Chapter Six: Hallet Dismissed
The Doctor Examined, or Why William Thornton Did Not Design the Octagon House or the Capitol
Chapter Six: Hallet Dismissed
 |
| 57. In 1948 the White House was gutted prior to a complete renovation. The building is about the size of the North Wing of the Old Capitol. This photo gives an idea of the shallow sandstone foundation of both building (be sure to click photo to enlarge it. |
 |
| 58. Renovation of the White House in 1949 revealed the rough-hewn foundation of the 1790's where designs gave way to the reality of shovels, mallets and chisels. |
On the 26th the commissioner responded to Hallet and insisted that “nothing has ever gone from us by which we intended or we believe you could infer that you had the chief direction of executing the work of the Capitol or that you or anybody else were to introduce into that building any departures from Doctr Thornton’s Plan without the Presidents or commissioners approbation.” They only had to re-read the letter the president sent on July 25, 1793, to see that the president had told them to have Hoban supervise laying the foundation. Both Hoban and Hallet had told the commissioners they understood the president's instructions. In their letter to Hallet, the commissioners rather rubbed that in: "Mr. Hoban was employed here before our acquaintance began with you more especially as chief over the President's house, of which he was fortunate enough to produce a plan which meet with general we may almost say with universal approbation and to extend his Superintendence to any other building we may require."
Hallet replied to the board on June 28 and insisted that the July conference had led to the adoption of his plan: “In the alteration I never thought of introducing in it any thing belonging to Dr Thornton’s exhibitions. So I Claim the Genuine Invention of the Plan now executing and beg leave to Lay hereafter before you and the President the proofs of my right to it...." Board only wanted his plans and would suffer no lectures nor involve the president. The board fired Hallet on the 28th and asked a lawyer to file a suit to force Hallet to give them his drawings. The board had faced insubordination before with L'Enfant, and this time acted decisively without bothering the president. Because the plan was not at issue, it was their decision not the president's.(6)
However, there are many ways to read the tea leaves of history. In 1806, Thornton wrote a letter to Secretary of State James Madison that suggested that he was privy to facts not revealed in the documentary evidence now extant: "When General Washington saw the foundation of the Capitol laid by Mr: Hallet which tended to make the middle part square, to the exclusion of the centre Dome he was so affected by the presumption of making so unauthorized an Alteration that he in a passion directed him to quit the place, and the Commissrs: discharged him." There is nothing suggesting that happened in the records that remain.
In 1995, C. M. Harris, endorsed Thornton's 1806 characterization of the dispute. In his editorial commentary on Thornton's papers, he suggests that sometime in late June, the president inspected the foundation work, deduced that Hallet was taking matters into his own hands, and "then apparently pressed the commissioners to resolve matters with Hallet." Harris also suggests that around the same time, Thornton and his friend Rivardi saw Hallet's newly laid foundation and saw that it "eliminated the great vestibule and the great repository of Thornton's premiated [design]."
The president arrived in Georgetown on Friday the 20th, and wrenched his back on Sunday. He had one day to inspect the foundation. However, in a June 25 letter to Secretary of State Edmund Randoph that he wrote as a convalesced at Mount Vernon, he rued that his bad back "hitherto, has defeated the purposes for which I came home." One of those purposes was to see the commissioners about Square 21. In a June 27, 1794, letter to Commissioner Johnson, the president regretted not being able to get to the federal city in time to see him. The president didn't mention the Capitol. The dramatics with Hallet played out without the president being involved.
As for Thornton, Thornton never described his reaction upon first seeing Hallet's foundation. There was likely not enough to see during his December 1793 visit. Williamson could not raise an alarm about it it until late May. On June 20 he attended a meeting of the Philosophic Society in Philadelphia. As for Rivardi, the War Department hired him to fortify the ports of Norfolk and Baltimore. While hurrying between them, he set up a battery of guns in Alexandria. Writing from Norfolk on May 6, 1794, Rivardi advised the president about defensive works there as well as in Baltimore. He doesn't mention Thornton, the Capitol or the commissioners in that letter. It is very doubtful that Rivardi had time to look at Hallet's foundations. Wasting valuable time to do that might have been considered a dereliction of duty.
As for the grand vestibule
In that January 1795 letter, Hallet would blame the difficulty of the job at hand in June 1794 for his tantrum. But his tantrum raises the question: did the president or Jefferson tell Hallet that the newly adopted plan preserved “the original ideas of Doctor Thornton, and such as might upon the whole, be considered as his plan?” Also, there is evidence that he was not ignoring the president's order to make new drawings of the East Front portico before laying the foundation. In one of his plans that is still extant, Hallet moved the portico up even further than it was in Thornton's plan. In the best modern history of the Capitol, William Allen writes, "It is difficult to understand why Hallet didn't show the commissioners his new plans." He didn't because his plans were the only leverage he had to get the salary he thought he deserved.(7)
The board had not convened but the president had arrived in Georgetown on the 20th.
