s meandering channel 

passed the Fishbrook Field’s western border, separated 

by an earthen embankment. The Roches then diverted 

the creek away from the middle of the floodplain by 

embanking a 55-acre division and channeling water into 

a flanking canal. Unlike Fishbrook Field, the second 

field division impeded the natural watercourse with an 

earthen dam and then redirected the creek around the 

western perimeter. A variation of this system consisted of 

two canals flanking the fields on each side. Duel canals 

increased efficiency of moving water around fields during 

freshets and also provided additional flexibility in flooding 

and draining individual divisions. Slightly higher elevation 

enabled planters to cultivate corn, peas, and indigo as 

additional provisional and economic crops (Anonymous 

1784, Windsor Plantation [Plat]. 1790).

The second half of the 18th century represented an increase 

of the inland rice infrastructure. After a 21-year depression 

stemming from King George’s War (1739-1748), the Stono 

Rebellion (1739), and yellow fever (1739, 1745, 1748, 1758) 

and smallpox (1738, 1758, 1760) epidemics, the South 

Carolina rice market again began an upward economic and 

manufacturing cycle in 1760. A combination of internal and 

international factors advanced rice prices in the second half 

of the 18th century, spurring an increase in Lowcountry 

rice production. Shipping increased between Europe and 

North America after the end of King George’s War in 1748. 

European demand for rice grew dramatically after a series 

of poor grain harvests in late 1760s, motivating the British 

Inland rice field embankment in the Fox Gully floodplain. (Photo by Carl Trettin)
9

Parliament to remove tariffs and import more of the South 

Carolina cash crop. These environmental hardships suffered 

by European grain producers, and changing trade practices, 

led to a 50 percent increase in imports of Carolina rice 

between 1760 and 1775 (Hardy 2001, Nash 1992).

Robert Quash’s acquisition of Fishbrook signifies the 

demand for inland swamps. Bartholomew Arthur sold 

his 1,880 acres to Quash and Robert Brown in 1735. 

Between 1735 and 1757, Quash methodically purchased 

three divisions to unify the original Arthur tract, plus he 

purchased an additional 154 wetland acres from Gabriel 

Manigault of Silk Hope. In this 32-year period, the property 

value increased from £5,000 to £5,756, reflecting the rising 

demand for spatial zones of rice cultivation (Quash 1763).

As rice planters learned more about water control, they 

become more motivated to increase their rice acreage. 

Their new understanding led to new methods of drawing 

water onto and off of the rice fields. Windsor Plantation 

demonstrates how flanking canals—waterways that 

bordered the rice fields—took shape. Windsor’s fields 

fit within the tight boundary of the Nicholson Creek 

floodplain. The elevation difference between pineland 

communities and the cypress hardwood forest varied 

between 30 and 40 feet within 1,000 feet, as the geological 

“unconformities” of the Bethera Scarp allowed Nicholson 

Creek to gorge out steeper “landscape gradients” compared 

to the Penholoway and Queen Anne Terraces (Colquhoun 

1969). The watershed has a dramatic elevation change 

compared to the 5- to 10-foot elevation decline in the 

same 1,000-foot increment along the Cooper River tidal 

floodplains. Through the 18th century, the Roche family 

optimistically surveyed four divisions within the confines 

of the scarp to the northwest and the Talbot plain highlands 

to the southeast. Yet Ebenezer Roche had only one division 

of 45 acres developed for rice cultivation, with 24 “mostly 

country born” people under his control by 1783. The 

Roches relied on the predominant knoll forming Nicholson 

Creek’s southern boundary to contain the inland rice fields. 

Forming a crescent shape around a 40-foot bluff, Nicholson 

Creek connected with Turkey Creek to form Huger Creek 

and serve as the headwaters of the Eastern Branch of the 

Cooper River. This bluff served as an optimal site for 

the Windsor house, slave settlement, and outbuildings 

(Anonymous 1784, Irving 1840-1852).

The American Revolution served as a major division point 

for cultural, economic, and political events in the Carolina 

Lowcountry. While only isolated skirmishes took place 

throughout the Cooper River watershed, the outcome 

would have lasting effects on all inhabitants. Much of the 

plantation infrastructure was left to ruin, with 7 years of 

warfare leaving untended rice fields destroyed or overgrown. 

Freshets eroded reservoir dams and field embankments, 

while volunteer, or wild, rice overtook uncultivated plots. 

Enslaved African-Americans also saw opportunity to 

leave plantations, leaving a limited labor force to continue 

cultivating rice. However, agricultural change rippled 

through the early republic period. Lowcountry planters 

sought more capital to reinvest in their neglected plantations. 

