Chapter Five: Hallet Dismissed/Thornton Appointed

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

by Bob Arnebeck

Table of Contents 

I am revising this chapter

Chapter Five: Hallet Dismissed/Thornton Appointed

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.

It's not certain when Thornton arrived, but once in Georgetown, he had much gossip to digest. On Capitol Hill, where the foundation stones of the Capitol peaked here and there above ground, the commissioners fired Hallet for insubordination. That was good news. On July 3, 1794, when the president rode through Georgetown on his way back to Philadelphia, he asked the board's treasurer, William Deakins, about a Baltimore lawyer named Gustavus Scott who now and then came to Georgetown to attend to Potomac Company business. That was bad news. If the president replaced Johnson, also from Maryland, with the Baltimore lawyer, then to keep the board balanced, the president had to appoint someone from Virginia to replace Stuart. By July 6, Thornton found someone to write a letter to the president to counter that. 

The president's godson, Ferdinando Fairfax, posted a  letter extolling 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.” Fairfax, then 28 years old, 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. Like Thornton, he was high minded in his pursuits. In 1790, Fairfax, a slave owner, had written a magazine article urging that freed slaves be sent to Africa.

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 the president's interest in such a project. Thornton likely got wind of the idea from Blodget. Fairfax didn't mention the Capitol or Hallet.(15)

On August 23, after Maryland's senator and governor declined taking the job, the president appointed Scott to replace Johnson. On August 28, he asked Tobias Lear to replace Stuart. Expecting a refusal, he asked Lear about Thornton and revealed what he knew about him: “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.”(17) On September 12, Edmund Randolph, who replaced Jefferson as secretary of state, informed Thornton that he had been appointed a commissioner to replace Commissioner Stuart with a salary of $1,600, and with the understanding that he live in the City of Washington. 

Much has been made of his appointment especially its connections to the board firing Hallet for insubordination. Thornton himself wrote the first take on his appointment. In a January 1, 1805, "Letter to Congress" defending his design against insinuations by Benjamin Latrobe, Thornton claimed that the president made him a commissioner to correct the mistakes made by Hallet and restore his original design. In June 1806, 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 1896, Glenn Brown picked up the story. 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."(18) 

In 1995, C. M. Harris filled in the blanks. Two of Hallet's 15 drawings showed a recessed portico opening into a central court yard and he laid the foundation accordingly: "It became clear, however, after Thornton and his friend J. J. U. Rivardi had visited the site that President Washington had not endorsed this solution, which eliminated the grand vestibule and the great repository of Thornton's premiated design."(7) 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, all that amounts to a good story for which is there is absolutely no evidence. George Washington did not waste two months to appoint his fourth choice in order to save his favorite part of the Capitol design. 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." Thornton claimed that the 1794 dispute was about the "centre dome" because in 1806 he was trying to get rid of Benjamin 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 November 1795 letter to commissioners Carroll, Scott and Thornton, 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)

Hallet found laying the Capitol's foundation problematical. In a January 1795 letter to the board, he recalled the difficulties he faced in May 1794: "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 Collen Williamson, the Scottish master mason 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.

The president had been expected at their meeting but not to discuss the Capitol. At the September auction lots, the president had bought six lots on the Eastern Branch. To correct any impression that he was favoring one side of the city, he immediately took Blodget aside and bought some lots in Square 21 on Peter's Hill close to the mouth of Rock Creek. He thought of building his private residence there. Greenleaf had offered to buy his Western lands which would finance the project. By the following spring, he decided 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. The road from Bladensburg to Georgetown passed over a mile north of the Capitol. If he inspected Hallet's work on the 21st, he never mentioned it nor did Hallet or anyone else. 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 just 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 reacted to board's attempt to get his drawings. He insisted he would give them up only after they hired him as the superintending architect and paying him what they paid Hoban. They also had to credit him as the only designer of the Capitol.(5) The commissioner replied on the 26th: “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)

Because he was recovering from a wrenched back, the president didn't see the foundation before the commissioners fired Hallet. As for Thornton and Rivardi seeing the foundation before the president, there is no evidence for that either. Thornton never wrote anything about his December trip to the city let alone seeing Hallet's foundation. There was likely not enough to see. 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 didn'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)

