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. |
Meanwhile by the fall of 1793 the first story of the President's house had been built. The man who deserved most of the credit was an elderly emigrant from Scotland related to a Georgetown tavern keeper. Collen Williamson came down from New York City and supervised both the quarrying of stone down river and the mostly Scottish emigrants who cut and laid the stone. He boasted of building stone castles in Scotland and assured the commissioners that no bricks were needed. James Hoban, an emigrant from Ireland who had won the design contest for the building, hired a crew of mostly Irish carpenters. He scouted other building materials including clay for bricks. He pleased the commissioners by at the same time alerting them to the dimensions of the tasks at hand and assuring them that problems could be solved. While Williamson didn't appreciate the slave laborers the board insisted on hiring once L'Enfant left, Hoban welcomed the idea, bought a few slaves himself and put them at work at the President's house as apprentice carpenters. He would collect their wages, of course.(1)
Meanwhile up on Capitol Hill, a crew of Irish quarrymen, as they liked to call themselves, dug the foundation. Since 1786, most of the quarrying for the canal around the falls of the Potomac had been done by indentured servants from Ireland. Until it got too cold, just as they had at the President's house, masons began laying the foundation stone for the Capitol. They were assisted by laborers, most of them were hired slaves.(2)
Fortunately for Thornton, when they gathered for their monthly meeting, the commissioners were not beguiled by the obvious signs of progress. They had to sweat through an audit of their books that made clear that despite their contract with Greenleaf, they had to economize. They hit on a sure way to control labor expenses: make as many skilled workers as possible work on a piece work basis. They thought that by knowing how much stone was needed and paying for only how much stone workers set, they would simplify and economize. The commissioners asked Hallet to calculate how much it would cost to get the stone laid on a piece work basis. He came up with a figure that Williamson, who abhorred piece work wages, thought underestimated the amount of work done by masons paid by the day.(3)
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.
 |
| 59. Square 21 and Peter's Hill |
In his reply, Hallet told the commissioners that he would give the drawings up only after they hired him as the superintending architect and paid him what they paid Hoban, $1500 year. They also had to credit him as the only designer of the Capitol. On June 26, 1794, the commissioners responded to Hallet. 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. The board also sent Williamson to get the plans, which they described as "several drafts and essays of drafts of the various parts of the Capitol on distinct sheets or pieces of paper numbered from 1 to 15." Hallet refused to give them up. The board wrote to Hallet and raged 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.”
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...." 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)
There is no evidence that the board sought the president's advice during his confinement at Mount Vernon. 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)
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 or Greenleaf who may have been in city, too. 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. Because of that, the board did not evict Hallet and his family from their house near the Capitol. Evidently, Greenleaf promised to pay Hallet so he could continue working on his designs for the Capitol.
On June 20, Thornton was at the Philosophical Society's meeting in Philadelphia. By July 6, he was in Georgetown. He likely knew all the rumors about what had happened to Hallet, but none of the principals, the commissioners, the president, Hallet, or Greenleaf alluded to Thornton being involved. The news that brought his to Georgetown was likely the retirements of Johnson and Stuart. They first intimated to the president that they would back in December 1793 after inking the contract with Greenleaf that they thought assured financing for the public buildings. They would actually retire once they cleaned up the mess Blodget made of the lottery. Any number of people could have alerted Thornton about the vacancies on the board. Blodget is the most likely suspect. After being terminated as superintendent he had paid out the lottery and returned to Philadelphia. The winner of the Hotel found that it was unfinished, but Blodget still had much property in the city to cover that.(18)
Evidently, in Georgetown Thornton met Ferdinando Fairfax who 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 |
On
July 6, Fairfax wrote a letter to his
godfather, describing Thornton as a man 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.” Except for possibly
his mother-in-law's property, he had no real pecuniary interest in
Philadelphia. While Thornton did not write the letter, he 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)
So far so good for Thornton: Hallet no longer directed work at the Capitol and there would be new two new commissioners. But there are many ways to read the tea leaves of history. In 1806, Thornton would have reason to make Hallet's dismissal a more decisive event. At that time, Benjamin Latrobe was ridiculing Thornton's design and built the Capitol's South Wing. Thornton decided to warn President Jefferson that thanks to what Latrobe was doing the central building could not have a dome. The only way to save it was to banish Latrobe just as President Washington had banished Hallet in 1794.(8)
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)
However, the editor of Thornton's published papers, C. M. Harris, endorses Thornton's 1806 characterization of the dispute with Hallet and 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]." William Allen put it this way: 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."