On July 3, the president passed through Georgetown on his way back to Philadelphia. He asked William Deakin's, the board's treasurer about filling the vacancies on the board caused by Commissioners Johnson and Stuart retiring. There is no evidence that he saw the commissioners or Hallet. On July 10, in the first letter the commissioners wrote to the president after Hallet's dismissal, they advised him that they had talked to James Greenleaf about the draining the city. There was no mention of the Capitol's foundation or Hallet, even though Greenleaf was distressed that Hallet had been dismissed. Since the reason for Hallet's dismissal was not his design work but his insubordination, Greenleaf offered to pay Hallet so he could continue to make drawings necessary for the completion of the Capitol. The commissioners tentatively agreed to that on condition that Hallet not give any instructions to the masons. That the commissioners agreed to that and continued to let Hallet rent one of their houses next to the Capitol, suggests they realized that Hallet was not sabotaging the design sent down from Philadelphia in July 1793. Evidently, when the dust settled, Hallet once again beavered away over his plans in the little stone house next to the Capitol. Also, everyone knew that Commissioners Johnson and Stuart were retiring. With cooler heads on the board, Hallet might be reinstated and authorized to supervise construction. That thought evidently gnawed on Commissioner Johnson. He wrote to his brother who was the US Consul in London and asked him to send over a British architect who could get the job done.
However,
(XX)
However, in 1794 nobody suggested that the dome was in jeopardy. In all that the commissioners and president wrote prior to and for two years after the July 1793 meeting, there was no mention of the "great round vestibule." Hallet's insisting that the design adopted in Philadelphia was solely his has nothing to do with the dome. He simply didn't agree with Washington's and Jefferson's face-saving characterization of the plan as still embodying the “the original ideas of Doctor Thornton." As Pamela Scott writes in her examination of Hallet's designs: "Hallet's precomposition design shown to Jefferson in 1791, established the basic form the Capitol was eventually to take: a central dome, flanked by wings containing legislative chambers, symbolically separate yet part of a single architectural unit."
Back
to Harris's take on controversy with Hallet. While Thornton was in
Philadelphia and the president waiting for his back to recover, Rivardi
may have been near the Capitol's foundation.
As Harris sets the scene, the Capitol could not be easily forgotten by anyone. He insists that the president's cabinet divided on that very issue: "...it would appear that Jefferson did favor [Hallet's] central court arrangement (see The Eye of Jefferson, pl 435) suggesting the sharp political differences within the cabinet underlay discussions of architectural design. Jefferson submitted his resignation to the president 31 July 1793 and left office at the end of the year." "Pl 435" is an illustration in a National Gallery of Art exhibition, a tracing of Hallet's floor plan found in Jefferson's papers.
However, no matter what Hallet and Thornton did or didn't do, Jefferson resigned over policy toward France and Britain. He traced Hallet's floor plan because it was a trained architect's solution to the problems raised by Jefferson and others when they examined Hallet's changes to Thornton's design at the July 1793 meeting.
Thornton claimed that the 1794 dispute was about the "centre dome" because in 1806 he was trying to get rid of Latrobe by falsely accusing him of laying the foundation of the South Wing so the dome could not be built. Thornton could not fathom how a circular room could possibly be built on a square foundation. Latrobe and Hallet, who were trained architects, doubted that a circular foundation could provide enough stability to support a large chamber topped by a dome. Judging from a 1795 letter, the president seemed to understand that. He wrote that a dome could be "over the open or circular area or lobby." That gives the impression that he understood that a dome could cover the "open" area, that is Hallet's square, or "circular area,” Thornton's grand vestibule.(13)
On June 20, Thornton was at the Philosophical Society's meeting in Philadelphia. By July 6, he was in Georgetown.(18) Since his letters to Rush and the president didn't put him in a professor's chair or a secretary's desk, Thornton varied his approach. He had a third party inform the president that he wanted to live in the federal district and share his talents even if meant he had to sacrifice his interests in Philadelphia. He had Ferdinando Fairfax write the letter and post it from Georgetown on July 6. He was the president's godson. The Fairfax family was the closest to royalty that Virginia had, and was highly respected by George Washington. Lord Fairfax had given him one of his first surveying jobs. The luster of the family did not entirely shine on young Ferdinando, then 28 years old. He was too loose with money as he backed various schemes that failed. But like Thornton, he was high minded in his pursuits. In 1790, Fairfax had written a magazine article urging that freed slaves be sent to Africa.
 |
| 63. Ferdinando Fairfax |
Thornton obviously coached Fairfax on what to write: "From a pretty good acquaintance
with him, as well as from general repute, I believe him to possess
uncommon Talents, and to have cultivated particularly those Branches of
Science which are most useful in this business—and, what is of equal or
perhaps more consequence, to have a large share of Public Spirit, and
great integrity. He has a Plan of a National University, which appears
to deserve attention, and w’ch, at some convenient time, he is desirous
of submitting to your Consideration." There is no evidence that at
that time Thornton had a plan for a National University. Blodget had
renewed Washington's interest in such a project. Thornton likely got
wind of the idea from Blodget. Fairfax didn't mention the Capitol.(20)
At the end of July, the president asked two Maryland politicians, the governor and a senator, to accept appointments to the board. The letter offering the job to one of them is extant. In it the president explained how he wanted to retool the Board. The commissioners would fill the role outlined for the superintendent, and would be paid a salary instead of merely a per diem and travel expenses. He also wanted the commissioners to "reside within the City, or so near to it, as by a daily attendance to see that everything moves with regularity, economy and dispatch...." He described the evils that arose from monthly meetings that kept the commissioners from answering "all the purposes of their appointment... that by being always on the spot, they are at hand to embrace offers, and to avail themselves of opportunities that frequently present, but will not wait, not only to purchase materials and to engage artisans, but to interest foreigners and strangers who may view the city, in the purchase of lots, but who, otherwise know not where to apply...."1 The president conclude that "the nonresidence of the commissioners has, I am persuaded, been attended with many disadvantages, and has been the source of those unpleasant disputes between them and the proprietors, the Superintendants, their Workmen, & c. & c." He didn't mention the Capitol.