As a result of new opportunities, many planters replaced 

inland for tidal rice and indigo for cotton (Chaplin 1993, 

Morgan 1998).

rice and cotton in the Antebellum 

Landscape

tidal rice cultivation

The antebellum period saw the dominance of a second 

type of rice plantation. Tidal cultivation, although closer to 

inland fields, relied on different topographic and hydrologic 

settings. Tidal cultivation used hydrology governed by 

the tidal cycle of the ocean, with a falling tide, or ebb, and 

a rising tide, or flow, to capture the energy of freshwater 

rivers for irrigating or draining the rice fields (fig. 3). 

Permanent embankments and surrounding interior ditches 

kept high water out of fields and floodwater in, and allowed 

proper draining of fields. Like inland fields, rice trunks 

controlled water flowing in and out of the embankments, 

yet these wooden devices were modified to allow a 

multidirectional flow of water. To achieve this, planters 

designed gates to cover both ends of the trunk. When 

fields needed flooding, slaves would open the exterior gate 

closest to the river, while the interior gate pivoted on a 

hinge for water to flow naturally into fields from the force 

of the tide. Once the tide changed direction, slaves closed 

both gates to prevent impounded water from leaving the 

fields. After the desired time elapsed for irrigating the 

fields, slaves raised the interior gate to allow water to flow 

out of the pivoted exterior gate, preventing resurgent tidal 

waters from flowing into the fields. Tidal rice fields were 

subdivided into smaller plots to efficiently control 

waterflow. By building levies on a grid system, planters 

could direct waterflow more precisely. These embankments 

were called quarter divisions because they were originally 

a quarter of an acre. Planters connected these divisions to 

a network of canals, ditches, and drains to properly irrigate 

the crop (Hilliard 1975, Stewart 1991).

Although tidal rice cultivation was used in the Colonial 

period, the irrigation practice rapidly expanded after the 

Revolution. Planters had to reinvest capital to repair their 

rice fields after the war, so many chose to focus on the new 

tidal technology. Because of the dramatic shift from inland 

to tidal cultivation, there was an agricultural movement 

from inland swamps to freshwater marshes (fig. 4). This 

location adjacent to tidal rivers provided more effective 

transportation and incorporation of tidal powered threshing 

mills and processing capabilities with higher output. By 

1795, Elias Ball, Jr., commissioned Jonathan Lucas to design 

a water-powered mill that would grind the husks off rice. 
10

The mill sat along a canal leading from Limerick’s inland 

fields to Kensington Creek, ultimately feeding into the East 

Branch of the Cooper River. Limerick was also the only 

plantation within the Santee Experimental Forest to actively 

produce tidal irrigated rice. Ball’s enslaved laborers planted 

125 acres of rice in 1790, yet had cleared, diked, and drained 

335 acres for cultivation by 1797 (Lees 1981).

With the rise of tidal rice cultivation, planters reaped more 

wealth compared to their inland predecessors. They also 

produced a new variety of rice, called “Carolina Gold” 

because of the gold sheath, not the grain, which reflected a 

higher quality or premium rice. It appeared on the market in 

the late 18th century, just as tidal cultivation was taking hold 

in the Lowcountry. An advantage of this variety was its high 

yields and easily milled hull, which made it more efficient 

to process and market, compared to earlier inland white 

grain. Rice output exploded in 1800, for example, with 

28,500 tons of rice was exported from rice producing States, 

principally South Carolina and Georgia. By 1815, 41,350 

tons were exported, and in 1828 exports rose to 51,500 tons. 

Eventually, the national exports peaked in 1835, with 

64,000 tons. Carolina Gold’s higher grain quality resulted 

in a greater demand from rice factors, promoting a higher 

price on the international exchange market after the 

Revolution and establishing this cash crop as a central 

commodity on the international market (Gray 1933).

Limerick’s rice output reflected the changing antebellum 

cultivation strategies. Ball cultivated 121 acres in 1810, 

4 acres less compared to 20 years prior. Acreage steadily 

grew between 1810 and 1815, totaling 181 acres. However, 

Ball’s agricultural strategy dramatically decreased his 

cultivated rice acreage. Ball rotated corn and cotton on 

Limerick’s Nicholson Creek rice fields during this period, 

cultivating only 39 acres in 1816 and 37 acres in 1817. 

Beginning in 1818, Ball increased his rice acres, devoting 

over 80 acres to “river swamp” rice cultivation. Although 

tidal irrigation technology was practiced on the Cooper 

River, and Ball had embanked rice fields bounding 

the East Branch, before the Revolution, no mention of 

Limerick tidal irrigation occurred before the 19th century. 

