Chapter Three (1777-1792): "give beauty & granduer to the pile"

Table of Contents 

Chapter Three (1777-1792): "give beauty & granduer to the pile"

26. A 1757 map of Maryland before the Plan

"Eclat" became a choice word in the correspondence of the "Founders" shortly after the alliance with France in 1776. The young Marquis de Lafayette who led the French expeditionary army personified eclat. For General Washington that French word meant more than style and brilliance. It also meant the thunder-striking solution to a problem. Founding a national capital was not as problematic as beating the British, but the General knew what would solve that problem. Shortly before his death in December 1799, in a letter to Thornton, the General alluded to the federal city's festering problems and added, "Yet, I trust will, ultimately, escape the Ordeal with eclat." In a July 20, 1791, letter to a former military aide, the General had a rosier view: “the business of laying out the city, the grounds for public buildings, walks & c is progressing under the inspection of Major L’Enfant with pleasing prospects." Then, in February 1792, L'Enfant left the project, and the ordeal began.(1)

The young Frenchman managed to rise without being a marquis or any other shade of nobility. He was the son of Pierre Nicholas Lenfant, a government painter specializing in battle scenes and a teacher at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. The son studied at the school and was trained to be a painter. Nonetheless, in 1777, Pierre Charles L'Enfant he let himself be recruited as a military engineer and was accepted as such in America even by his French colleagues, who then began to teach him how to be one. After his colleagues all returned to France, Peter Charles L'Enfant was arguably America's premiere engineer.(3)

In 1792, when his knowledge of "water-works" was challenged, Alexander Hamilton, who had known him for over a decade, retorted: "He is by Trade what is called in France a civil Engineer that is an Artist acquainted with Mechanics generally; particularly in reference to Architecture Aqueducts Canals &c &c including necessarily a knowlege of Hydraulicks. This is the mans profession, & from my knowlege of him I rely that he will undertake nothing which he is not able to execute solidly and well."(4)

  

Lieutenant L'Enfant also made an impression as a soldier at the Battle of Savannah, exhibiting memorable bravery before being wounded and taken prisoner. Major L'Enfant captured General Washington's attention when in July 1782, he made a temporary ballroom to celebrate the birth of the Dauphin, which was the title given to the heir to the French throne. Beside the French minister's rented house on Philadelphia's Chestnut Street, L'Enfant built a 40 by 60 frame building open all around with "painted pillars" supporting a ceiling decorated “with several pieces of neat paintings emblematical of the design of the entertainment.” The garden beside the building “was cut into beautiful walks, and divided with cedar and pine branches into artificial groves.” 

 

In 1783, he designed the diploma and medal for Society of Cincinnati, the fraternal order of American and French officers who served in the war just ending. The General sent him to France and he saw that the King on down rose to the occasion. As a rule, French officers were not allowed to wear foreign medals. Louis XVI bowed to L'Enfant. Benjamin Franklin, then in Paris, thought the eagle depicted in the medal looked like a turkey, but only wrote to his wife about that. L'Enfant returned to America. A flaw found in the medal raised suspicions but friends in the Society defended L'Enfant's honor.(5)

 

L'Enfant settled in New York City where members of the Cincinnati became leaders in the city's government and institutions. As well as private work as an architect, he altered Trinity Church so it could better coexist with a monument to Richard Montgomery, the first fallen hero of the war. On July 23, 1788, the New York City celebrated the ratification of the Constitution with a procession honoring trades and professions that would benefit from the new federal government. The Federal Ship Hamilton stole the show as it maneuvered through narrow streets and "sailed" over hilly greens. The procession of 5,000 people extended a mile and a half and ended where three temporary pavilions were joined. Supported by ten colonnades, they covered ground enough, 880 feet by 600 feet, to accommodate 6,000 people, and were built in less than 5 days. An official account described the middle building as "majestically rising above the whole terminated with a dome, on top of which was a figure of Fame trumpeting a New Era...." The account concluded "the taste and genius of Major L'Enfant (so often displayed on other occasions) and to whom the city is indebted for the design and execution, appeared in the present occasion to have derived additional brilliancy from the dignity of the object on which it was employed...."

 

Then in 1788, he turned a nondescript building into Federal Hall to accommodate the new Federal government. He completed the job in time and to general satisfaction. The painter and playwright William Dunlap, who was then 23 years old, captured the living moment on April 30, 1789, when thanks to L'Enfant, Washington's greatness was framed by architecture. He took the oath of office on a balcony that led into the senate chamber and over looked the street. Dunlap thought the balcony was “made sacred” by the inauguration. Later, the president's secretary informed L'Enfant that Martha Washington wanted L'Enfant to give her a tour of Federal Hall.(6)(7)

30. Federal Hall

In 1789, congress began debating legislation to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to create a capital for the federal government. The debate over where to put the capital made no difference to L'Enfant. In September 1789, he wrote to the president asking for the chance to draw a plan for the new capital “on such a Scale as to leave room for that aggrandisement & embellishment which the increase of the wealth of the Nation will permit it to pursue at any period however remote....” He also asked for a career.