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 was drainage: "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. However, 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)

Just at that time in the summer of 1794, two English-born architects that Greenleaf had hired came to work in the city. That neither Joseph Clark or William Lovering volunteered any advice about the Capitol speak less to their discretion and more to their being busy with potentially more profitable buildings.  Greenleaf contracted to pay them an unheard of 8% commission for at least $30,000 worth of building annually for the next seven years. Unfortunately, for their legacies, in 1794 Clark built a row of four houses on 4th and P Streets SW and Lovering built two pairs of houses on 4th and N Streets SW. Everyone began calling the area nestled along the Potomac's shore Greenleaf's Point. Greenleaf soon took to calling the federal city the New Jerusalem and assured investors that because it overlooked the confluence of the Potomac, the Eastern Branch and two access points to the soon to be built Washington canal, Greenleaf's Point would be a commercial center of world wide importance. Not for nothing did the president buy building lots at the end of South Capitol Street. 

All that had very little to do with the Capitol which was being built a mile away. However, Thornton's future fame entailed more than designing the Capitol. When work began on the Octagon, a mansion still standing just southwest of the White House, Lovering was the superintending architect which entailed organizing and overseeing the various contractors who would build the house. At that time, it was common for the architect who designed a building to also superintend its construction. James Hoban was the perfect example. He designed and built the President's house. Since evidence that Thornton designed the Octagon relied heavily on a proud family's say so long after the principals died, it behooved architectural historians to find evidence that Lovering could not have designed it. 

Greenleaf hired his brother-in-law Dr. Nathaniel Appleton to be his chief clerk. He needed a better climate for his lungs rather than the money. He arrived in late June and found a large brick at the west end of N Street facing the Potomac River. It still stands in a cul de sac that was originally the south end of 6th Street. In the 20th century, William Lovering would be credited for designing it. Architectural historians point to the humdrum design of the N Street house as proof that he could not have designed the Octagon. That left Thornton as the likely genius who did design it. C. M. Harris observed that the N Street house was "well executed but, in terms of design, conventional and unadventurous." Which is to say, the man who designed that house could not have designed the Octagon. In Building the Octagon, Orlando Ridout V cites the house as proof that William Lovering 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.'" But Lovering did not design the house on N Street. 

James Simmons, the young Philadelphia coachmaker that Greenleaf hired in November 1792, moved to the Point at least by April 17 when he gave the commissioners Greenleaf's second installment for the lots he had contracted to buy. Simmons also brought workers and building materials. He had two months to build a spacious headquarters, both commercial and residential, to house his family and Appleton. The latter did not recall dates and circumstances years later. He died back in Boston in April 1795. Before his terminal illness bought him back, he had to move from the N Street house and find refuge in a house in Georgetown perched high above the river. He advised his replacement, another brother-in-law, 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."

In the contracts Lovering and Clark signed there was no mention of building a stand alone three story brick house. Lovering signed his contract with Greenleaf in Philadelphia on May 8. On May 20, he advertised for skilled men and laborers to go to the City of Washington to work "from six to six with two hours for refreshment." An N. B. offered "Twelve pair of glazed sashes to be sold, as good as new." Lovering was just off the boat, along with his second wife and baby. He was probably in his mid-40s, ten years older than Thornton.That suggests that he was making his living since landing in Philadelphia as a joiner not as a house designer for Greenleaf who was trying to make his reputation by seeing that everyone he hired was well paid. 

Eventually, Lovering assumed control of finishing the house, incorporating building materials that arrived from New England that included "marble slate and chimney pieces, mahogany twist handrails, and stone circular arches." As for the houses Lovering did design and build, he didn't deviate from the pattern provided by London townhouses. An advertisement for the sale of one house Lovering built described it as 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.  It was determined that Lovering's houses cost $4.50 a square foot to build and Clark's cost $5.50. Not for nothing did John Tayloe III hire Lovering in 1799 to build the Octagon.(22) In one house, he built a 32 foot long room which raised the question if the house should be fashioned into a hotel. 