Both of those worthies declined the appointment. The president asked his Georgetown contacts about Gustavus Scott, a lawyer who had held state offices in Maryland and had been an active supporter of the Potomac Company’s projects. He accepted the appointment in August. The president knew Commissioner Stuart did not want to attend the September meeting of the board. In late August, he offered the other vacancy to his former secretary Tobias Lear who was just back from London and setting up a new merchant house a few blocks down from where Rock Creek entered the Potomac river. Accustomed to men declining the appointment, he also asked Lear about Thornton who he knew had been in Georgetown in July.
 |
| 64. Gustavus Scott |
In his letter, the president described the lawyer he appointed to replace Johnson: "Mr. Scott (at present of Baltimore) a gentleman eminent in his profession of the Law, a man of character and fortune, and one who has the welfare of the city much at heart...." Then he shared what he knew about Thornton: “The Doctr is sensible, and indefatigable I am told, in the execution of whatever he engages; To which may be added his taste for architecture; but being little known, doubts arise on that head.” He didn't mention Thornton's Capitol design.(22)
A century later, Glenn Brown wrote that Hallet’s subverting the winning design "was probably one of the reasons why President Washington appointed Thornton one of the commissioners. The commissioners had full power over the Federal buildings, and as Thornton held this position until 1802, he was able to prevent further tampering with his design for that length of time.... When Thornton was appointed commissioner, Washington requested him to see that everything was rectified so that the building would conform to the original plan." However, the letter the president wrote in 1794 did not imply that he wanted a man with a taste for architecture to undo the changes an architect made to the design approved in the summer of 1793.(23)
Lear
declined the appointment and shared what he could learn about Thornton.
He was "much esteemed by those of the proprietors and others hereabouts
from whom I have been in the way of drawing an opinion; they consider
him as a very sensible, genteel and well informed Man, ardent in his
pursuits; but liable to strong prejudices, and such I understand is his
prejudice against Hoben that I conceive it would hardly be possible for
them to agree on any points where each might consider himself as a
judge—Weight of Character, from not being known, seems also to be
wanting."(24)
He mentioned four others that he had heard others suggest for the job, but three seemed unlikely to accept and the one who might owned land in and around the city. Commissioner Stuart came up with a candidate but didn't share it with the president in time. The president had to crush a rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, Stuart had given him fair warning, Thornton was in Philadelphia, could be quickly notified and, given what Fairfax had written to his god father, would not reject the appointment. On September 12, the new Secretary of State Edmund Randolph called on Thornton and offered him the job.
Both the president and Thornton were in the Philadelphia area during the end of August and early September. The president commuted to his town house from Germantown, which was a safe distance from any recurrence of yellow fever. However, Lear waited until September 5 to notify the president that he declined the appointment. The president probably got his letter no earlier than the 7th. Once appointed Thornton promptly left for Georgetown. He got back in Philadelphia perhaps a week before the president left on September 30 with an army to subdue the insurgents. The president had problems even more vexing than the Capitol, and likely didn't have time to confer with Thornton.
The newly appointed commissioner did not need a personal word from the president to confirm the importance of his appointment. The departure of Johnson and Stuart was applauded in the federal city and Georgetown and there was no doubt that their replacements would make everything better. Dr. Appleton applauded the change confident that when Simmons, Clark and Lovering had to lay out lots as they built groups of townhouses, commissioners on the scene would make everything go more smoothly. Drawing a distinction between public and private enterprise was not as common then as it would become but while work on the public buildings was slow and bungled at times, the efficiency of Greenleaf's operation could be measured. Greenleaf hired a French engineer, only known as "Mr. Henry" who was described as a "kind of Secretaire Economique whose business is solely to study, to economize the business, to suggest hints for improvement and to systematize everything...." He found that Lovering's houses cost $4.50 a square foot and Clark's cost $5.50.Because the houses they built were far from what would become the beaten paths of bureaucrats, politicians and tourists, the particulars of their history don't seem relevant to the patterns of brick and stone that formed the contours of what became interesting in the city's architecture. What remains from that time is not even a good example of what Clark and Lovering designed and built. When Appleton arrived in late June, he moved into a three story brick house at the corner of 6th and N Streets southwest of the Capitol. The commercial potential for the house was obvious. It faced a wharf on tide water that invited boats coming down a broad reach of the Potomac before it turned south. The whole point of the Greenleaf's Point was that it was to become a Mecca for international commerce. To better prove that point, in 1795 a store-keeper with wet and dry goods moved into the house. Although the house served as Greenleaf's headquarters in the city, it wasn't intended to be a model for the brick row houses Greenleaf wanted to build.
When Clark and Lovering arrived in July, they began building to the east and north of what was called Simmons' house. Clark built a row of four houses on N Street and Lovering built two pairs of houses on P Street. A 1796 advertisement for the sale of one house described it having “two convenient kitchens, two parlors and six lodging chambers – a brick pavement in front, and the yard and area are paved with brick.” Plus, it had a coach house and stables.
The architect superintending construction of a house commonly signed contracts after the design and all the materials to be used were particularized and the cost determined. That process went more smoothly if the architect also designed the house. The contract made him responsible for buying building materials and hiring and giving orders to contractors for brick work, carpentry, plastering, and painting. The architect was not paid by the day. He negotiated a fee, usually around 5% of the cost of the building. To better foster his elegant style of building, Greenleaf offered his architects 8%. In that day, one house rarely cost more than $5000 to build so a superintending architect could only make a good living by supervising the construction of two or more houses at the same time. Lovering hoped to build at least four elegant houses a year for Greenleaf.
