Chapter Six: Hallet Dismissed

The Doctor Examined, or Why William Thornton Did Not Design the Octagon House or the Capitol

by Bob Arnebeck

Table of Contents

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.

Before awarding Thornton $500 for his design in April 1793, the commissioners had asked the president to arrange for an audit of their operations. Rumors of their incompetence ever circulated in Georgetown, and they wanted to at least squelch those dealing with how they spent money. As befitted gentlemen of that era, they were also ever looking to control the cost of labor. They thought their hiring slaves in April 1792 had "cooled" the expectations of workers, stoked by L'Enfant's inexplicable kindnesses like 4 ounces of "chocolate sugar butter" per week. In 1793, even before rewarding Thornton for his obviously very costly Capitol design, at their successive monthly meetings, the commissioners nurtured a plan to require that all work be done on a piece work basis. Rather than calculate a wage by days worked, they would pay for the amount of work done. It seemed that Hoban convinced them that it wouldn't work for carpenters. The foreman of the stone workers, Collen Williamson, was less convincing. Plus, with stone work beginning at the Capitol, a new crew of stone workers would be needed, and Hoban thought Irishmen could do the job on a piece work basis. Knowing the adamancy of the Scot Williamson and his Scottish hands, the commissioners looked to the Frenchman Hallet to endorse piece work over day wages, and he obliged. He came up with a figure that Williamson thought underestimated the amount of work done by masons paid by the day. Hoban found Cornelius McDermott Roe who was once an indentured servant at Mount Vernon, and he began hiring Irish masons, with the proviso that the commissioners provide slave laborers to move the stone. Williamson threatened to quit, and many of his men did.(1)

Meanwhile, Hallet found laying the Capitol's foundation problematical. In a January 1795 letter to the board, he recalled the difficulties: "I traced and directed the laying of the foundation of the Capitol, a work of such extent and importance as to require in every point of view the greatest attention and the more so because it could only be done in detached squares and had the unevenness of the ground to contend with." The site was not level. It sloped down from east to west. Evidently, the crew of Irishmen that dug out the ground for the foundation made a relatively shallow incision into the hill. Hallet floated the idea to the board of digging out more ground on the east side of the building to accommodate cellars under the "detached squares." The board frowned on more digging and wondered if he might just "sink the Walls and not dig out the Area."(2) Then Williamson, who had managed to get the foundation of the President's house laid without any problems, entered the discussion. He pointed out that while Hallet had given masons orders, he had never shown anyone his plans for the foundation. Williamson accused Hallet of hiding the changes he made to the plan approved by the president. On June 7, the board authorized Williamson to get Hallet's 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."(3)
 

Why the board turned on Hallet is easily explained. Greater reliance on Hallet might require that he be paid a salary commensurate with what Williamson and Hoban were getting which meant Hallet would get a $1,000 raise. Hallet refused to give up his plans. That is also easily explained. Once the board had his plans, they could hand them to Williamson or Hoban and fire Hallet. Then the commissioners adjourned and left Georgetown.

 

The president had been expected at their meeting in order to discuss buying more lots in Square 21. He now wanted to buy the whole square which would require the help of the commissioners. But congress remained in session, and that kept the president in Philadelphia. The board scheduled their next meeting for June 20 when the president would be able to attend. The president arrived in Georgetown on the 20th, but the commissioners didn't. On Sunday, June 22nd, he rode out to see the locks around the Virginia side of Little Falls. The Capitol did not have to be ready until 1800, but the Potomac River locks were supposed to be inviting the commerce of the world in 1794. On his way, his horse stumbled; to prevent a fall the president wrenched his back and managed to make it to Mount Vernon. When the board met, he was still convalescing. He wrote to Commissioner Johnson on the 27th and regretted that he did not see him in the federal city.(4)

 

On the 23rd, Hallet had his reply to the board's letter carried from his house by the Capitol to the board's clerk in Georgetown. 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.(5)

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. Because the plan itself was not at issue, it was their decision not the president's.(6)

The details of how Hallet fell from favor are 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."
However, the president didn't press the matter in his June 27th letter to Johnson, nor ever mention in writing that he inspected the site of the Capitol on his way to Georgetown or his horse's stumbling on the way to the Little Falls.(7)