According to available records, Ball steadily devoted 

more acreage between 1820 and 1825, maximizing his 

output at Limerick in 1823 to 154 acres (Ball 1631-1895, 

Ball 1746-1999).

left: Figure 3—Tidal rice fields were developed in swamps 

adjacent to freshwater tidal creeks, whereby the creek system 

provided a ready supply of water. This example is exemplified by 

fields illustrated from a 1786 Limerick Plantation plat (detail). [Plat 

of Limerick Plantation (detail) courtesy of the South Caroliniana 

Library, University of South Carolina; Ball Family Papers. 

Schematic of the inland rice fields drawn by Lillian Trettin.]

above: Figure 4—There were over 106 km of dikes, ditches, and 

canals constructed in the bottomland swamps within the current 

boundaries of the Santee Experimental Forest. (Topographic 

elevation is from Lidar data obtained for the Santee Experimental 

Forest in 2007. Delineation of the water management structures, 

which include ditches, dikes, canals and dams, by Jose Martin. 

Edited from original figure by Lee Moreland.)
11

Long-staple cotton

Isaac Ball began planting black-seed, long-staple cotton 

at Limerick in 1810. Although planters introduced blackseed cotton (Gossypium barbadense) from the West 

Indies to the Atlantic Coast before 1785, shifts in the 

political economy for the high-quality, fine, long-staple 

variety motivated Lowcountry planters to devote more 

capital and labor to the cash crop after the Revolution. 

Coastal planters cultivated the black-seed variety into the 

celebrated Sea Island cotton during the Antebellum period. 

However, inland planters could not recreate the variety’s 

desired filament due to subtle environmental conditions, 

cross-pollination with green-seed (short-staple) cotton, and 

poor seed selection. As a result, cotton factors separated 

the black-seed variety into three market classes: Sea 

Island, Santee long, and Mains (Porcher and Fick 2005).

While long-staple cotton became a mainstay in St. John’s 

Parish during the antebellum period, Limerick’s cotton 

production was inconsistent. Ball originally devoted 

51⁄2 acres to growing black-seed cotton in 1810. Seven 

years later, Ball expanded to 100 acres, rotating his 

workforce of enslaved laborers among the rice, cotton, 

and corn fields. Production continued to 1824 but 

ceased on Limerick by the 1850 census. Both Windsor 

and Fishbrook employed similar agricultural practices, 

growing cotton in marginal quantities, while labor was 

primarily devoted to rice and corn. By the eve of the Civil 

War, Limerick was producing 558,830 pounds of rice. 

Also diversifying the Ball crop was sweet potatoes, corn, 

peas, and beans, as well as butter making, establishing the 

cash value of the plantation at $40,000 (Ball 1631-1895, 

Lees 1981, Porcher and Fick 2005).

A typical rice field in the latter half of the 19th century. The rice fields were developed in bottomland hardwood 

forests, visible behind the fields. (Source: Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views of South Carolina. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rice_ field,_South_Carolina,_ from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of _

stereoscopic_views.png. Prepared by Lee Moreland)
12

One reason for the limited cotton production came from 

the environmental conditions. Black-seed cotton required 

well-drained sandy soil. This variety could not tolerate a 

saturated soil because water prevented adequate oxygen 

intake from the roots. High land in the Huger Creek 

watershed Wahee-Duplin-Lenoir association consisted of 

somewhat poorly drained loamy surface with a high water 

table. Soil conditions suitable for rice cultivation did not 

complement cotton agriculture. Although the upland soils 

were moderately well drained sandy loam, the clay loam 

subsoil restricted adequate drainage. To work within these 

environmental limitations, the planters constructed raised 

beds, or ridges, between 18 inches to 2 feet in height that 

helped create soil permeability. Drainage ditches between 

the raised beds also helped direct standing water away from 

the cotton roots down to the low-lying flood plains (Long 

1980, Porcher and Fick 2005).

Postbellum Agricultural changes 

rice, cotton, and truck Farming

The lasting results of the Civil War came from the 

emancipation of enslaved labor and the demise of the 

plantation system. The removal of slave labor led to 

a restructuring of economic and social patterns, with 

agricultural endeavors suffering a slow demise in the 

Lowcountry. African-Americans could migrate freely, which 

created a shift in the labor populations of rural communities, 

as many sought employment in urban centers or other rural 

communities. The two most successful cash crops in the 

antebellum Lowcountry, rice and cotton, did not disappear 

overnight. Instead, agricultural landscapes shifted over time 

as landowners failed to turn profits, faced competing new 

technologies, and succumbed to natural disasters. 