Letters Appleton wrote from the Point, prove that Lovering did not arrive until July. Appleton was trying to get money from Robert Morris in Philadelphia to give to Lovering who wisely didn't want to move to the city without some money upfront. Greenleaf was in New York City. Thus it is highly unlikely that Lovering designed the Simmons house. Of course, proving that he didn't design the Honeymoon House is a curious way to prove he designed the Octagon. It only proves that when Thornton was crowned as designer of the Octagon little was known about Lovering. Castigating Lovering as a "contracting carpenter" is more damning. However, Greenleaf hired Simmons as supervisor of operations for three years at a salary of 1,000 Pennsylvania pounds or $2,600. One of his jobs was to "plan buildings." He began getting paid in January, was in Georgetown by April and brick machines were on the way. The contracts Lovering and Clark signed don't mention their designing houses. In July, Appleton chalked out where Clark would be build before Clark arrived. That suggests that once on scene Simmons decided where houses would be built. However, it is clear that Clark and Lovering had different designs. Not only did Mr. Henry find that Lovering did work more cheaply than Clark, but he was surprised to find that one of Lovering's townhouses had a large room which might make the house adaptable as a hotel. It is highly unlikely that the carriage maker Simmons designed the houses built by experienced builders. Lovering from London likely worked on the long rows of brick townhouses which were then the rage in London. All that said, by the late 20th century, Lovering was credited with every designing every house built on the Point that is still standing including those built by Simmons and Clark. Only the so-called Duncanson-Cranch house was designed by Lovering. He did finish the Simmons house changing it from the habitable house that Appleton found to a more elegant headquarters incorporating the type of building materials that arrived from New England that included "marble slate and chimney pieces, mahogany twist handrails. and stone circular arches."
Much as it would affect his future fame, there is absolutely no evidence that when Thornton came to attend his first board meeting he had any inkling of the design and construction of the houses on Geenleaf's Point. He was made aware of Greenleaf's importance.
In the meantime, on September 15, 1794, the new board met in Georgetown. Thornton did not have his official notice of appointment and could only watch the remaining original commissioner Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek and other new member of the board. Gustavus Scott was a lawyer and had previous experience in public office including as a state legislator and member of the Baltimore health committee where there was a yellow fever epidemic in 1794. Despite those credentials, in 1896 Glenn Brown wrote: "After Thornton became a member of the board of commissioners, a decided improvement is evident in their written proceedings and in the business forms and contracts which were introduced in connection with the streets, bridges and buildings that were in their charge. As they appear in the records after his appointment, Thornton should have the credit for the improvement."
While Thornton could not act as a commissioner at the September meeting, he was not idle. He
signified to the board that he wanted to buy two lots in Square 33
which were far from the Capitol about a half mile southwest of the
President's house. One of Thornton's lots did have "a frame building fifty feet long,"
but he didn't plan to live there. Thornton would bring his
mother-in-law with him, and there was no society to speak of in the
federal city. Instead, he bought a house in Georgetown. What attracted
him to the lots he bought in the federal city was that they were just around the corner from lots in Square 21 on
Peter's Hill along the river a mile southwest of the President's house that the president picked out in 1793. Blodget
had helped the president and when back in Philadelphia likely told Thornton that the
president planned to build his city residence there once he sold his Western
lands that he thought Greenleaf and Morris were negotiating
to buy.(13)
But the private plans of the president were dwarfed by Greenleaf's machinations, and Thornton was soon consumed by them. On September 19, Commissioners Carroll and Scott sent a letter to Secretary of State Randolph discussing their cautious approach to Greenleaf's new proposals for paying what he owed the commissioners. They assured Randolph that once back in Philadelphia, Thornton "will very readily give any further information if wished for." The phrase "very readily" suggests that his colleagues' first impression of Thornton was that he quickly grasped a problem and then couldn't stop talking about it. Yet, two weeks after learning the commissioners' case, it seemed he pleaded Greenleaf's case.
He went back to Philadelphia to begin packing up his all, as well as prepare his wife's and mother-in-law's for moving to Georgetown. He also briefed the secretary of state. On October 2nd, Randolph wrote to the commissioners that "Dr. Thornton, a member of your board, and Mr. Greenleaf called upon me this morning...." Greenleaf wanted to change his way of paying the commissioners $50,000 on May 1, 1795.(14) It is possible that Thornton looked up Greenleaf in Philadelphia, but it is more likely that the younger and richer man immediately began working to make Thornton as amenable to his ideas as the commissioner he replaced. Back in April 1794, Greenleaf had recommended two former senators for the job. He knew the importance of having friendly commissioners. In April 1795, Thornton would buy lots from Greenleaf in Squares 33 and 21 for $1358.66.(15)
Two commissioners could form a board and make decisions. A commissioner could file a written dissent from the board's decision. Thornton would often exercise that prerogative. He didn't dissent to a decision his colleagues made in his absence on October 1. They formalized Greenleaf's agreement to pay Hallet to support his continued work on the Capitol design. The commissioners also continued renting a house to Hallet and his family next to the Capitol site.(16) That his colleagues made the decision before he returned suggests that they did not think Thornton was appointed by the president to oversee all that pertained to that Capitol. That Thornton did not object to continued support for Hallet suggests that Thornton had no special briefing from the president about the Capitol.
When he returned from Philadelphia, Thornton found that Scott had taken over leadership of the board. He began reviewing the contracts the old board made with the speculators. Thornton soon understood that associating himself with Greenleaf's ideas about paying his installment was not appreciated by his colleagues.