The Confederation congress had created the office of Surveyor of the United States. L'Enfant asked to be appointed Engineer of the United States. He pointed out that he was the only member of the army's old engineering corps still in the United States. He offered to design and build fortifications to protect the coast. Then he pointed out “that the sciences of Military and civil architecture are so connected as to render an Engineer Equally serviceable in time of peace as in war by the employment of his abilities in the internal improvemen⟨ts⟩ of the Country.” All to say, he could design the public buildings in the new capital. The president did not reply to letters begging for a job.(8)

In July, after a year of plotting and acrimonious debate, congress passed the Residence Act of 1790 that empowered the president to put the ten mile square federal district somewhere along an 110 miles stretch of the Potomac River. The plan of a city inside the district as well as the designs of the Capitol and other public buildings were entirely up to the president.(9) The State of Maryland put up $72,000 in seed money. Virginia promised to pitch in with $120,000. As long as he didn't ask congress to appropriate money, the president had complete control. He had to appoint three commissioners to procure the land but did not need the Senate's advice and consent. On January 22, 1791, the president announced the site of the federal district and appointed the three commissioners, Governor Johnson, Congressman Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek, another Marylander, and David Stuart, a politically savvy Virginia doctor married to Eleanor Calvert Custis, Martha Washington's widowed daughter-in-law. He decided on the site of the federal district before he appointed the commissioners. He decided on the site of the federal city before they had their first meeting. In February, the president sent Andrew Ellicott to survey and mark the boundaries of the new district. In March 1791, he sent L'Enfant to Georgetown to make a plan for the federal capital to be built just across Rock Creek and stretching to the Eastern Branch or Anacostia River to the east. That winter, congress had its first short session and in a matter of a few weeks the president went to check on L'Enfant's progress.(10)

The biannual "short session" of congress condemned the city to a century of slower development. The Constitution set a two year term for representatives. It also required that congress convene on the first Monday of December, unless “by Law” congress changed the date. The last Confederation congress set March 4, 1789, as the date when the new congress would convene. So the two year term of office for the first congressmen ended on March 3, 1791. Congress did not pass a law otherwise so the First Congress convened for its last  of three sessions on December 6, 1790. That session lasted not quite three months. Then the Second Congress convened in late October 1791. The new members elected in 1790 finally took office and the re-elected members got back to work after seven and one half months vacation. Thus, for several months every odd year, the city's main attraction closed down and all congressmen and senators were back in their home states.

Inclement weather prevented the president from touring the site with L'Enfant, but he negotiated and signed the founding document of the city with a dozen gentlemen eager to sell their land for the new capital city at $66 an acre provided they would retain enough building lots assuring that they would make a fortune as the city grew. By selling the other lots, the commissioners would raise millions to build the public buildings. After his meeting with the proprietors, the General set off on a presidential tour of the Southern states. Upon returning he hoped to affirm L'Enfant's choices for the sites of the Capitol and President's house. Meanwhile, the three commissioners were still trying to organize their first meeting.

In April, Secretary of State Jefferson wrote to L'Enfant: "I am happy that the President has left the planning of the town in such good hands." He sent L'Enfant the plans of several European cities, encouraged him to draw a plan with "very liberal reservations" for the public and gave his ideas for the public buildings: “Whenever it is proposed to prepare plans for the Capitol, I should prefer the adoption of some one of the models of antiquity which have had the approbation of thousands of years; and for the President’s house I should prefer the celebrated fronts of Modern buildings which have already received the approbation of all good judges. Such are the Galerie du Louvre, the Gardes meubles, and two fronts of the Hotel de Salm. But of this it is yet time enough to consider.”(11)

On April 23, Daniel Carroll, one of the three commissioner the president appointed to oversee the project, cheered L'Enfant on and boasted to James Madison that before the president returned in late June “it is probable some plans of the City and the public buildings may be then exhibited."(12)

L'Enfant responded to such personal attention with a work of eclat, "The Plan of the City of Washington."  It struck the attention of many, including on the island of Tortola. Mrs. Brodeau kept Thornton's mind on opportunities in his adopted country, especially the development of the new nation's capital. She noted the disdain most in Philadelphia had for the project, but she also passed on the opinion that as long as George Washington lived, the capital would move to the Potomac River. Thornton exhibited more faith in the project. In a November 3,1791. letter to her, he opined that since lots had been sold in the new federal district in October, the government would move there. He continued: “I must own if I purchase it will be in the 10 mile square, and I....” and that portion of the letter discussing that possible future is missing. It was written before Thornton saw the plan. On December 21, Mrs. Brodeau wrote to Thornton about "a most elegant plan laid down for the Federal City...." and promised to send a drawing of it as soon as possible. When Thornton returned to Philadelphia, he sent a copy of the plan to a fellow student at Edinburgh and to his step-brother.(13)

32. The Plan

Unfortunately for L'Enfant, General Washington wanted a chain of command to implement the plan. The three commissioners had only been working on getting title to the land taken for the city-to-be not covered by the March agreement with the proprietors. Just after L'Enfant came to Philadelphia in August with his plan for the city, the president sent Jefferson and Madison to Georgetown to confer with the commissioners. Ellicott was available but not invited to the meeting. He and L'Enfant were miffed that decisions were made at the meeting without their input.  Jefferson and the commissioners decided to have design contests for the public buildings. L'Enfant was stunned. The president vetoed the design contests, but told the commissioners to oversee L'Enfant's work. After having conferred about the future of their city with the president alone at Mount Vernon, L'Enfant bristled at getting an order from the commissioners. The summer of eclat was over. (14)

To make a long story short, that bristling became just one in a series of actions and in-actions on L'Enfant's part that the commissioners and president thought were perverse. L'Enfant refused to show a copy of his city plan during an October auction of lots. L'Enfant refused to hire brick makers and dig clay for bricks. L'Enfant tore down the house being built by Commissioner Carroll's nephew because it was in a future street. The president insisted that he work under the commissioners, and at the same time told the commissioners that he thought L'Enfant was irreplaceable. After all, neither the commissioners nor the president had any idea how to build a capital city.