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]." However, Thornton never wrote anything about his December trip to the city let alone 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. 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.(8)  

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."(9)

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."(10) As Don Hawkins showed 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.(11) 

There is evidence that Hallet 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.(12)

At the same time, a plan with a domed Rotunda became the only leverage that Thornton had to gain the fame he thought he deserved. By 1797, he was passing off floor plans that copied Hallet's plan in all respects, save for the grand vestibule, as his own design. The plans had Hallet's Senate chamber, Jefferson's Halle aux Bles House chamber, Hallet's uncluttered Conference room, but not Hallet's court yard. Glenn Brown called it Thornton's "modified plan." In July 1794, when Thornton arrived in Georgetown, he had not yet drawn that modified plan. There is no evidence that he was personally involved in the dispute between Hallet and the commissioners. Nor is there any evidence that he met the president during the dispute with Hallet.

On July 3, the president passed through Georgetown on his way back to Philadelphia. He paused 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 appoint two commissioners. There is no evidence that the president saw or asked about Thornton. There is no evidence that he saw the commissioners or Hallet.(13)

On July 10, in the first letter the commissioners wrote to the president after their dispute with Hallet, they only wrote about their meeting with Greenleaf. They mortgaged a thousand lots so he could raise a million dollar loan in Holland. The crisis of the moment in theirs and Greenleaf's minds were drains: "We have had Intercourse with Mr Greenleaf about Drains, and expect he will have a conversation with you on the subject—None can be more strongly impressed than we are of the propriety and importance of entering on this Business early, and on a large Scale...." There was no mention of Hallet, the Capitol's foundation or the grand vestibule, even though Greenleaf was distressed that Hallet had been dismissed. But the rich speculator solved the problem. He 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. As much as he was amenable to all of Greenleaf's idea, keeping Hallet 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.(14)

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.” 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.(15)

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.(16)

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.(17)

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 a flawed design.(18)

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."(19)

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 godfather, would not reject the appointment. On September 12, the new Secretary of State Edmund Randolph called on Thornton and offered him the job. 

Since both the president and Thornton were in the Philadelphia area during the end of August and early September is it likely that they met to discuss his appointment? 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. The president commuted to his office from Germantown, which was a safe distance from any recurrence of yellow fever. 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. Randolph could tell him what the president expected him to do to earn his $1,600 a year salary.(20)

The newly appointed commissioner did not need a personal word from the president to alert him to the problems faced by the commissioners or 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, primarily because they they would be required to live in the city, a requirement widely known. The design of the Capitol was a source of anxiety only for Thornton and Hallet. The universal problems were the vexing distances created by the city plan and lack of housing. Masons balked at having to walk up Capitol Hill to get to work. Carpenters joked about the city regulation requiring that any house made of wood be removed by 1800. Proprietors and speculators puzzled over the relative importance of various streets and avenues, which would sooner be viable and which would be completely obscured by second growth scrub and virulent berry bushes. Having commissioners always on the scene might allow them to adapt the plan to the reality of the topography and needs of the individual proprietors, workers, and shop keepers, not to mention those seduced by the commissioners or speculators to actually to make the federal city their permanent home.(21)

Of course, Greenleaf's operations promised to claim most of the commissioners' attention. That was not obvious to the naked eye. While the Carroll clan had laid out and sold lots in a town to be called Carrollsburg, when Greenleaf's men arrived on the Point, they found shacks for slaves between the more stately abodes of Notley Young and Daniel Carroll of Duddington's family. The former overlooked the Potomac, and the latter overlooked the Eastern Branch. The slaves made fields green with grain and the Carroll's exploited mercantile connections in France that the Scottish merchants in Georgetown didn't have. Greenleaf sent more than builders to rend the rural calm. He sent a bureaucracy.