Huger Creek planters struggled to maintain economic 

security from rice culture after the Civil War. Rice output 

on Limerick dropped from 558,830 pounds in 1860 to 

2,000 pounds 10 years later. William J. Ball recovered 

by bringing the output up to 24,000 pounds in 1880, 

but the economic success did not compare to before the 

Civil War. The Gibbs family did not fare much better at 

Windsor. John C. Gibbs managed Windsor for his mother, 

but the family sold the property in tracts, purchased by 

land speculator Charles Greenland McCay in 1878 and 

Ada Guilds in 1886. The postbellum period represented 

economic diversity once again on Limerick, Windsor, and 

Fishbrook. With the collapse of the rice culture, Huger 

Creek planters sought income from cattle ranching, cotton, 

corn, and peas (Lees 1981).

Limerick Plantation, 1916. Note: Live Oak drive in foreground. (Photo by W.B. Barrows. Photo courtesy of the Forest History Society, 

Durham, NC; USFS negative number 26336A.)
13

Emancipated slaves living on these properties originally 

made agreements with the Ball and Gibbs families to 

establish working conditions after the war. Twenty-one 

people signed a contract with J.C. Gibbs to work on the 

Windsor fields and reside on the property. W.J. Ball 

expressed frustration from the lack of output from his 

former slaves, stating that the work was inferior compared 

to the “old system.” Field hands received one-third of the 

total crop, which was customary during the Reconstruction 

period (Ball 1631-1895).

The rise of vegetable truck farming took the place of these 

cash crops immediately following the Civil War. Former 

plantation owners leased their land to sharecroppers, who 

grew agricultural products for sale in Charleston, SC, and 

Mt. Pleasant, SC. Crops such as potatoes, cabbage, beans, 

and cucumbers became economic commodities for the 

former slaves. African-Americans who chose to abandon 

cotton farming from the boll weevil epidemic or failure 

of the Lowcountry rice economy could still maintain 

economic subsistence through agricultural practice 

(Latimber 1916, Murray 1949).

timber Industry

Residents of 20th-century South Carolina, like their 

predecessors, were forced to make new decisions for 

economic survival. Although naval stores continued in one 

form or another since the Colonial period, a more industrial 

method of tapping into the timber resources took place 

during the postbellum period. During the late 19th and early 

20th centuries, individual property owners began selling 

their plantations to lumber companies. By 1906, E.P. Burton 

Lumber Company purchased Limerick, Windsor, Fishbrook, 

and surrounding plantations to amass 47,000 acres (fig. 5). 

They changed the landscape by building an infrastructure 

of railroads, causeways, and logging camps for quickly 

extracting upland timber, and as a consequence, within 

15 years, they left a clear-cut environment (Hester 1997).

E.P. Burton’s expanding infrastructure across the 

landscape reflected the company’s growing logging 

operations in the Huger Creek watershed. Between 1899 

and 1902, the timber company operated a commissary, 

employee housing, and a blacksmith shop next to Huger 

Figure 5—Detail of E.P. Burton timber 

property holdings, showing location 

of Limerick, Windsor, and Fishbrook 

plantations. [Map of Cooper River 

Holdings of the E.P. Burton Co., Berkeley 

County, SC, 1903 (detail). (Image courtesy 

of the Santee Experimental Forest)]
14

bridge. The village catered to the initial stages at Limerick 

and was connected to Burton’s railroad by a spur branch. 

As E.P. Burton expanded into Windsor and Fishbrook, 

the company built a second village in 1902. Located 

approximately 5 miles from the Burton dock at Silk Hope 

on the East Branch of the Cooper, Conifer originally 

consisted of employee housing and cook’s quarters. In 

4 years, the village grew to 500 people and supported a 

blacksmith’s shop, a commissary, a superintendent’s 

office, a doctor’s office, and a company house to lodge 

the foresters.5

By 1906, Burton railroads crossed 11 miles of the Santee 

Experimental Forest. Under ideal conditions, employees 

could lay up to 150 yards of ties and rails a day. However, 

the varied terrain presented challenges building log 

trestles and earthen causeways over the wetlands. Burton 

engineers either reinforced former rice embankments or 

constructed new earthworks to support the locomotives 

and cars encroaching into the forest lands (Chapman 1905, 

Fetters 1990).