There were other reasons that L'Enfant was hard to bear. He was not a family man and difficult to track down. He also stole the affections of the men who worked under him even turning them against the commissioners who were legally in charge. For example, Commissioner Stuart hired the son of General Roberdeau. The General was a neighbor in Alexandria, but as second in command under L'Enfant, Isaac Roberdeau countermanded orders from the commissioners.

What frustrated L'Enfant was that the commissioners only met once a month. The commissioner who lived nearby, Daniel Carroll, forwarded the interests of his relatives. L'Enfant complained to the president that the commissioners "oppose me merely to teize and torment." The commissioners and president compensated for their own inadequacies when it came to addressing the business at hand by agreeing that the veil of secrecy, intrigue and expense that L'Enfant cast over everything arose from his "artistic temperament."(15)

In January 1792, L'Enfant went to Philadelphia where, he told the commissioners, he could have access to books when he worked on his designs for the public buildings. But first he drew up a comprehensive work plan estimating the number of stone workers, carpenters and laborers that would be needed. He also estimated the amount of "rough stone" needed, as well as lime, and the cost of lumber. He didn't estimate the number of bricks but noted the need for 23 brick makers. He estimated the total cost, $4 million dollars, and proposed a plan for a loan of that amount. But he never showed the president or the commissioners his designs for the Capitol and President's house, if he indeed made them. He clearly had some semblance of them. His assistant Roberdeau returned to the city in June 1793. He reported to L'Enfant that the foundation for the plan for the President's house then being built "not being so deep as yours" kept the building out of full view of the Capitol. As for the Capitol"the Bow of the house is carried 75 feet lower down the hill than you intended." That suggests that L'Enfant had a design, at least in his mind, with a circular room forming the West front just as Hallet and Thornton would plan.(16)

In a long March 1792 letter to Commissioner Stuart, the president dressed down L'Enfant in the harshest terms. Looking forward to the design contests for the public buildings, he fretted about what damage L'Enfant might still do to the city. He told the commissioner not to expect any "aid" from L'Enfant, "rather I apprehend opposition and a reprobation of every one designed by any other, however perfect."(17) As it turned out, L'Enfant evidenced no curiosity about any designs submitted, approved or altered. 

 

The president's fear of criticism helps explain why no design, not even Thornton's winning design, was made public. However, that he expressed such a fear of L'Enfant's criticism suggests that he could conceive of a perfect design beyond criticism. His naive view suggests that he had definite expectations of what the buildings should look like. L'Enfant helped inform those expectations. On August 19, 1791, he had written to the president: “the spots assigned for the Federal House & for the President palace in exibiting the most sumpteous aspect and claiming already the suffrage of a crowd of daily visitor both natives & foreigners will serve to give a grand Idea of the whole,..." He vividly implied the grandeur of both buildings.(18)

An observer who knew all the principals thought enough was known about L'Enfant's design ideas to give them some agency in the design process. In an 1818 letter to Charles Bulfinch, the architect who took over the project from Benjamin Latrobe, the artist John Trumbull described L'Enfant's role in the design: “Permit me to add, that the great circular room and dome, made a part of the earliest idea of the Capitol, projected by Major L'Enfant, drawn by Dr. Thornton, and adopted by General Washington." By 1818, the two wing of the Capitol had been built, burned by the British army, and restored. Bulfinch was about to design and oversee building the Rotunda where Trumbull's lifetime project, painting scenes of the Revolution, was to find its home.

Trumbull had toured the site with L'Enfant in May 1791. In 1818, Trumbull had graphic evidence of L'Enfant's "projection" of the Capitol. He cited the outline of the building on the engraving of the L'Enfant Plan as proof, no matter that it was about a half inch wide. Trumbull knew that L'Enfant had more than that in mind. In a 1795 letter to L'Enfant, he rued the differences between L'Enfant and the commissioners that led to L'Enfant leaving the project, and wished "that the noble plans you formed then might not be entirely defaced by want of professional knowledge in those to whom the buildings might be entrusted."(19)

27. A hint of L'Enfant's plan for the Capitol?

 

Given the turmoil that attended L'Enfant's leaving the project, neither Washington nor Jefferson were about to give him any credit for the design of the Capitol. Some historians hail Jefferson, who returned from a diplomatic post in France to be secretary of state, for inspiring the Neo-classical public buildings now celebrated throughout America. He did that in part with a design for the Virginia state Capitol in Richmond, a design for his own house in Monticello and by offering a vision of the Capitol to L'Enfant.(20) But, when he advised the commissioners on the wording of the advertisement announcing the design contests, he didn't mention ancient buildings or the Louvre. Only the use of the words "Capitol" and "Senate" suggested using Classical models. However, in March when the commissioners announcement of the contest was printed in newspapers throughout the country, the Columbian Magazine had that portion of the L'Enfant Plan that showed the Capitol as its frontpiece.