Furthermore, Harris 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.
There is no evidence that the president, Thornton or Rivardi saw Hallet's foundation in June 1794. Rivardi had the best opportunity. 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.
More to the point, 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 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." However, Hallet never presented his case to the president, likely because he was petrified when in the Great Man's presence and also, thanks to Greenleaf, he didn't need to in order to save his job.(14)
The speculator also tried to mollify the warring parties. 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.
In a June 27, 1794, letter to Johnson, the president regretted not seeing him in the federal city and was, as usual, vexed by affairs in the city, but not the Capitol. The president had to appoint two new commissioners since Johnson and Stuart announced their retirement effective September 15. The president outlined an idea that Stuart had suggested. One commissioner would live in the city and in effect be in charge of everything. To conform with the Residence Act, there would still be two other commissioners but they would only be summoned to the city when needed to rubber stamp what the resident commissioner had done. Stuart wasn't up to the job and Greenleaf had told the president that Johnson planned to move to the city. The president asked Johnson to stay on with the understanding that he was the one man in charge.
Johnson turned his old friend down, being a commissioner was that enraging: "I do not know of any Event which would induce me to stand the Mark of Calumny and gross Abuse as I have done for near three Years past." Johnson wanted to invest in the city by buying lots in the city. While the commissioners had defended the ideas of Dr. Thornton's in the dispute with Hallet, Johnson did not think of asking Thornton to oversee construction. He wrote to his brother Joshua who was the US consul in London and ask him to send over a competent British architect to get the Capitol built.(15) (17)
On his way from Mount Vernon back to Philadelphia, the president paused in Georgetown long enough to at least ask William Deakins, the board's treasurer, to gather opinions of Gustavus Scott, a Virginia born Baltimore lawyer active in Potomac Company affairs. There is no evidence that the president asked about or saw Thornton who may have been in the city. On July 7, Deakins sent up a brief but good report: "Clever in his profession, & a Man of Industery & affiable Manners." But on July 25, 1794, the president asked two Maryland politicians, the governor and a sitting senator to fill the vacancies on the board. Senator Richard Potts, like Commissioner Johnson, was a lawyer. The president also set out 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.
The letter offering the job to Gov. Thomas Sim Lee is extant: "Experience has evinced the propriety -- indeed the indispensible necessity -- that the Commissioners of the Federal District should reside within the City, or so near to it, as by a daily attendance to see that everything moves with regularity, economy and dispatch...." The president 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 added 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 disputes with their architect.(21)
Both
Lee and Potts declined the appointment. The president offered Scott the job and he accepted the appointment in August. In late August, the president 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. He wanted to know what people there thought of him. He also asked Lear for more names.
 |
| 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.
Meanwhile, in another part of city, a house was built that, in the 20th century, would be cited as proof that Thornton designed the two of the most notable houses in the city. Both had ovals rooms. One of those houses, the Octagon at the intersection of New York Avenue and 18th Streets Northwest remains one of the architectural gems of the city. The house built in 1794 at 6th and N Streets Southwest that doesn't have oval room also remains somewhat of an architectural curiosity. It's design is attributed to William Lovering who in 1799 was hired to be the supervising architect for the two large houses with ovals that Thornton is credited for designing.
In 1995, C. M. Harris appended an "Editorial Note: Miscellaneous Architectural Designs to 1802,"to volume one of the Papers of William Thornton 1781-1802. In it, he observed that Lovering's "architectural work... was well executed but, in terms of design, conventional and unadventurous." Thus, while Lovering was the supervising architect directing their construction, he could not have designed the two houses with ovals. That redounds to Thornton's credit. Other historians echo Harris, and that necessitates a detailed look at Lovering's life and work.
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;
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. Commrs to GW, 28 January 1794 Jonathan Singerton, "The United States as an Abode of Misery: Maria von Borns Life in the Early Republic" (In Tortola, Rivardi met Maria von
Born, a Viennese socialite who had fallen in love with Rivardi and left
her husband.) Harris, p. 251; Rivardi to GW, 6 May 1794; ; Commrs. to GW, 23 March 1794; Commrs. to GW, 10 July 1794
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