Once he decided to financially support Hallet, his factotum Simmons saw that it was indeed given. While sailing to America, Greenleaf had met French refugees whose talents he decided to tap. Among them was 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...." Dr. Appleton determined that Lovering's houses cost $4.50 a square foot to build and Clark's cost $5.50. Mr. Henry recognized a large room in one of Lovering's house as being perfect for a small hotel. Yet, the houses they built qualified as three story luxury townhouses. An 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 house had one major problem: its location. It was over a mile from the Capitol, over two miles from the President's house and there was no nearby bridge to Virginia.(22)

By and large, as a commissioner Thornton cooperated with Greenleaf and his men, but he had nothing to do with the design and construction of any houses. However, what was built there sealed Thornton's fame as the designer of the most notable house private built in the city's early years. In April 1797, John Tayloe III, a very rich Virginian, would buy a corner lot in a square southwest of the President's house. The lot was larger than most affording ample space for a stables. That attracted Tayloe who was gaining fame as his thoroughbred horses won races. However, the city's building regulations required that house walls parallel the nearby street which meant that the house had to be accommodated to the acute angle formed by the intersection at the southwest corner of the lot. No documents written at that time mention who designed the house. Construction began, under Lovering's supervision, and work largely ended in December 1801. In that day, architects superintending a house commonly signed a contract after the design and all the materials to be used were particularized and the cost determined. That process went more smoothly if the superintending architect also designed the house.

In 1896, Glenn Brown attributed the design of the house to Thornton based on Tayloe family legend which didn't mention Lovering. When scholars saw accounts and letters proving that Lovering supervised the building, it behooved them to explain why Lovering could not have designed it. C. M. Harris and Orlando Ridout V who wrote Building the Octagon, cited Lovering's work for Greenleaf as proof that he did not have the imagination to design the Octagon. In his 1989 book, Ridout quotes a 1795 document describing Lovering as "one of three 'contracting carpenters.'"In 1995, 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 - notably the so-called Honeymoon House... was well executed but, in terms of design, conventional and unadventurous."(23)

The Honeymoon House was first known as the Simmons house. It was the first Greenleaf house built on the Point. Simmons was on the Point by April 17, three weeks before Greenleaf hired Lovering and Clark. The design Simmons brought with him from Philadelphia is no longer extant. Writing circa 1900, the historian Allen Clark thought Greenleaf himself might have drawn the design. The brick machines began molding bricks in late May. Dr. Appleton was able to move into the house when he arrived in late June. Neither Lovering nor Clark had arrived by then. Appleton was still trying to get one of Greenleaf's somewhat silent partners, Robert Morris, to pay Lovering's way from Philadelphia to the federal city. Clark had sent some of his men to the city while still preparing his own move. His wife would later describe that long process in a letter to Greenleaf: "In June 1794 we sold our House, our Store of Merchandise, three Female Slaves, also about one half our Household Furniture, not to pay our Debts, for we owed none of  consequence, No, but to carry the money to Greenleaf's Point...."(24)

 
When Clark and Lovering arrived in July, they began building to the east and south of what was called Simmons' house on 6th and N Streets SW. Clark built a row of four houses on 4th and P Streets and Lovering built two pairs of houses on 4th and N Streets. The stand alone Simmons house would serve as corporate headquarters. It looked up the western reaches of the Potomac River inviting commerce to the Point which, if all went by plan, would become the commercial center of the nation, if not the world. Appleton immediately experienced a problem with the house. The heat of the summer constricted his breathing and he was rushed to house on the heights of Georgetown overlooking the Potomac. He warned his replacement that houses on 6th Street flanking the Potomac were "the most ineligible in that climate, as you'll perceive in June, July and August next."

 
Work on the large house must have begun in May, perhaps before Lovering signed his contract with Greenleaf on May 8. Letters Appleton wrote from the Point suggest 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.  Lovering assumed control of finishing the 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."Also, the house was not designed to be solely a luxurious residence. When Simmons left, it became a store. Oval rooms would have been out of place.(25)

 

Of course, proving that Lovering 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 reacted to the design and construction of the houses on Geenleaf's Point. He did have real estate on his mind. He had likely learned from Blodget that the president had bought lots in Square 667 off the end of South Capitol Street along the Eastern Branch and a few blocks from where Lovering was building, but Thornton was more interested in the lots the president bought on Peter's Hill in Square 21 near Georgetown were he told Blodget he planned to build his city residence. Thornton signified to the board that he wanted to buy two lots in Square 33 around the corner from Square 21.(26)

 

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." After working with Scott on the board's affairs, Deakins would complement him as "well Calculated for making Contracts & seems to have a perfect Knowledge of the Value of Work & Materials."(27)

 

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, which included his mother-in-law.  That she came too precluded him from arranging to live in the federal city where there was no society or amenities. After initial rejections of offers of appointment, the president had loosened the residence requirement. Living in Georgetown for a while would be "tantamount" to living in the city. However, Thornton would buy a house in the center of Georgetown which probably didn't please the president. In Philadelphia, Thornton briefed the secretary of state in a way that puzzled him. 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. 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.(28)

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.(29) 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. 