When Greenleaf made a brief visit to the city, he deflected the board's attention from contracts. He asked if there was anything he could do for them when he made a trip to Holland before the end of the year. Carroll had been educated in France many years ago, and Scott got a law degree in Edinburgh. Thornton had last been in the Old Country and thus more current in regards to wages in Scotland. The board's letter outlining a program of indenturing stone masons to come work in the city was clearly composed by Thornton. He even told Greenleaf, who had just hired many, how to hire workers.(17)
Scott's skepticism about Greenleaf's contracts stoked worries that he would not pay the commissioners on time. Even Carroll who had signed the contracts recognized the need for a fresh look at the board's balance sheet. That, and not Thornton's unease at Hallet still working on designs, likely prompted the board to try to get drawings from Hallet that could make it easier to estimate the cost of continuing work on the Capitol. They used Simmons as a go-between, after all he was paying Hallet with Greenleaf's money. The board thought they got Hallet to agree to give them "the sections and what relates to the first or basement story of the Capitol." What he sent didn't satisfy them, but their November 25 letter to Simmons doesn't particularize their dissatisfaction.(18)
Even though the prospectus for the design contest required that the winner supply sections and drawings, there is no evidence that Hallet's snub prompted Thornton to come to the rescue. There is also evidence that the new commissioner did not think the Capitol design and construction was one of the board's pressing problems. Within two weeks, the board got a possible solution to their Hallet problem. Commissioner Johnson's brother in London asked John Trumbull, who had just returned to London, to recommend a British architect. The artist knew just the young man for the job. Trumbull sent a letter to his brother Jonathan in Connecticut extolling George Hadfield's bona fides which included eight years studying architecture at the Royal Academy in London and Rome. Trumbull's brother passed the letter on to the president who sent it down to the commissioners without saying the young man had to be hired.
John
Trumbull also wrote to Tobias Lear who pressed the matter with
Commissioner Scott, who was not encouraging, and with Thornton who
offered some hope. According to Lear, Thornton explained that the board
"conceived that the Gentleman whom Mr Trumbull mentions would be a
valuable acquisition to the City; but as the great public buildings are
now going on upon approved plans, it was a doubt whether there would be
immediately such employment for Mr Hatfield’s talents as could justify
them in offering what might be considered as an inducement for him to
come over: However, as other public buildings, such as an University and
its appendages, Churches &c. &c. would presently be wanting, he
could, in these, have an opportunity of originating and superintending,
which might make it worth his while to come over; and that they should
give the matter a further consideration as soon as they could get
through some other business which pressed and demanded their immediate
attention, and would then decide upon it."
It
is likely that Thornton offered his own reaction to hiring an
architect, rather than his colleagues' ideas. It is inconceivable that
Carroll and Scott would banty about ideas like hiring the English
architect to design the National University and a church. In his letter
to the president, Lear noted Scott's negative reaction to Hadfield
coming.(19)
Thornton's being so complaisant in regards to the status of the Capitol design suggests that he had finally accepted the changes to his design approved in July 1793. In 1794, there was no doubt that the “approved plans" were Hallet’s corrections of Thornton’s original elevation and floor plan. Judging from their cool reception to hiring Hadfield, the board expected Hoban to superintend work at the Capitol unless Hallet with Greenleaf's help got the job. On December 18, the board wrote a discouraging letter to Trumbull and so informed the president.
Within the next two weeks, the board changed its mind, and sent Hadfield an offer. They again informed the president of their decision: "We view, and review the magnitude of our Undertaking; which, requiring all our Attention, leaves less time to individual Exertion in the Superintendance of the public Buildings, and we are convinced of the necessity of constant attention to adjust the various Members of the Work, to preserve an elegant Correspondence—A Superintendant of great ability, whose time will be wholly engaged is therefore requisite; and when we consider how much is demanded here for very ordinary Talents; when we are also encouraged by the moderation of Mr Hatfields Desires, though we have hitherto declined giving any Expectation, yet on more mature reflection, we think the public may be materially benefitted by the offer we now make him."(19)
Other than granting that an individual commissioner did not have time to superintend the Capitol, what was meant by adjusting "the various Members of the Work, to preserve an elegant Correspondence?"
Four days later, Thornton sent a
personal letter to Trumbull that was sent with an
official offer to Hadfield. He boasted to Trumbull that he was "pleased"
that his appointment as a
commissioner "will afford me an opportunity of correcting some wilful
errors which have been fallen into by those jealous men who objected to
my plan, because was not regularly brought up an architect.” Then he
envisioned Hadfield as just the young man who would help him: “you will
be
so kind as to represent to Mr. Hadfield that the general plan is
adopted, but there may be particular parts that will require minute
attention, and I shall be always happy in consulting the taste of Mr.
Hadfield. I have much pleasure in expectation, for he will be a pleasing
acquisition to me.” In the same letter, Thornton asked Trumbull
to send him a copy in miniature of the Farnese "Hercules." In
Thornton's mind, between his December discussion with Lear and his
January letter to Trumbull, the "approved" plan became the "general
plan" that needed correction. Since Hallet had not preserved Thornton's
portico in his July 1793 revision of the plan, Hercules no longer
mounted the pediment. Thornton planned to restore him.