Whether the president saw the Simmons house rising as he rode up from Mount Vernon to Georgetown is a good question. Perhaps, it inspired the president to think that the time had come for the gentlemen in charge of the city to live in the city. The late July letter offering the job to the Maryland senator is extant. 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."(16)

 

There was no mention of making more changes to the Capitol of design which had taken roughly a year to finalize. However, when the president was reduced to offering the job to his fourth choice, Tobias Lear, he simplified matters, explaining that one of the two new commissioners "ought to possess a considerable stock of legal abilities; as cases are frequently occurring to render Law knowledge necessary for the purposes of deciding as well on points depending thereon as for the draughting of agreements & other instruments which are requisite in the progress of the business." Of course, Scott filled that bill. The president described him as "a gentleman eminent in the profession of the Law—a man of character & fortune—and one who has the welfare of the New City much at heart...." As for the the task Lear would face if he took the job: "It has been found from experience, indispensibly necessary that the Commissioners should reside in the City (in George Town would be tantamount) and devote, by some arrangement amongst themselves, much of their time to the multitudinous concerns of the same; thereby superceding the necessity of employing a Superintendant." He was not referring to Hoban, but to the Blodget who had replaced L'Enfant and been fired.

 

After declining appointment, Lear answered the president's question: "in how respectable a light Doctr Thornton stands, or would be considered by the Proprietors of the federal City (amongst whom he spent sometime in the Month of July last)." Writing a week later, Lear answered that 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? The president got Lear's letter no earlier than the 7th. He was in 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 commissioners 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 make the federal city their permanent home.(21)

However, Scott evidently made his usual arrangements when he came to Georgetown on Potomac Company business. Thornton bought two lots in Square 33 on Peter's Hill around the corner from where the president had bought lots. One of Thornton's lots had a large frame building on it.(26) At the same time, September 15, 1794, he attended a meeting of the board. He did not have his official notice of appointment and could only watch the remaining original commissioner Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek and Scott. 

Despite Scott's credentials, in 1896, after a cursory examination of the board's records, 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." Thornton's heart likely sank as he saw how Scott took command of the board.(27)

Of course, that prompted Thornton to make his mark. 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. It also suggests that they did not view Thornton as a rival and looked forward to working with him. Yet, two weeks after learning the commissioners' case, Thornton seemed to plead Greenleaf's. 

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 speculator immediately began working to make Thornton as amenable to his ideas as the commissioner he replaced.(28)

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. As for the Capitol, on October 1, while Thornton was in Philadelphia, Scott and Carroll formalized Greenleaf's agreement to pay Hallet to support his continued work on the Capitol design.(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.

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. The board also projected future expenditures. Hoban estimated the cost of work to be done on the President's house. They did not ask Thornton about future work on the Capitol. Nor did they ask him to talk to Hallet about future costs. They used Simmons as a go-between, after all he was paying Hallet with Greenleaf's money. The board thought it 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. Obviously, Thornton did not have any concrete plans for changes to the Capitol design.(31)

Meanwhile, he realized that he had to live in Georgetown even after Hoban built a small office for the Commissioners not far from the President's house. Thornton had to keep track of Scott, as well as Deakins. Even the man in charge of hiring slaves lived in Georgetown as well as the surveyors. He soon bought a house in Georgetown across the street from its founts of gossip, the bank and Union Tavern. Of course, it was better for his wife who grew up in Philadelphia and in a year her mother would join them, and live with the Thornton for the rest of his life.

Within the next two months, Thornton would rethink his quest for fame. That his drawings and elevation had been lost did not give him pause, nor did his not knowing what Hallet was drawing. The catalyst that helped made clear what he had to do came just after Hallet snubbed the commissioners. Former  Commissioner Johnson's brother in London asked John Trumbull, who had just returned to London with a diplomatic mission, 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." On December 18, the board wrote a discouraging letter to Trumbull and so informed the president. Both letters were short and to the point. In the letter to the president, they added, "we embrace this occasion to say that it is our intention to send for your information a statement of the business of the City as far as may be in our power, and Materials for that purpose can be collected together."