Then Greenleaf made a brief visit to the city and deflected the board's attention from his payments. 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.(30)

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.(31) 

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."

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."(32) 

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. Hoban would have to stay at the President's house and Hadfield could assist in allowing Thornton to change the Capitol design. He had told Lear that the "approved plan" did not require Hadfield's assistance. In his letter to Trumbull, the approved plan became "the general plan." He asked Trumbull "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. 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. Of course, the statuette requested was only for a niche on his Georgetown house. Trumbull didn't react to Thornton's boasting but did 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."(33)

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.(34)

Thornton wrote two letters to Lettsom after his appointment. The December letter exaggerated the powers and prestige of the commissioners. The January letter bemoaned his lack of real accomplishments. His colleagues obviously found him useful, writing to someone as daunting and demanding as the General was not easily done. They also decided to send him to Philadelphia to establish a line of credit not dependent on Greenleaf. Commissioner Carroll, the politician, was best suited to return and renew his many connections in the capital, but he was dying. To excuse his not going, Commissioner Scott announced that his conviction, born of his review of the Greenleaf contract, that the board should not mortgage any more lots prevented him from trying to package a proposal that might require mortgaging lots. Thornton had no legal training but that did not disqualify a know-it-all. Scott amassed and arranged a long report that was sent to president that proved the board needed a loan, and then he and Carroll trusted that Thornton could do the necessary paper work in Philadelphia.(35)

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 had hired a French engineer who offered to come up with a plan to level the city so that houses, streets and drainage ditches were arranged rationally. "Monsr. Blois" began the first step in the process by charting the altitude of points throughout the city. Building on that, Thornton announced in his report to the president: "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 rule using the alphabet from A to O. 

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. The old board assumed the grounds around the Capitol site could be dug up by brick makers. 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." 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, that directly challenged 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, and the floor above it as "The Grand Story." While he accepted the changes inspired by Jefferson that Hallet made that made his ground floor the principal story, he thought the exterior walls should still make the ground floor look like the basement. 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. The basement justified the smaller columns on top of the basement that made his design seem light and economical. Not having one would clearly be a repudiation of his design ideas.

However, his report on the basement is 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. However, the report included a sentence that cost conscious Scott likely wrote. 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."(36)

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 reasons never explained, the board waited a month before it replied and Thornton left for Philadelphia before Hallet could respond to their request. 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."(37) It seems that Thornton and his colleagues decided that it was better to be in the dark about Hallet's plans. 
However, work on basements for the North and South wings would begin once the foundation was ready.

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 whether Hallet's latest plan had a basement, 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."

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."(38)

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.(39)

Chapter Seven

1. on audit see Commrs. to GW 11-12 March 1793 & 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; Hoban's dislike of Williamson was likely based on the Scot's anti-Irish and anti-Catholic insults, see Williamson to GW, 11 July 1796. On McDermott Roe see       ; .

2. Hallet to Commrs. 21 January 1795; Commrs. to Hallet 7 June 1794?;

3. Williamson to Commrs. 5 June 1794,

4.  GW to commr. 1 June 1794 ; Commrs. to GW 7 June 1794;  GW to Knox 25 June 1794; GW to Johnson, 27 June 17 1794;

5.Hallet to Commrs. 23 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.  WT to Madison. 6 August 1806; Harris, pp. 257-8. GW to Johnson, 27 June 17 1794

8. Rivardi to GW 6 May 1794

9.  Allen, William, Chapter One: Grandeur on the Potomac, p. 26; 

10. Scott, Stephen Hallet's Designs for the US Capitol 

11. GW to Commrs. 9 November 1795

12. Allen, William, History of the United States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics, Chapter One: Grandeur on the Potomac;