Trumbull's reaction to Thornton's scheming was to advise Hadfield "to avoid any circumstances that may thwart their [the commissioners'] views or give them offence." He also intimated that except for L'Enfant, no one in America would "be your equal in knowledge in your profession."(20)
The equivocation over hiring Hadfield proves that
Thornton had no instructions from the president to restore his original
design. However, apparently in the back and forth over whether to hire Hadfield, Thornton
found his mission. It is likely that Thornton coined the curious phrase in the letter that all three commissioners signed. Perhaps, getting them to agree to "to preserve an elegant Correspondence" was all that he could get them to endorse. He would soon distinguish himself from them by urging the importance of "grandeur."
The president did not react to their hiring Hadfield. At the end of a January 7 letter to Carroll, he briefly mentioned the Capitol: "For a variety of reasons, unnecessary to be enumerated, tho’ some of them are very important, I could wish to see the force of your means directed to the Capitol in preference to the other public buildings." Perhaps, he did not necessarily want an elegant correspondence of the various members. He probably addressed his letter to Carroll alone because what vexed the president was largely the fault of the old board. Greenleaf decided not to go to Holland. Instead, he did exactly what the president expected the commissioners to do, and he did it in a spectacular fashion. He persuaded Thomas Law, a Nabob, as men who got rich in India trade were called, to buy 500 of the speculators' federal city lots for $180,000. That is, Law paid $360 a lot that Greenleaf bought for $80. The president was dumbfounded. He wrote to Carroll and asked why the commissioners had sold lots to Greenleaf so cheaply, and why didn't they make the sale that Greenleaf did? In reply, Carroll pointed out that thanks to the contract the old board made with Greenleaf and a clause precluding him selling lots to speculators, Law would have to build 166 houses in the next four years. Plus, thanks to Carroll's ties to the Catholic church in Baltimore, where Carroll's brother was bishop, the board sold lots at a good price to James Barry, an India trader eager to open the Eastern Branch to the world of commerce. As for the Capitol, Carroll was on the same page and "Your opinion respecting the Capitol, was imparted to the [new] Commissioners by Docr Stuart & myself."(21)
Then in a January 28 letter to the commissioners, the president gave Thornton a chance to shine. He urged that planning begin for a National University in the federal city. Once a plan was adopted, he would donate 50 shares of Potomac Company stock to endow the institution. However, "as the design of this University has assumed no form with which I am acquainted; and as I am equally ignorant who the persons are that have taken, or are disposed to take, the maturation of the plan upon themselves, I have been at a loss to whom I should make this communication of my intentions."
In a January 8 letter to Lettsom, that mainly complained about his ill health and depression over not being famous, Thornton highlighted one bright prospect, establishing a university "which has long lived in my mind, and which on mentioning my ideas to the President he approved of much. He even desired me to write and digest a plan." In letters to Lettsom, Thornton tended to exaggerate. In his previous letter he had bragged that the commissioners "have the expenditure of all the public monies, for the accommodation of congress, in buildings, etc. We have the disposal of one half the whole city....The trust reposed in us is so great that I do not know a more extensive power in any office of the government, except the President, or perhaps the Secretary of State, Treasury and War."
Thornton wrote the commissioners' reply to the president and it hailed Thornton for what he had not done: "Many have suggested in part what ought to be done in forming a general plan. None has yet been presented, but the Board was informed, some time ago, that Dr Thornton has long had it in Contemplation to lay such an one before the Executive, and has made some progress in digesting it."
Earlier in the month, Blodget wrote to Thornton from Philadelphia and reported that he had convened a committee of artists who were "busily employed in the affairs of the national university. We are now on the college of painting." The commissioners did not share that news with the president. However, Thornton may not have taken Blodget's taunting letter seriously. It was primarily about problems with the lottery: "No sir, altho you may understand the building of federal cities, capitols, anatomy, painting, botany, belle lettre and such trifles give me leave to assure you that you are not yet sufficiently instructed in the more noble and exalted science of lottery making."(22)
Meanwhile, Scott consolidated his command of the board. He assessed, correctly, that the board could not count on money from Greenleaf. At that moment, the board had only 6856.17.6 Maryland pounds in hand as of October 1, 1794, or around $11,000. In the most comprehensive letter ever written by the board, they lumbered the president with details about their operations. For example, they ordered that quarried stone be delivered by the supplier to the work site so that the commissioners' slave laborers would not have to be called from other work in order to unload scows at the public wharves. They bragged on their piece-work contracts and highlighted one they made "with a Mr Dobson from England; who has given very good Security for his performance & has commenced his Operations."
They attached Papers or reports marked B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. At the end of the very long letter, they apologized, at great length for its great length. In their apology, the precise and legalistic language used in the letter lapsed into a roll of rhetoric Thornton likely dictated: "We ought perhaps to apologize for giving you this long Detail, being Sensible how little time you can devote to the Subject. It is however of importance: & we are Confident you will think so, that we should with the utmost truth & candor lay before you the real state of things. Should any unexpected Incidents prevent the public buildings from being prepared in Time for the reception of Congress, how deep would be your, & our regret. Such an Event might ultimately shake the Dignity, Honor & peace of the Union. Thinking as we do, we should be wanting in official Duty if we did not make a just representation of affairs here. With such means as we have eked out by the strictest System of Œconomy, the utmost exertions shall be made; and whenever a Prospect of enlarging them shall offer, we shall with the sincerest pleasure grasp the happy occasion, having most ardently at heart the fullest Success of the City." Then they added a P.S..