5 Now located at the crossroads of Conifer and Yellow Jacket Road.

This form of industrialization was part of a larger trend 

across the United States. Logging activity within the Huger 

Creek watershed was a result of new technologies to extract 

timber, such as band saws and skidders, combined with 

the increased demand for wood products from the boom 

of industrial growth in the South. Still reeling from the 

economic collapse after the Civil War, Charleston and its 

port depended upon the growing logging industry in the 

Huger Creek watershed. By 1913, three Charleston-area 

timber companies had a cumulative annual production of 

over 300 million board feet (Hester 1997).

above: Forested old rice field in the floodplain of Fox Gully creek 

on the Santee Experimental Forest. (Photo by author.) 

right: Hardwood logs at lumber mill next to railroad tracks, 

Berkeley County, SC. [Photo by Arthur Bernard Recknagel. Photo 

courtesy of the Forest History Society, Durham, NC; Arthur 

Bernard Recknagel Photograph Collection (Reck2_25A).]
15

Federal Land Aquisition 

Forest conservation

The Federal Government’s 1928 approval of the Wambaw 

Purchase Unit represents a broader trend of the rapid 

pace of industrialism in forested landscapes. As a result 

of timber companies rapidly depleting forests throughout 

the Eastern United States, a new concept handling the 

nonhuman landscape evolved to become conservation. 

Gifford Pinchot, a leader of the conservation movement, saw 

people as stewards of the land but also believed that nature is 

meaningful only when it serves multiple and practical human 

purposes. To Pinchot, forestry was both an art and a science. 

He believed that industrial logging could safely continue 

with the expertise of scientifically trained professionals. 

Pinchot carried this ideology with him to the newly created 

United States Division of Forestry, where he became chief 

forester in 1898. Two years later, he helped created the Yale 

Forestry School, the Nation’s premier forestry education 

and research institution. Pinchot’s conservation success 

was reflected in the area of land managed by the Division of 

Forestry, which grew during Theodore Roosevelt’s time as 

president of the United States (1901-1910)—from 51 million 

acres to 175 million (Miller 2001).

To Pinchot, sustained yield of timber and cooperation 

between the government and landowners was a duel 

concept system for properly managing forest lands. 

The first concept, sustained yield of timber, embraced 

a businesslike philosophy that purported that capital, 

which produced annual growth resulting in interest, lay in 

managing healthy timber stands. By practicing sustained 

yields, timber companies would harvest the interest, or 

the annual growth, of the forest. The second concept, 

cooperation between the government and landowners, 

stressed that the Division of Forestry educate private 

landholders on successful forestry practices. The Division 

of Forestry consulted timber companies on how to manage 

sustainable timber stands. In return, the Division of 

Forestry put their scientific management to use with 

real-world scenarios (Miller 2001).

As part of this cooperative effort, forestry assistant Charles 

S. Chapman and five assistants worked with E.P. Burton 

from December 1902 to March 1903, studying the health 

of the forest on the Huger Creek watershed. Chapman’s 

1905 report provided a snapshot into forestry practices 

and landscape alteration at the time. Chapman stressed the 

importance of healthy growth and harvesting practices of 

the loblolly pine stands, representing 34 percent of forested 

E.P. Burton land. Loblolly became the dominant species on 

abandoned upland fields, replacing cotton, corn, and peas. 

Loblolly also became the dominant species after a clear-cut 

of longleaf stands. Recognizing the economic benefit of 

loblolly, “being a tree of very rapid growth and being well 

suited to the locality,” Chapman advised E.P. Burton to 

remove the threat of fire to the species, protect immature 

pines acting as seed trees, and cut only trees with a diameter 

of 14 inches or greater (Chapman 1905).

At the same time, Yale students affiliated with the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, began 

working with E.P. Burton between 1902 and 1906 on the 

Limerick Plantation Tract. In 1928, A.B. Recknagel and 

the Cornell School of Forestry conducted research on 

Limerick, Windsor, and Fishbrook. This property became 

early platforms for the development of North American 

silviculture, a precursor to the mission of the Santee 

Experimental Forest (Hester 1997, Recknagel 1928).

the santee Experimental Forest

The Santee Experimental Forest originated from a 

series of initiatives addressing the complexity of forest 

land use and management. Henry S. Graves, Pinchot’s 

Hardwood stand in Huger Creek watershed. Cornell College of 

Forestry students at base of the tree. [Photo by Arthur Bernard 

Recknagel. Photo courtesy of the Forest History Society, 

Durham, NC; Arthur Bernard Recknagel Photograph Collection 

(Reck2_9A).]
16

handpicked successor as chief forester, established the 

Branch of Research in 1915 to manage research activities 

of the Forest Experiment Stations, the Forest Products 

Laboratory, and the Washington Offices of Products and 

Silviculture. In 1921, the Branch of Research created the 

Appalachian Forest Experiment Station in Asheville, NC. 