Advertisement for design contests

For the Capitol, the prospectus provided the dimensions of three principal rooms and twelve committee rooms of "a Capitol." The "Senate-Room" and "Room for the Representatives" should have "a Lobby or Antechamber." The prospectus for the President's house only required that the center part of the building "give the appearance of a complete whole and be capable of admitting the additional parts in future, if they shall be wanting." That prospectus seemed to require that the architect come to the city before submitting a design: "The site of the building, if the artist will attend to it, will of course influence the aspect and outline of his plan; and its destination will point out to him the number, size and distribution of the apartments." In both contests, "drawings will be expected of the Ground-plan, Elevations of each Front, and Sections through the Building, in such Directions as may be necessary to explain the Internal Structure; and an Estimate of the cubic Feet of Brick-Work composing the whole Mass of the Walls." 

The contest for the Capitol had clearer requirements, offered a greater challenge and a greater prize. The commissioners would award "a lot in the city, designated by impartial judges, and FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, or a medal of that value...." There also would be a second prize of $250. The premium for the President's house was also $500 but there was no lot and no second prize. 

The Capitol attracted more entries, but a more discerning architect only entered a design for the President's house. During the president's Southern tour, several of the leading men in Charleston, South Carolina, told the president that James Hoban, a recent emigrant from Ireland, "had made architecture his study, and was well qualified, not only for the planning or designing buildings, but to superintend the execution of them." Hoban recognized that on-site inspection for the house invited earlier involvement in a city that had to grow rapidly. His response to the design contest announcement was to go to Philadelphia, introduce himself to the president and carry a letter of introduction from him to the commissioners. He studied the site for the President's house and consulted with the commissioners as he worked on a design. They told the President that they had a good impression of him. Without any ado, the president picked his design. The commissioners hired Hoban to build it. Then in July 1792, the president walked over the site with Hoban and had him make the building even bigger.(21) 

Of the dozen or so Capitol designs submitted by July 15, the date they were due, only two were taken seriously. They were drawn by men who knew L'Enfant well. He had asked Stephen Hallet, an excellent draftsman late from France, to reduce the Plan to a size suitable for engraving. Jefferson hired him for State Department work, and as problems with L'Enfant mounted, Jefferson had Hallet draw a design for the Capitol.

 

English born, George Turner rose to the rank of colonel fighting for the revolution. He served in South Carolina where L'Enfant had made his mark. As secretary of the Society of the Cincinnati, Turner had defended L'Enfant and helped sell his medals to state chapters of the society. At the same time, Turner met Thornton. He was one of the three attesting witnesses to Thornton steam-cannon demonstration. Turner was one of the first to greet Thornton or his return to Philadelphia in November 1792. Unfortunately, Turner asked for the immediate return of the design and it is no longer extant.(22)

Likely toward the end of June 1792, Thornton had the advertisement for the design contest in hand and he decided to submit a design. He had been busy. He had continued writing to Taylor and Hopkins. as well as anti-slave trade advocates in Britain. He even got a secret resolution from the Virgin Islands legislature attesting to his high character and qualifications for leading blacks back to Africa. Major John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi, a Swiss army engineer who accompanied the Thorntons to Tortola, helped him write a battle plan for blacks in his new republic to use in case slave traders attacked them. He also bought cannons for his African crusade. To Taylor in Newport, he boasted about that to prove he was “daily laboring in your cause.” But all his efforts to forward his crusade came to naught. He kept up a correspondence with Fitch about paddle wheels and boilers, and also bought cannons for the new steamboat. But once the company decided use a wooden boiler, Thornton gave up on it. Then he reformed orthography and wrote a dissertation describing a phonetically correct alphabet that would make learning languages easier, as long as all words were correctly spelled. He explained Cadmus, or a Treatise on the Elements of Written Languages to Lettsom: "I prove clearly that there are thirty letters in the English language, twenty-one of which are vowels and the remaining nine are aspirates. There is no language that I cannot write perfectly (with regard to sound I mean), nor indeed is there a dialect that I cannot reduce to writing, provided I can pronounce it. Upon this plan I can shew clearly that there is not a sentence in all the books ever published in English of ten words properly spelt!" Rather than have it published in Britain, he wanted it to win the annual prize given by the American Philosophical Society for the best dissertation. His wife survived a bad fever and Thornton credited his care for saving her, but he didn't practice medicine as he had hoped. He also did not get a delineation of what part of the plantation he owned.

During his two years on the island, he did address, without actually designing anything, two architectural problems. His mother-in-law owned a lot where she could build a new house near her current house. He offered to "lay such a plan as would render both houses very conveniently for cow houses and a necessary." Assuming that his step-father would divide the plantation, and if the houses there could not be value highly enough to increase the mortgage, he secretly advised an agent that they could be torn down. Then, "the materials could make good managers' houses....".1 He had no trouble shifting his focus to United States Capitol.