For the president, one pleasing feature of the long letter was that it only asked him to make one decision: whether or not to get a loan. The board had some doubts about the height of the Capitol's foundation, but divided on whether to ask the president or just ask the secretary of state to ask the president. They mooted the debate between Hallet's courtyard and Thornton's portico: "... we beg leave to Suggest the Idea whether it would not be prudent in the present State of our funds to forego carrying on more of that building than the immediate accommodation of Congress may require."(24)
The letter also laid the groundwork for a dispute that soon caused the president to lose confidence in Thornton and Scott. They started a row with Thomas Johnson, the man Scott replaced. He had bought lots from Greenleaf along Rock Creek just north of the stone bridge at K Street NW. When Johnson tried to get the deeds for the lots, the two new members of the board told him that the old board had not been authorized to sell water lots to Greenleaf. Johnson promptly complained to the president, and blamed Scott.(25)
A gaping hole in the report sent to the president was an accounting of past and an estimate of future expenditures for the Capitol. The board blamed the conduct "of Mr Hallet whose capricious and obstinate refusal to deliver up such Sections of the Capitol as were Wanting obliged the late Commissioners to discharge him, and occasioned some difficulties in this business." The letter didn't mention that on January 21, Hallet wrote to the board apologizing for his insubordination and asking for his old job back.
As the short session of congress came to a close, Secretary of State Randolph asked that one of the commissioners come to Philadelphia to arrange for a loan from Philadelphia banks.(27) That was the administrations only written reaction to the board's long letter to the president. The loan was Carroll's idea and he had expected to go, but illness kept him home. Scott decided that the board had mortgaged too many lots, and shouldn't mortgage more to get a loan. That left Thornton to go Philadelphia.
Despite his intention to undo Hallet's "wilful errors," in the long and detailed overview of their affairs that the commissioners sent to the president on February, there was no suggestion of changes to the Capitol's design. Since the president created the problem, there was one issue that the board anticipated might have to be decided by the president. The L'Enfant Plan sited the Capitol on the down slope of a hill. In 1792, the head surveyor Andrew Ellicott suggested it be moved higher back on the hill. The president disagreed. In March 1793, with a Capitol design approved the old board made the same suggestion and told the president that Thornton agreed. The president didn't react. The old board made the best of the situation with a plan to let brick makers level the hill by digging clay for bricks to be used for the building.
By
February 1795, Commissioner Thornton had a better idea, build the
foundation higher. With the prospect of seeing the president, Thornton
decided to write his own reports on issues the president should decide
including a report on the foundation and on the next stage in building
the Capitol, the basement. He began collecting data for his foundation
report to prove that raising it would be cheaper than leveling the hill.
In the process of trying to begin leveling the city as whole, a French
engineer, perhaps attracted by other Frenchmen working in the city,
measured elevations on Capitol Hill in the summer of 1794. In his
report, Thornton explained: "Being cautious of admitting
any Information on this important Subject, without investigating the
minutiæ myself, I went over the Ground with a very accurate Instrument,
and took the different heights, which I found corresponded so nearly to
the Elevations given by Monsr Blois, that I may, with great propriety
proceed upon his Reports as Data, in calculating the difference of the
Expence of raising the foundation and of removing the Ground."
The old board had also asked both Hallet and Williamson to estimate the cost of raising the foundation one foot. Thornton came up with his own figure, and observed: "Mr Hallet’s I think rather under the Truth, and Mr Williamson’s rather more than what the work can be done for by our present Arrangements. It is thought the work may now be executed for £1.2S.6D. the Perch; I will however allow £1.3.1 i.e. £740 for a whole round of one Foot high, or for the ten feet £7,400."
Hallet's "rather being under truth" was not the type of wilful errors that bothered Thornton. He called attention to one in his report on the basement. "It has been hinted," he wrote, that there would be no basement. Then he fumed "I cannot tell what was contemplated by those who immediately superintended the building." That is Hallet. Between January 21 and February 23 when Thornton went to Philadelphia, Thornton had an opportunity to force Hallet to show drawings that would prove that he planned to thwart the amended plan approved by the president and thwart the "ideas of Doctor Thornton." But the doctor didn't jump at the opportunity to cross-examine Hallet. The board took a month to reply to Hallet's letter. The board's secretary informed him that "the Board have concluded previous to giving an answer to your request you will lay before them any papers you have respecting the Capitol."(26)
As the bird flies, Thornton's Georgetown house was several miles from Hallet's house next to Capitol. But while measuring the elevation of Capitol Hill, Thornton could have conferred with Hallet. Not having data to marshal on the subject, Thornton's report on the basement is short, and as it turned out, he didn't give the president his report on the basement.
However,
in the Papers of William Thornton, C. M. Harris gives agency to
all of Thornton's reports: "WT
raised the second ["the basement"] (and likely others) in meetings with
President Washington." But there is no evidence for that, and evidence
that he didn't. His third report was on leveling the city in which he
wrote that despite the work of Blois, "it appears necessary to lay the
plan I propose before the Executive that a certain rule may be adopted
by which all future operations shall be regulated." He described and drew his plan using the alphabet from A to O. However, on August 15, 1795, after he retired,
Commissioner Carroll sent a long letter to the president addressing
problems remaining. He was most concerned with leveling the city. He
mentioned Blois several times and Thornton not at all, except by
implication. In the spring of 1795, Blois stopped working because of
differences with the board, that is, Thornton and Scott. Carroll was
then too ill to sit with the board.
It was pointless for Thornton to try to change board policy by going
over that head without informing his colleagues. If Carroll did not know
about Thornton's "certain rule," the president did not know about it
either.
