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...." The board only wanted his plans and would not suffer 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 they acted decisively without bothering the president. Because the plan was not at issue, it was their decision not the president's.(6)
The details of how Hallet fell from favor is important because the accepted narrative is that the president pushed for it, then made Thornton a commissioner and asked him to restore his design. Thornton is the only source for that version. Twelve years after the events in June 1794, he wrote a letter to Secretary of State James Madison that "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."
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. If he had wanted to, 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. If he could not accomplish that, he likely had no time to look at the foundation. In a June 27, 1794, letter to Commissioner Johnson, he 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, Thornton 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 of the premiated design, in his History of the United States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics, 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." 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 essay "Stephen Hallet's Designs for the US Capitol:" "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." As Don Hawkins shows in his reconstruction of Thornton's floor plan, the reformed plan adopted in July 1793 did away with almost every idea Thornton had except the grand vestibule covered by a dome, which Hallet placed on top of the Conference room. However, the president asked Hallet to draw a portico for East front that would be flush with the walls of the two wings. Williamson accused Hallet of laying the foundation so that would be impossible.
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 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)
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.
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)
On July 3, the president passed through Georgetown on his way back to Philadelphia. He paused in Georgetown long enough to ask William Deakins, the board's treasurer, to gather opinions of Gustavus Scott, a Virginia born Baltimore lawyer active in Potomac Company affairs. With Johnson and Stuart leaving, he had to appointment two commissioners. There is no evidence that the president asked about or saw Thornton who may have been in the city. 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.
On July 7, Deakins sent up a brief but good report on Scott: "Clever in his profession, & a Man of Industery & affiable Manners." Who would be the next commissioners likely was the talk of Georgetown gentlemen. On July 6, the president's godson posted a letter recommending Thornton who "even with the sacrifice of considerable pecuniary interest, being desirous of fixing himself in the neighborhood of the city of Washington, wou’d willingly accept of some appointment in w’ch his talents might contribute to the Public Advantage by advancing the growth or Prosperity of the City.”(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 write to the president and didn't ask for a specific job. Ferdinando Fairfax was a scion of a family that 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...." 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 offered the job to Scott. 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 asked Lear about Thornton who he knew had been in Georgetown in July.
 |
| 64. Gustavus Scott |
He also 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 office from Germantown, which was a safe distance from any recurrence of yellow fever. 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 built.
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.
Work on the large house must have begun before May and thus before Lovering signed his contract with Greenleaf. Letters Appleton wrote from the Point prove that Lovering did not arrive until July. He was unlikely to base his reputation in a new country on a project begun before he arrived on the scene. 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.
Much as it would affect his future fame, there is absolutely no evidence that when Thornton came to attend his first board meeting that he had any inkling of the design and construction of the houses on Geenleaf's Point. He was made aware of Greenleaf's importance. The new board met in Georgetown on September 15, 1794. 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 credited Thornton for doing what Scott had been trained to do: "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 response 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 current 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."(19)
Thornton's being so complaisant in regards to the status of the Capitol design suggests that he 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)
Credit Scott for business forms and contracts. Give Thornton credit for writing "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. His personal letter gave some idea why he changed his mind about hiring 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 I was not regularly brought up an architect.” Both Hallet and Hoban objected to his plan. It seems that "elegant correspondence" required two superintendents not just Hoban. Thornton envisioned Hadfield as just the young man who could help him take control of the Capitol: “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.
The equivocation over hiring Hadfield proves that
Thornton had no instructions from the president to restore his original
design. Apparently in the back and forth over whether to hire Hadfield, Thornton
found his mission. However, given that Trumbull had unveiled Thornton's plans before the president, that Thornton wasn't more specific in describing what he would restore was interesting. He didn't allude to Hercules on the pediment and instead he explained that he wanted him to be paired with Apollo in niches on the exterior of his house.
Trumbull recognized Thornton's limitations and problems Hadfield might face. He advised him "to avoid any circumstances that may thwart their [the commissioners'] views or give them offence." He also intimated to the young architect that except for L'Enfant, no one in America would "be your equal in knowledge in your profession."(20)
The president did not react to the board hiring Hadfield. At the end of a January 7 letter to Commissioner 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. The advent of Law has some bearing on Thornton' fame. In 1995, the design of Law's largest house, which had oval rooms, would be attributed to Thornton.(21)
Thornton soon was given the opportunity to present his ideas to the president in Philadelphia unencumbered by the presence of his colleagues. He was sent there to arrange a loan to finance work on the public buildings. Getting a loan was Carroll's idea, but illness made it impossible for him to go. Scott amassed and arranged a long report that was sent to president that proved the board needed a loan. But his investigation of the contracts with Greenleaf forced him to conclude that thanks to those contracts too many of the board's building lots would be mortgaged to Dutch banks. He felt uncomfortable being the agent arguing for more to be mortgaged. However, there was no resistance by the administration to the idea which made it a perfect case for the guileless young M. D., at least as far as finances were concerned.
There is no evidence that in the few weeks before he would go to Philadelphia that Thornton researched how to package loans from banks. He did set out to research and write reports that would allow his talents to shine. The old board failed to get Rivardi to come up with a plan to level the city so that houses, streets and drainage ditches were arranged rationally. But, a French engineer came to the rescue and began the first step in the process by charting the altitude of points throughout the city.