This experiment station would eventually supervise the 

Santee Experimental Forest in South Carolina. By the 

second decade of the 20th century, a compilation of Federal 

and State conservation policies helped protect land. On 

the Federal level, a gradual movement of Forest Service 

officials recognized that cooperation with individual 

landowners and timber companies could not solve universal 

deforestation and land mismanagement. Instead, the Forest 

Service took steps to solve the land problem through direct 

Federal land acquisition and land management. The ClarkeMcNary Act of 1924 resulted from this philosophy, where 

the legislature granted the Federal Government permission 

to acquire lands specifically for timber production plus 

providing forest protection funds to States that had 

established forestry departments. On the State level, 

boosters’ lobbing efforts successfully led to the creation of 

the State Forestry Commission in 1927. The establishment 

of the State Forestry Commission represented the growing 

statewide conservation network and provided resources 

for landowners to prevent forest fires and carry out 

reforestation principles. With the creation of this forestry 

department, South Carolina qualified for Clarke-McNary 

Act funding and also served as a State mediator between 

the Federal Government and private landowners (Hester 

1997, Miller 2001, Paxton 1950) .

Forest Service officials who formed connections with 

timber companies and local politicians at the turn of the 

century deemed the Huger Creek watershed a model 

for restoration by 1927. E.P. Burton deforested their 

Huger Creek tract by 1916, with Dorchester and Tuxbury 

conducting a second cut by 1924. Timber companies cut 

over Limerick, Windsor, and Fishbrook Plantations to 

such an extent that land reformers viewed this spatial 

boundary as an ideal location to promote idealism that 

scientific forestry management could solve larger land 

problems occurring through the Southeastern Coastal 

Plain. The newly created State Forestry Commission 

served as a mediator between the Forest Service and 

the timber industry, while State and Federal agencies 

began identifying purchase units in 1927. The National 

Forest Reservation Commission established the Wambaw 

purchase unit in February 1928, yet 5 years passed before 

New Deal stimulus enabled the Forest Service to purchase 

individual tracts. Between 1933 and 1935, the Forest 

Service secured 195,000 acres, approximately 80 percent 

within the current Francis Marion boundary. On July 10, 

1936, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed the 

former Wambaw unit the Francis Marion National Forest 

(Hester 1997, Paxton 1950).

With the Francis Marion National Forest secured, C.E. 

Rachford, Chief Forester, on July 6, 1937, signed “An Order 

Establishing the Santee Experimental Forest out of Certain 

Lands within the Francis Marion National Forest, South 

Carolina.” The stated purpose of the Santee Experimental 

Forest was to “make permanently available for forest 

research and demonstration of its results” under the 

direction of the Appalachian Forest Experiment Station in 

subjects relating to “rate of growth, silvics and silviculture, 

and fire damage in the loblolly pine types of the MidAtlantic Coastal Province.” Originally encompassing 

5,000 acres overlaying Nicholson and Turkey Creeks, the 

Santee Experimental Forest expanded by 1,000 acres of 

Bethera Scarp highlands to the north and northeast on 

July 26, 1946. The 6,100-acre spatial landscape provided 

importance for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as the 

area represented “forest conditions typical of the loblolly 

pine, loblolly pine-hardwoods, bottomland hardwoods, and 

loblolly pine-longleaf pine types in the Coastal Plain region 

of South Carolina” with “excellent opportunities” for the 

Forest Service to conduct improvement and protection of 

land with a wide history of land use. The Forest Service 

recognized the area’s exhaustive land use, leaving a variety 

of forest growth from “young reproduction stands” to 

“severely cut and mistreated stands,” presenting “desirable” 

conditions for silviculture experimentation representative 

of the Southern Coastal Plain (USDA 1966).

Literatue cited 

Anon. 1784. Inventory of Ebenezer Roche, 3 July. South Carolina Estate 

Inventories, A: 378. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History.

Anon. 1828. Observations on the Winter Flowing of Rice Lands, in 

Reply to Mr. Munnerlyn’s Answers to Queries, &c. by a Rice Planter. 

Southern Agriculturalist and Register of Rural Affairs. December; 

1(12): 531.

Anon. 1854. Reclamation of Southern Swamps. DeBow’s Review and 

Industrial Resources. November; 17(5): 525.

Ball Family Papers, 1631-1895. 52 microfiches. Charleston, SC: South 

Carolina Historical Society.

Ball Family Papers, 1746-1999. 51 microfiches. Columbia, SC: 

University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library.

Carney, J.A. 1996. Landscapes of Technology Transfer: Rice Cultivation 

and African Continuities. Technology and Culture. 37: 5-35.

Carney, J.A. 2001. Black Rice: The African Origins of Rice Cultivation 

in the Americas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 256 p.