As
for Capitol design, it seems that Thornton did not want to quiz Hallet
for fear that he would find that Hallet had nothing against having a
basement.(7) What Thornton wrote in his report were conclusions to be drawn once he had proof of Hallet's perfidy: "I must beg leave to remark that very
great
liberties have been taken in laying out the foundation of the Capitol,
and unnecessary deviations made from the plan you were pleased to
approve." He didn't specify the liberties taken. He did not have a copy of his prize winning design. Instead, in the next sentence, he rewrote history by reminding the president that "the impracticability of that plan was urged, to give
place to one which is not less so, but more expensive." Of course, the
president accepted changes to Thornton's plan because everyone agreed
that Hallet's revision made it less expensive. But not actually knowing what Hallet planned, Thornton could only
ask: "Why for the mere sake of differing from the original
plan should the order of things be inverted?"It was pointless, and
foolish, to present conclusions to the president based on a rumor that
could easily be dispelled by getting information from Hallet.
Hallet probably had not inverted the order of things. In that era, a basement was above ground and provided a service entrance to the building a story below its principal rooms. In his April 1793 amplification of his design, Thornton described his basement as 20 feet high. He described the floor above it as "The Grand Story." He distinguished his basement by facing it with rusticated stone which exhibited a rough cut that made pleasing contrast with the smooth noble facade above with its Classical columns. Having the rusticated basement was critical for Thornton. Not having one would clearly be a repudiation of his design ideas.
In the designs Hallet drew before he came to the city, he also had a rusticated basement. But in his March 1793 drawing, made after he had been on site for seven month, he realized that the building needed a "sub-basement," which is to say a basement partially underground, that "will raise the first floor to some steps above the highest ground...." That is to say, Hallet knew the site on the side of the hill was not level. The elevation Hallet drew has his sub-basement dignified with rusticated stone and also completely on the level. In reality, he knew that the ground around it was choppy. If he thought that a rusticated sub-basement could pass for a basement, he wasn't inverting anything, only coping with the rough terrain.
Another hazard Thornton faced if he particularized Hallet's wilfull errors, was the possibility that the president would ask Hallet to respond. Thornton finessed that by assuring the president that if the controversy remained solely in the board's hands all would be right. In his report, he made a bold promise: "It shall be my particular study to accommodate the original to the present foundation leaving out all difficulties or parts which the most common artificer cannot execute." That said, his report did not include any drawings. .Footnotes for Chapter Six
1. Letters Williamson wrote after he was fired make clear his antipathy to Hoban, Catholics, slave laborers and blacks in general, e.g. Williamson to --------; see "Hoban's Peter...." for Hoban collecting his slaves wages. .
2. The commissioners began hiring slave laborers in the summer of 1792. They principally assisted the surveyors. Irish gangs digging the foundation likely didn't use slaves. In January 1793 the commissioners wrote to Blodget that there were "none better for tending masons." That was a reference to slaves working at the President's house. Arnebeck, Slave Labor in Capital, pp. 58, 60-1, 86 Commrs. to Blodget, 5 January 1793.
3. on audit see Commrs. to GW, 3 November 1793; on piecework, Carroll to Williamson 7 May 1794, Commrs. to Williamson 17 & 19 May 1794, Commrs. to Hallet, 25 June 1794, RG42 NA, see also Williamson to GW, 11 July 1796.
4. Arnebeck, pp. 219-20; Williamson to Commrs. 5 June 1794, Commrs. to Hallet 7 June 1794 RG 42 NA. Correspondence between Commrs and Hallet also described in Commrs to GW, 4 February 1795 footnote 7;GW to commr. 1 June 1794 footnote cites Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 30 June, 1794.
5. GW to Johnson, 27 June 1794
6. Commrs. to Hallet, 26 June 1794, RG 42 NA; correspondence between Commrs and Hallet described in Commrs to GW, 4 February 1795 footnote 7; Commrs. proceeding 28 June 1794;
7. Allen, William, History of the United States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics, Chapter One: Grandeur on the Potomac; (XX) In his book, William Allen lends credence to Harris's take. The commissioners "could see that [Hallet's] foundations did not provide for the great round vestibule, or rotunda, that was Washington’s favorite part of the design."
8. Amer. Phil. Soc. Minutes; WT to Madison. 6 August 1806,
9. Harris, pp. 257-8; Jefferson to Madison 9 June 1793; Adams, William Howard, editor, Eye of Jefferson download available, p. 257
10. Jefferson to GW, 17 July 1794.
11
12. see Introduction
13. Allen, William, Chapter One: Grandeur on the Potomac, p. 26; GW to Commrs. 9 November 1795
14. Scott,
Stephen Hallet's Designs for the US Capitol
15. John Trumbull to Jn. Trumbull, 23 Sept. 1793, as quoted in King, Julia, George Hadfield: Architect of the Federal City
16. Greenleaf agreement with Hallet
17. Johnson to GW 28 June 1794
18. Commrs to Blodget, 24 December 1793, Commrs. records; Anna Maria Brodeau Thornton's Papers, vol. 1 images 5-11.
19. Blodget’s lottery in Arnebeck, Fiery Trial pp. 215, 221-3
20. Fairfax to GW, 6 July 1794
21. Deakins to GW 7 July 1794; GW to Lee, 25 July 1794,
22. GW to Lear, 28 August 1794
23. Brown, Glenn 1896, "Dr. William Thornton, Architect." Architectural Record, 1896 , Vol. VI, July-September
24. Lear to GW, 5 September 1794
25. Brown op. cit., pp. 55-6; Ridout, Building the Octagon, p. 61; Deakins to GW, 27 May 1796
YY Ridout p. 80
Comments
Post a Comment