The prospectus for the design contest did not make much of the symbolism of the Capitol. Evidently, what copy of the L'Enfant Plan that Thornton had did not include an outline of a capitol. He cued his design on the relative size of the rooms. The Senate had to be 1200 square feet; the room for representatives and the conference room each had to seat 300 people each; and there had to be 12 committee rooms of 600 square feet. 

He reasoned that the Conference Room would be frequently used and fit three rectangles together with it in the middle. The room for the "Representants," as he labeled it in a French fashion, would be twice the size of the Senate. The Conference Room would be slightly larger than that for the Representants and slightly thrust out beyond the walls of the other two rectangles. Only sixty feet separated the Senate from the House. He had the Senate also sitting in a rectangle but half as big as the other rooms. Their smaller room afforded senators the convenience of having two committee rooms next door. Other committee rooms would be distributed in two smaller two story buildings flanking the main building.

The exterior of his design merged a traditional Georgian government house with a chaste expression of classical forms, save that the pediment above the entrance could barely contain an eagle trying to fly away from the six Corinthian columns below. The sloping roof that also united all the rooms was topped with a chaste colonnade and cupola. To better celebrate Thornton's subsequent Capitol design as a work of genius, Glenn Brown speculated that his Tortola design was actually his design for the President's house. C. M. Harris, editor of Thornton’s published papers, wonders if it is actually George Turner’s design for the Capitol. However, Thornton persisted even in his winning design in calling members of the House of Representatives by their French equivalent.1

In 1791, well before Thornton was on the scene, Hallet likely forgot his lessons in architecture and accommodated Jefferson's idea. Thanks to his skill as a draftsman, Hallet had several takes on the building, and they are extant. One clearly flatters Jefferson's idea to integrate with Halle au Bles with the Capitol. Hallet drew a large protuberance on top of each wing to accommodate the cavernous legislative interior that Jefferson craved. The House chamber and Conference room filled the wings and the Senate found a home in the center portion of the building, which didn't have a grand bow facing the west and had a high but small dome.

On September 4, 1792, the commissioners received a letter from Tortola signed “Fellow Citizen.” In the letter dated July 12, 1792, that worthy reported that as soon as he had heard about the design competition, “I have been constantly engaged since endeavoring to accomplish what you propose.” A phrase that he used might of have struck home. He was keeping “strictly to the rules of architecture.” He said he didn't send the designs because he meant to “depart hence in a few days for America."(28)

Actually, a fever kept him from departing until October and then he met Turner. Thanks to what Turner told Thornton, the Tortola design never got beyond being unrolled on Thornton's table in Philadelphia. What he gave to the president in January was radically different. It too is no longer extant. The only way to figure out how Turner influenced Thornton's design is to parse what the president wrote about Turner's and Hallet's design in an August 1792 letter to the commissioners. Complicating that discussion is that Hallet's submission was unlike anything he drew before or after the contest. He seemed to purposely go contrary to the L'Enfant/Jefferson model that the secretary of state had encouraged him to follow in 1791. He had the whole complex in a rectangle surrounded by 40 columns. Stairs on each side provided access to a House chamber on one side, the Senate in the middle, and the Conference Room on the other side. There were 12 large committee rooms on the floor below. There were no oval rooms or semicircular projections.

There seems to be no elevation extant that would have accompanied that floor plan. It's not certain what the president saw but he did send his impressions to the commissioners:

Your favor of the 19th, accompanying Judge Turner’s plan for a Capitol, I have duly received; and have no hesitation in declaring that I am more agreeably struck with the appearance of it than with any that has been presented to you.... There is the same defect, however, in this plan as there is in all the plans which have been presented to you—namely—the want of an Executive apartment: wch ought, if possible, to be obtained. The Dome, which is suggested as an addition to the center of the edifice, would, in my opinion, give beauty & granduer to the pile; and might be useful for the reception of a Clock—Bell, &ca. The Pilastrade too, in my Judgement, ought (if the plan is adopted) to be carried around the simicircular projections at the ends; but whether it is necessary to have the elevation of the upper Storey 41 feet is questionable; unless it be to preserve exactness in the proportion of the several parts of the building; in that case, the smaller Rooms in that Storey would be elevated sufficiently if cut in two, & would be the better for it in the interior provided they can be lighted. This would add to the number of Committee Rooms of which there appears to be a dificiency....

Could such a plan as Judge Turner’s be surrounded with Columns, and a colonade like that which was presented to you by Monsr Hallet (the Roof of Hallet’s I must confess does not hit my taste)—without departing from the principles of Architecture—and would not be too expensive for our means, it would, in my judgement, be a noble & desireable Structure. But, I would have it understood in this instance, and always, when I am hazarding a sentiment on these buildings, that I profess to have no knowledge in  Architecture, and think we should (to avoid criticisms) be governed by the established Rules which are laid down by the professors of this Art.