Building on the work of Mons. Blois, Thornton announced: "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. The drawings are rather sketchy but viewed in isolation, the report appears to be a major contribution to a major problem. However, on August 15, 1795, after he retired, Commissioner Carroll sent a long letter to the president addressing the same problem. He mentioned Blois several times but not Thornton's "certain rule."
Ironically, Blois's chart of the wavy terrain of Capitol Hill, not Hallet's designs, allowed Thornton to once again address the needs of the Capitol. Work on the foundation would resume in the spring. The president had not allowed putting the building higher on the hill which necessitated a decision on scheduling the removal of ground behind the building. Commissioner Johnson owned slave brick makers and the Carroll clan owned acres of land. Mons. Blois's map of Capitol Hill showed where the clay had to be removed. Thornton had a different idea: raise the foundation higher. To gain a scientific understanding of the problem, the doctor followed in Blois's footsteps. As he put it in his report to the president: "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."
He then extended his scientific understanding of the problem. The old board had 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."
The commissioners had already paid an Irish contractor for providing a crew of Gaelic speaking quarrymen to dig the foundation. That allowed Thornton to reduce the
problem to a formula: "...the Expense is in an inverse
Ratio to the increased height of the foundation." Which is to say the higher the foundation the less earth removed. Assuming brick makers didn't take the clay, then raising the foundation was the better option. He gave the exact
expense down to the last penny for the raising foundation by 10, 9, 6,
or 3 feet, or keeping the current level. Then he made the whole table of
figures somewhat moot by saying that his calculations were based on
the assumption the earth would be removed from all of the Capitol Square
and all the roads leading to it for "a considerable distance." The
government would not have the will or means to do that for another 50
years.
Hallet's "rather being under truth" about the cost of raising the foundation was not the type of wilful errors that bothered Thornton. In his report on the foundation, he did fault Hallet for wasting money by sinking the foundation too deep on the east side. Then he essayed a second report devoted to the basement, which would be next built, to challenge Hallet.
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.
However, his report on the base in rather spare, only three paragraphs. What limited his prose was the same factor that left a gaping hole in the portion of the report the board sent to the president accounting for past and estimating 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." That language sounded like something Thornton would write.
The board's report didn't mention that on January 21, Hallet wrote to the board apologizing for his insubordination and asking for his old job back. By taking him back, the board would get the drawings they claimed they needed. For a reason never explained, the board's secretary informed Hallet 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) They sent the note just as Thornton left for Philadelphia. It seems that Thornton decided that it was better to be in the dark about Hallet's plan than to illustrate his report on the basement by describing what Hallet intended. In his report, Thornton provided no drawings of his ideas.
However, the board's report provided no drawings either. It was not the time for drawings. The board 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) So, Thornton could not spring a drawing of the pediment with Hercules on top.
Thornton began his report on the basement with a supposition: "It has been hinted" that there would be no basement. Then he fumed "I cannot tell what was contemplated by those who immediately superintended the building." Then he concluded: "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. 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?" That was a rhetorical question. 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."
It is frequently difficult to relate what Thornton wrote to reality. For example, Hallet probably had not inverted the order of things. In the designs Hallet drew before he came to the city, he also had a rusticated basement. In his January 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. He wasn't inverting anything, only coping with the rough terrain.
When Thornton finished his reports is uncertain. He never made a fair copy of them as stand alone documents. He did include his lengthy report on the foundation in a letter he handed to the president on March 12. The whole exercise was embarrassed by a letter the president sent to the commissioners on January 28 which suggested that Thornton was writing the wrong reports. The president 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." Had he? 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 's January 28 letter 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." Actually, Blodget was the man doing the spade work for the University. In January, he notified Thornton 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."(22)
Already embarrassed by not having a report on the University, just before he left for Philadelphia, his colleague Scott gulled him into becoming the messenger of bad news for the president. A paragraph in the long the report the board had sent to the president disputed the right of former commissioner Johnson to buy lots
from Greenleaf along Rock Creek just north of the stone bridge at K
Street NW. Greenleaf had no right to pick water lot when he asked for deeds for the 6,000 lots he had contracted to buy. Thornton totally agreed with Scott but didn't calculate what impression might be made by the three page letter on the controversy that Scott asked him to deliver to the secretary of state. The president already had a bad impression of the business. Before Thornton arrived the president received a letter from Commissioner Carroll regretting that ill health forced him to submit his resignation. A few days later the president had a letter in hand from ex-commissioner Stuart warning that in regards to the dispute with Johnson "the Commissioners are in my opinion in an error; and have acted with too much precipitation." Carroll's replacement had to be "a ⟨Law⟩ character of considerable eminence." Left unsaid but clearly implied was that Scott and Thornton had to be checked.(25)
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)
8. Amer. Phil. Soc. Minutes; WT to Madison. 6 August 1806,
9.
Evidently, Hallet eventually shared his plan with Jefferson, and that inspired Harris to cast the June drama with Hallet as crucial to the birth of political parties in America. 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, which he .
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.
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