Carney, J.A.; Rosomoff, R.N. 2009. In the Shadow of Slavery: Africa’s 

Botanical Legacy in the Atlantic World. Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 296 p.

Catesby, M. 1977. Mark Catesby’s Natural History, 1731-47. In: Merrins, 

H.R. ed. The Colonial South Carolina Scene: Contemporary Views, 

1697-1774. Tricentenial Edition, number 7. Columbia, SC: University 

of South Carolina Press: 85-109.

Chaplin, J.E. 1993. An Anxious Pursuit: Agricultural Innovation and 

Modernity in the Lower South, 1730-1815. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina Press. 430 p.
17

Chapman, C.S. 1905. A Working Plan for Forest Lands in Berkeley 

County, South Carolina. Bulletin 56. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Forestry. 62 p. + map.

Clifton, J.M., ed. 1978. Life and Labor on Argyle Island: Letters and 

Documents of a Savannah Rice Plantation, 1833-1867. Savannah: 

Beehive Press. 365 p.

Colquhoun, D.J. 1969. Geomorphology of the Lower Coastal Plain of 

South Carolina. Columbia: Division of Geology. 36 p.

Doar, D. 1936. Rice and Rice Planting in the South Carolina Lowcountry. 

Charleston: Charleston Museum. 70 p.

Dunn, R.S. 1972. Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the 

English West Indies, 1624-1713. Chapel Hill: The University of North 

Carolina Press. 379 p.

Edelson, S.M. 2006a. Plantation Enterprise: Plantation Enterprise in 

Colonial South Carolina. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 400 p.

Edelson, S.M. 2006b. The Nature of Slavery: Environmental Disorder 

and Slave Agency in Colonial South Carolina. In: Olwell, R.; Tully, A., 

eds. Cultures and Identities in Colonial British America. Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins University Press: 21-44.

Fetters, T. 1990. Logging Railroads of South Carolina. Forest Park, Il: 

Heimburger House Publishing Co. 266 p.

Glen, J. 1761. A Description of South Carolina: Containing Many 

Curious and Interesting Particulars Relating to the Civil, Natural and 

Commercial History of That Colony. London: R&J Dodsley. 116 p.

Gray, L.C. 1933. History of Agriculture in the Southern United States 

to 1860, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 

1086 p.

Hardy, S.G. 2001. Colonial South Carolina’s Rice Industry and Atlantic 

Economy: Patterns of Trade, Shipping, and Growth, 1715-1775. In: 

Greene, J.P.; Brana-Shute, R.; Sparks, R.J., eds. Money, Trade, and 

Power: The Evolution of Colonial South Carolina’s Plantation Society. 

Columbia: University of South Carolina Press: 108-140.

Hart, L.P. 1986. Excavations at the Limerick Tar Kiln Site (38BK472). 

Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cultural Resources 

Management Report, 86-52. Columbia: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service. 45 p.

Hester, A. 1997. From Sustained Yield to Sustaining Communities: The 

Establishment of Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina, 

1901-1936. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 35 p. On file with: Francis Marion 

National Forest, 2421 Witherbee Road, Cordesville, SC 29434.

Hewatt, A. 1779. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of 

the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia. London: Alexander 

Donaldson. 679 p. 2 vols.

Hilliard, S.B. 1975. Antebellum Tidewater Rice Culture: An Ingenious 

Adaptation to Nature. In: Walker, H.J., ed., Coastal Resources. 

Geoscience and Man 12. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Press: 57-66.

Irving, J.B. 1840-1852. Record of Windsor and Kensington Plantations. 

Charleston, SC: Charleston Library Society. 187 p.

Latimber, W.J. 1916. Soil Survey of Berkeley County, South Carolina. 

In: Whitney, M., ed. Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils, 1916.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils: 

483-520.

Lees, W.B. 1981. The Historical Development of Limerick Plantation, a 

Tidewater Rice Plantation in Berkeley County, South Carolina, 1683-

1945. South Carolina Historical Magazine. 82: 44-62.

Littlefield, D.C. 1981. Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in 

Colonial South Carolina. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 216 p.

Long, B.M. 1980. Soil Survey of Berkeley County, South Carolina. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service and Forest Service. 102 p. + maps.

Miller, C. 2001. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern 

Environmentalism. Washington, DC: Island Press. 384 p.

Morgan, P.D. 1998. Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the 

Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press. 736 p.

Murray, C.S. 1949. This is Our Land: The Story of the Agricultural 

Society of South Carolina. Charleston: Carolina Art Association. 290 p.

Nash, R.C. 1992. South Carolina and the Atlantic Economy in the 

Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. The Economic History 

Review, New Series 45: 677-702.