Features mentioned in his letter that are not in Thornton's Tortola but which were in what the design he entered in the contest include an Executive apartment, a dome, semi-circular projections and a more extensive use of pilasters. Why Turner wanted his plan returned to him as soon as possible is unknown. In 1791, the president had appointed him to a judgeship in the Northwest Territory and perhaps he wanted to keep his plan ready for use out West. A more likely explanation is that his plan was suggestive more than accurate and architectural. Purporting to be a savant and a man of the world, Judge Turner was probably loath to have his production seen be men who had a motive to ridicule what he drew. That also explains why Hallet's design remained in the running. It was meticulous, well drawn with strict economy in mind except for its 40 columns. That also explains the commissioners reaction, probably aided by Jefferson. They asked Hallet to move to Georgetown. He left his pregnant wife in Philadelphia and the commissioners put him to work making another design. In a letter to Jefferson, written in French, Hallet didn't mention Turner's plan and described the commissioners' orders as merely increasing the proportions of his design without changing its "form." That required increasing the size of his columns which would be too expensive. So, the commissioners asked him to make a design similar to what he made for Jefferson in 1791: "J’ai recu ordre de travailler a un nouveau projet dans le Sistême de celui que J’ai eu l’honneur de vous faire voir a Philadelphie l’année derniere." That seems to suggest that "le Sistême" had been suggested by Jefferson. Hallet had new design by October which roughly approximates what was finally finished by Bulfinch in 1829. 

Hallet's October Plan Above, Capitol in 1846 Below

 

 

Hallet told Jefferson that he expected his "new plan Will be accepted or rejected after being exposed to the judgment of the Public, which will undoubtedly be numerous here on October 8th because of the Land Sale which will take place at that time." As it turned out, Hallet's happy expectations did not come to pass despite seeming like a reasonable course of events: amend the plan to accommodate the wishes of the president and commissioners, unveil it to an interested public and build a consensus in its favor. But the powers-that-be who damned L'Enfant for not showing his plan for the city at the October 1791 auction of building lots, refused to show Hallet's plan for the Capitol at the October 1792 auction.(26)

 

Judging from what the president had written about Turner's design, Hallet simply didn't understand the president's wanting to exalt the center of the building with both an "Executive apartment" and a dome. Neither had been mentioned in the contest rules. Likely thanks to a design idea urged by Jefferson, Hallet had the two wings with a domed roof and with facades which in some respects wore more noble than the facade of the center portion. That meant that the dome over the center portion didn't steal the show. It didn't add sufficient "beauty and grandeur to the pile." That summer the president had gotten ideas about the dome from a very rich New England speculator who was in Georgetown preaching the Dome. Samuel Blodget had already purchased lots and land in the city, tried to arrange a $500,000 loan for the commissioners and reminded the president of a discussion they had had during the war about the need for a National University. After he looked at the tree covered Capitol Hill, he convinced everyone he talked to that the Capitol must have a dome to dominate the two wings of the building. He sent his sketch to Jefferson with a request that he view the drawing "at 3 yards distance in a good light before you determine on the effect it may produce." However, the design contest asked for more than a dome and Blodget didn't submit a design.

As for the roof of the wings, Hallet was responding to Jefferson's enthusiasm for an unlikely building in Paris. In 1811, he would reveal to Latrobe that he first thought of casting the House chamber "in the manner of the Halle aux bles at Paris." While in Paris where, unlike Thornton, Jefferson made a point of studying famous buildings, he was especially struck by a modern variation on an ancient theme that democratized the dome. The Halle au Bles or the Wheat Exchange was a warehouse for evaluating and marketing the wheat harvest. It was a high dome mounted on a wall of arches surrounding an oval floor.  Where the French had shocks of wheat, Jefferson saw the American congress. Hallet's October 1792 design swells on top of each wing to accommodate the cavernous interior that Jefferson craved for both the House and Conference Room. That left the Senate in the center of the building which may have put too much focus on that body for president's taste. It continually vexed him and, after all, that is where Caesar died. 

The commissioners did not lose faith in Hallet. They as well as the president began thinking of Blodget as just the man to be the Superintendent of the City. The president thought that L'Enfant was the only man who could do the job, but Blodget won the president's full support by promising to finance the development of Pennsylvania Avenue. Commissioner Stuart seemed delighted with the president's endorsement of Blodget, and reminded him that with Hallet around, Blodget need not be an architect like L'Enfant: "Tho’ he [Blodget] may not be so thorough an Architect as some others, he has certainly turned his attention much to that subject, and may I think be justly allowed to have a very pretty taste for it. And more perhaps is not so very necessary, if Mr Hallet is employed in the same line for the execution of the Capitol, in which Hoben is for the President’s house; which I should suppose very proper—I believe he fully deserves the high opinion Mr Jefferson entertains of him."(27)

Meanwhile,  Mrs. Brodeau had found a first house for the couple two years after their marriage. Thornton had ordered good furniture sent from London but his mother-in-law furnished the house for a little over $2,000. The Thorntons participated in the intense social scene that accompanied a brief session of congress. He met Alexander Hamilton, another son of the Virgin Islands. It's not likely Thornton talked about his Capitol design in such company, but evidently he talked about jackasses. In his long letter to his brother in which he pondered buying what was called the “King's Estate” on St. Croix for 300,000 pieces of eight, he advised his brother to make sure Quash kept some foals virgin. Thornton wanted them shipped to Philadelphia "as I wish to put them to Genl. Washington's and I find I can sell the breed very well."