It would seem that this was Thornton's opportunity to shine, even if he didn't have a special mandate from the president. The prospectus for the design contest required that the winner supply sections and drawings. Instead, in their report, 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) 

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 floor plan. Then within the next two weeks, evidently Thornton persuaded his colleagues to hire Hadfield. At least, Thornton wrote the letter explaining that to the president: "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 would no longer mount 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 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 Englishmen who got rich in India were called, to buy 500 of the speculators' federal city lots for $180,000. That is, Law paid $360 a lot that Greenleaf had contracted to buy 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 the contract the old board made with Greenleaf had a clause regulating any large sales speculators, and 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. In January 1795, Thornton had a bit of luck that gave him a momentary boost.(34) His plans work with Hadfield to undo Hallet's error depended on Hadfield coming to the city which would take months. Just before writing to Trumbull, Thornton shared his depression in a letter to Lettsom. A month before he had boasted that "the trust reposed in us is so great that I do not know a more extensive power in the offices of our government, except the President, or perhaps the Secretary of State, Treasury and War." His January letter was more down to earth. He chaffed at his not doing anything and vowed to "institute" a philosophical society as well as agricultural society and university. But that was not in his power as a commissioner. 

While his January letter to Lettsom bemoaned his lack of real accomplishments, his colleagues obviously found him useful, writing to someone as daunting and demanding as the president 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 explained that his review of Greenleaf's contract convinced him that the board should not mortgage any more lots. However, he pulled together a long report that was sent to the president that proved the board needed a loan. 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 went to Philadelphia that Thornton researched how to get loans from banks. He did set out to research and write reports that would allow his talents to shine and that distinguished his contribution to the project from his colleagues. 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 on leveling the city that: "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 that it would 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 on the basement that directly challenged Hallet. When he wrote it is uncertain. In the Papers of William Thornton, Harris dates all the reports March 13 which was when he sent his ideas on the foundation to the president, but he didn't send his other reports. He left for Philadelphia on February 23. On January 21, Hallet wrote to the board apologizing for his insubordination and asking for his old job back. It took the board a month to reply. Just as Thornton left for Philadelphia, 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) 

Had Hallet gotten wind of the board's inability to estimate the cost of the coming year's work on the Capitol? Did the board react by postponing any response so that plans Hallet might give them would have no bearing on their reports to the president?One upshot was that Thornton's report on the basement began boldly by rewriting history and then had only questions to ask. He reminded the president that "the impracticability of [his] 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. In the second paragraph of his report on the basement, he observed "it has been hinted that this part of the building [the basement] would be left out." Then he asked "what is the difference of expense between putting the committee rooms etc. above the principle story, and putting them below the principal story?" and "why for the mere sake of differing from the original plan should the order of things be inverted?" Then he added "it is my particular wish, seconded by the express desire of the board, that the pleasure of the Executive should be known in this respect." Of course, the conjecture that Jefferson foisted his Halle au Ble idea on Thornton in late April 1793 might be wrong, but in 1795 Hadfield would be puzzled by a plan that put the principal rooms in the basement, and so was Latrobe in 1803. Plus, there was no reason in 1793 for Thornton make a drawing accommodating Jefferson's idea. Hallet took care of that.

Thornton's questions bared his predicament. He had no idea of what the plan was. He would claim that he withheld his reports, other than on the foundation, because the president was so busy. He withheld the report on the basement because it revealed how little he knew about the design. Thornton was on a tumultuous sea without any charts, not his own plans or Hallet's. He tried be bold and claimed in his report that "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." In a few months, he would be thankful that he did not make that claim in the letter he sent to the president. 

The whole report writing 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 his January 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." Evidently, the president didn't remember that conversation, and Thornton didn't remind him of it. He wrote the commissioners' reply to the president 's 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."(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.  While only 5 years older than Thornton, Scott did not see him as a rival. Indeed, as lawyers were prone to do with those who had not navigated the Inns of Courts in London, he patronized the slightly younger doctor and enlisted him in a campaign to even an old score. Scott's efforts to win appointment to the federal bench had been stymied by a rumor that he was disloyal during the revolution. The lawyer he replaced on the board, Thomas Johnson, had been Maryland's governor during the Revolution. A paragraph in the long report the board 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 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 Six

Footnotes for Chapter Five 

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.

22A. Pennsylvania Gazette ad date 25 November 1795 

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