Otto, J.S. 1987. Livestock-Raising in Early South Carolina, 1670-1700: 

Prelude to the Early Rice Plantation Economy. Agricultural History. 

61: 13-24.

Paxton, P.J. 1950. The National Forests and Purchase Units of Region 

Eight. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 56 p.

Porcher, R.D. [In press]. The Market Preparation of Carolina Rice. 

Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.

Porcher, R.D.; Fick, S. 2005. The Story of Sea Island Cotton. 

Charleston: Wyrick & Co. 577 p.

Price, R. 1991. Subsistence on the Plantation Periphery: Crops, Cooking, 

and Labour among Eighteenth-Century Suriname Maroons. Slavery 

and Abolition. 12: 107-127.

Pyne, S.J. 1997. Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told through 

Fire, of Europe and Europe’s encounter with the World. Seattle: The 

University of Washington Press. 672 p.

Quash, R. 1763. Land Memorial. Columbia, SC: South Carolina 

Department of Archives and History. 6: 199.

Recknagel, A.B. 1928. Remeasuring the Hell Hole Plots in South 

Carolina. Journal of Forestry. 26: 823-824.

Smith, H.A.M. 1911. The Baronies of South Carolina: Cypress Barony. 

South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine. 12: 5-13.

Stewart, J. 1931. Letters from John Stewart to William Dunlop. South 

Carolina Historical and Genelogical Magazine. 32: 1-33; 81-114; 

170-174.

Stewart, M.A. 1991. Rice, Water, and Power: Landscapes of Domination 

and Resistance in the Lowcountry, 1790-1880. Environmental History 

Review. 15: 47-64.

Stewart, M.A. 1996. “What Nature Suffers to Groe:” Life, Labor, and 

Landscape on the Georgia Coast, 1680-1920. Athens: University of 

Georgia Press. 392 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1966. Establishment 

Report, April 12, 1937: An order establishing the Santee 

Experimental Forest out of certain lands within the Francis Marion 

National Forest, South Carolina, and Revision to Establishment 

Report by O. Gordon Langdon, June 20, 1966. Unpublished report. 

Charleston, SC: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Report 

available: Santee Experimental Forest, 3734 Hwy 402, Cordesville, 

SC 29434. 27 p. + map.

Ver Steeg, C.L. 1975. Origins of a Southern Mosaic: Studies of Early 

Carolina and Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 165 p.

Weir, R.M. 1997. Colonial South Carolina: A History. New York: KTO 

Press, 1983; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 430 p.

Windsor Plantation [Plat]. 1790. Book D7: 199. Charleston: Charleston 

County Register Mesne Conveyance.

Wood, P.H. 1974. Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina 

from 1670 Through the Stono Rebellion. New York: A.A. Knopf. 

370 p. 



Smith, Hayden R. 2012 In Land of Cypress and Pine: An Environmental 

History of the Santee Experimental Forest, 1683-1937. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-155. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 17 p.

Abstract—The Santee Experimental Forest is a 6,100-acre research facility 

located within the Francis Marion National Forest, SC. Situated within the 

Huger Creek watershed in the headwaters of the East Branch of the Cooper 

River, the Santee Experimental Forest supports research in forest ecology, 

silviculture, prescribed fire, forest hydrology, ecosystem restoration, and wildlife 

management. Although the Santee Experimental Forest came into existence based 

on early 20th-century timber practices and the resulting needs for information 

on sustainable forestry practices, its boundaries have supported a wide array 

of human development for over 300 years. This paper provides an overarching 

history of land use on the Forest and regional perspectives. This environmental 

history also explains how Huger Creek ecosystems influenced people’s alteration 

the landscape. Livestock, naval stores, rice, cotton, and truck farming represent 

human production on the land from the colonial to postbellum eras. Logging 

and forest management replaced the earlier industries as political, social, and 

economic factors evolved at the turn of the 20th century. By documenting human 

development upon the land, a clear understanding of changing landscapes and 

ecological succession provides needed context for the Santee Experimental 

Forest’s scope and mission. This environmental history also provides the basis for 

considering the influences of past uses on the delivery of ecosystem goods and 

services in a restored forest landscape.

Keywords: Environmental history, forest history, forest succession, Limerick 

Plantation, rice culture, Windsor Plantation.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback 

or go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval
the Forest service, United states Department 

of Agriculture (UsDA), is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest 

resources for sustained yields of wood, water, 

forage, wildlife, and recreation. through forestry research, 

cooperation with the states and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, 

it strives—as directed by congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

the UsDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact UsDA’s tArGEt center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and tDD).

to fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to UsDA, Director, 

Offi ce of civil rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, sW, 

Washington, Dc 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 ( tDD). UsDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.