Once in Philadelphia, Thornton wrote to the commissioners, using his real name, and explained that a serious illness had detained him in Tortola. However, he had learned from  Turner that a decision had not been made. Commissioner Carroll, who Thornton had met in Philadelphia in 1787, wrote back on November 15 welcoming his design and looking forward to seeing it on December 1 when the commissioners had their monthly meeting. Then at the December meeting, Carroll and Commissioner Stuart officially said they would welcome a design from Thornton and added that since Hallet would not finish his revised design until January, Thornton could submit his then. That was Hallet's fourth design. Since Hallet's design would go directly to Philadelphia then Thornton might as well submit his design to the secretary of state who would show it to the president.

In a December 10 letter to the president, Commissioner Stuart framed the final act in the design contest as a decision between Hallet and Thornton with the expectation that Hallet would win: "Mr Hallet informs us, his plan will be ready by our next meeting, when we propose to send it up to you. From the judgement I could form of it, in it’s unfinished state, I entertain very sanguine hopes that it will meet with approbation. You will have I expect by this time, a plan of Doctor Thornton’s sent to you."

But for George Turner, Stuart would have been right. When Turner told Thornton that the president had not chosen a design, he also told him that his Tortola design would not do. He not only showed Thornton his own design. There are two sketches on the back of his Tortola design. One sketch resembles one of Hallet's designs. As architect and historian Don Hawkins, who discovered the sketches, put it: "The similarities and differences between the sketch and Hallet's designs are of the sort that might have been the result of being drawn by someone who had seen all his drawings and was attempting to give a sense from memory of how things stood in the Capitol design process."

 

42. A sketch on back of Thornton's Tortola design

But Cadmus came first. Thornton was anxious to have it recognized with an award even though, just as with his Capitol design, it missed the deadline for the Philosophical Society's annual medal. Thornton submitted a rough copy, and promised a fair copy soon. On December 21, the awards committee gave Thornton one of two prizes they awarded that year citing his dissertation as an “ingenious and learned performance” with a “tendency to introduce gradually, greater perfection in speaking and writing the English language.”

Then Thornton had the 110 page book printed with an introduction inviting the new Republic to be the marvel of the world by having a rational orthography. He had facing pages of the introduction written in the new alphabet. Years later, after Cadmus got a bad review in a British magazine, Turner  reminded him that while sitting around a table, he and Mrs. Thornton had told him not to make his introduction too revolutionary.(17)

41B. Snip of Cadmus's introduction

 

In a December 14, 1792, letter to the commissioners, Thornton announced his decision to make a new design. He said that his original design was for a building 500 feet long so he had to start anew with a design to fit the designated site for the building. Although over due in Ohio where he was a judge, Turner didn't leave Philadelphia until late in the summer of 1793.(18) It is not certain how much advice he gave Thornton. Turner likely told him about the president's obsession with an executive apartment in the middle section of the building. That feature was not required by the prospectus. In his Tortola design, Thornton had a dull looking and low portico. Turner likely advised him to raise it into a pilastrade and thus score a point with the president who, thanks to L'Enfant, took his oath of office on a balcony overlooking the multitudes. Since Thornton would put them in his design, Turner likely him that the president like the semi-circular protuberances on the north and south ends of the building that Turner had in his design. He likely also shared what he knew about the president’s obsession with oval rooms. Hoban’s winning design of the President’s house had them. Hallet's 1791 and October 1793 designs had them. Thornton's Tortola design didn't. Most important, Turner may have noted that the president wondered if, except for the dome, the building had to be over 41 feet high. As an experienced landscape painter, Thornton could easily draw a design to suggest that. 

Hallet's 1791 floor plan

Thornton nor anyone else involved during those creative four or five weeks revealed or characterized how Thornton came up with his winning design. in an 1818 letter to Charles Bulfinch, the Third Architect of the Capitol, John Trumbull, who would hand Thornton's design to the president in January 1793, described the design process in two sentences: “...an English gentleman, Dr. Thornton, assisted by a Russian officer of engineers, and the Vitruvius Britannicus." It's difficult to see how a Swiss engineer with experience in Russia's war with Turkey and time in Vienna influenced Thornton's design other than by cheering him on. The book Trumbull mentioned is another matter. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio was a first century BC Roman who wrote a book on architecture. Then in 1715, the Scottish architect Colen Campbell published Vitruvius Britannicus about British architecture. Its 200 plates are mostly elevations of country houses. The book encouraged Thornton to copy the facades popular in Britain. In 1795, Thornton would refer to it in a letter to the president defending the necessity of a "rustic" basement story.(20) 

"rustic" basement story.(20) 

In Thornton's papers at the Library of Congress there is an aborted first take on a new floor plan. It kept the East Front of his Tortola design, and added bows, likely grander than Turner's protuberances, to the North and South fronts of the building. They extended most of walls in semicircles a quarter of the size whole wing. They were as large as semicircle that formed the West Front similar to the Capitol on L'Enfant's map. However, although he seemed to incorporate Turner's ideas, Thornton began with his Tortola design and added to its center building. However, Thornton didn't seem to work from the inside out thanks to the Vitruvius Britannicus. His Tortola had a small basement but not faced with rusticated stone. In his critique of Turner's design, the president didn't mention a basement. However, Hallet's design all had rusticated stone to varying degrees. But Hallet who appears to have been more architect than artist didn't understand what a nice picture a rusticated basement could make which Campbell's book exemplified.