13. Deakins to GW 7 July 1794;

14. Commrs. to GW, 10 July 1794; Greenleaf agreement with Hallet 1 October 1794, in Greenleaf Papers; John Trumbull to Jonathan Trumbull 23 September 1794 as quoted in King, Hadfield

15. Deakins to GW 7 July 1794; Fairfax to GW, 6 July 1794  ; Fairfax, Ferdinando, "Plan for liberating the negroes within in the united states." American Museum December 1790, pp. 284-86; 

16. GW to Thomas Sims Lee, 25 July 1794,

17. GW to Lear, 28 August 1794.

18. Brown, Glenn 1896, "Dr. William Thornton, Architect." Architectural Record, 1896 , Vol. VI, July-September.

19. Lear to GW,  5 September 1794.

20. Stuart to GW 14 September 1794, reply see footnote 3;  GW Diary 30 September 1794

21. on opinions of old commissioners and hopes for new see Appleton to Webster 26 July 1794, Ford, Notes on NoahWebster, p. 384; Andrew Ellicott to WT, 23 February 1795, Harris p. 296.

22. Cranch to his father 25 November 1794; Appleton to Henry, 3 & 9 February 1795; ad in Washington Gazette 22 June 1796.

23. Harris p. 588; Ridout, pp 28-29, 76, 123.

24. Greenleaf's Account with Commissioners; Clark, Greenleaf and Law... p.  ; Dalton to Greenleaf 20 May 1794; Stoddert to Greenleaf 12 May 1794  In Greenleaf Papers, Stoddert looks forward to "getting supplied with bricks from your machines...."; Appleton to Greenleaf, June 23, 1794; Isabella Clark to Morris and Nicholson, 28 November 1795. She sent the same letter to Greenleaf.

25.  List of Houses and Property on Greenleaf's Point, Book 75 Greenleaf's Papers, Wheat Row, four whose shells were built and presumably designed by Clark, were built in the spring of 1795; Appleton to Cranch 21 February 1794; Prentiss to Nicholson 29 February 1796, Nicholson Papers.

26. GW to Commrs. 14 March 1794 & 11 April 1794

27. Baltimore Daily Intelligencer 18 October 1794 p. 3; Brown op. cit., pp. 55-6; Ridout, Building the Octagon, p. 61;  Deakins to GW, 27 May 1796.

28.  Commrs to Randolph  19  September 1794;  Randolph to Commrs. 2 October 1794.  Johnson and Stuart to GW  23 April 1794.

29.  Commrs. Proceedings 1 October 1794.

30.  Greenleaf's secretary to Commrs, 18 September 1794;  Commrs to Greenleaf, 18, 20, 27. 29, 31 October 1794, 3 November1794; Commrs to Randolph, 18 Oct. 1794.

31.  Commrs to Simmonds  25 November 1794;

32. John Trumbull to Jn. Trumbull, 23 Sept. 1793, as quoted in King, Julia, George Hadfield: Architect of the Federal City; GW to Commrs, 27 November 1794; Lear to GW, 17 December 1794. Commrs. to GW, 18 December 1794 & 2 January 1795.

33. WT to Trumbull, 6 January 1795, Harris, p. 291; Trumbull to Hadfield, 9 March 1795, Trumbull Papers, also Harris, p. 304.

34. GW to Carroll, 7 January 1795, reply 13 January 1795. 

35. WT to Lettsom 22 Dec 1794 and 8 Jan 1795, Pettigrew vol 2 546-9. 

36. Harris, pp. 305-10; Commrs to GW  4 February 1795 .

37.  Hallet to Commrs. 21 January 1795, Richmond to Hallet, 20 February 1795.

38.  GW to Commrs, 28 January 1795;  Commrs to GW,  18 February 1795;WT to Lettsom 8 Jan 1795, Pettigrew vol 2 546-9. Blodget to WT, 5 January 1796, Harris, pp. 288-9; 

39.  Johnson to GW, 23 December 1793,  Johnson to GW, 15 June 1795 ; Johnson and Stuart to GW 23 April 1794