 

An elevation from Vitruvius Britannicus

No early drafts of his elevation are extant. But with Campbell's example in mind, Thornton probably saw that his exuberant proturberances wouldn't do. Thornton shank them so they were hardly perceptible in the elevation. By emphasizing the basement Thornton neglected the circle of columns that the president wanted Hallet to put around Turner's design. Evidently he trusted his colonnaded protuberances on the north and south face of the building would do. Either Turner or Thornton deduced from Turner's tales that the president didn't like what grandeur Hallet accorded to the exterior of the wings, especially the roof. Thornton made a grand dome the only focal point on the roof, placed it in the center, above a portico with rusticated arches, Classical balcony with Corinthian columns and pilestrades. The latter feature united all sections of the building. 

The dome dictated the major feature of his floor plan, a large oval room. He limited the circumlinear elements of the wings to the semi-circular projections which with grand arched window lit up the House and Senate which would share its wing with a library. He had the Executive apartment overlooking an essentially oval Conference Room that he crowded with an interior colonnade which gave the impression that those gathered below would be taking orders, not giving them to the president. On the other side of the president's room was the largest room, an oval room under a dome where the long talked about equestrian statue of General Washington could be placed. Finally, nothing was  too high and Thornton was a skillful enough landscape painter to give that impression That Turner never attested to his role in helping Thornton does not prove that the didn't help. Within four months of his design winning the $500 prize, the president lost confidence in it and in Thornton. Turner was dependent on further patronage from the federal government. Why would he claim a role in perpetrating such an embarrassment? 

Hallet's January design had a Conference Room a la Halle au Bles, and shaped a House Chamber with semi-circular front and back. However, Hallet did little to flatter the executive branch, tucking it in the middle of the building with the Senate. His dome was small and more Baroque than Classical. Indeed, architectural historian Pamela Scott characterized his January 1793 design as shaped like a Greek cross: "The resultant Greek-cross form, which answered all functional and symbolic purposes, was unusual in it fusion of antique and baroque elements." The president and secretary of state were underwhelmed.

The commissioners had instructed Thornton to give his plan to the secretary of state who would then give it to the president. Thornton came up with a better go-between. Perhaps, Turner told him that Jefferson supported Hallet. John Trumbull had been collecting subscriptions to finance his masterpieces. Thornton was one of many who subscribed, and he was one of few Americans who, thanks to his few months in London showing off his paintings, understood the world of art. He and Trumbull became friends. Trumbull had briefly been an aide-de-camp to Washington during the war which ever after gave him easy access to the president.

Does it make sense that Thornton did not present his work to the president himself? Keeping away when he submitted his design might have been a stroke of genius. Alone with Trumbull, the president could concentrate on Thornton's design. He could not turn to Thornton and ask him about his qualifications as an architect. However, the president's letter to the commissioners gives the impression that he conferred with Thornton:

I have had under consideration Mr Hallet’s plans for the Capitol, which undoubtedly have a great deal of merit. Doctor Thornton has also given me a view of his. These last come forward under some very advantageous circumstances. The Grandeur, Simplicity and Beauty of the exterior—the propriety with which the apartments are distributed—and the œconomy in the mass of the whole structure, will, I doubt not, give it a preference, in your eyes, as it has done in mine, and those of several others whom I have consulted, and who are deemed men of skill and taste in Architecture. I have therefore thought it better to give the Doctor time to finish his plan, and for this purpose to delay ’till your next meeting a final decision.

Unlike the letter the president wrote comparing Hallet's and Turner's plans, this letter said nothing in particular about the plans at hand. He also didn't say anything about Thornton except that he had not actually finished his plan. Jefferson wrote to Commissioner Daniel Carroll the next day and all but declared Thornton the winner: his design "has so captivated the eyes and judgment of all as to leave no doubt you will prefer it when it shall be exhibited to you; as no doubt exists here of it’s preference over all which have been produced, and among it’s admirers no one is more decided than him whose decision is most important. It is simple, noble, beautiful, excellently distributed, and moderate in size." He also didn't say anything in particular about the plan or Thornton. Then Jefferson remembered "Poor Hallet, whose merit and distresses interest every one for his tranquility and pecuniary relief." Jefferson assured Carroll that the commissioners could have their say. Indeed, "the interval of apparent doubt" afforded an opportunity to soothe Hallet's mind. In their reply, the best the board could come up with was: "we feel sensibly for poor Hallet, and shall do every thing in our power to sooth him. We hope he may be usefully employed notwithstanding."

Given Jefferson's influence on Hallet's design, why did he so eagerly embrace Thornton's? Since the decision was six months overdue, he had to be pleased that the president was so taken with Thornton's design. He also had to be pleased with how much it resembled Hallet's. Finally, his design for Monticello had a similar configuration which suggests that Jefferson was more entranced with neo-classicism on a smaller scale. Plus Hallet had a weakness for the Baroque and ambivalence toward the French Revolution. Thornton's elevation gave the monumental Capitol a simpler cast. Jefferson was taken by the design and that Thornton was a colleague in the Philosophical had to add to his pleasure.

What Thornton did in February is not known. In March, accompanied by Rivardi, Thornton went to the commissioners' March meeting in Georgetown and gave them his design. Despite hand delivering a letter from the president, it is doubtful that the president himself handed the letter to Thornton. Throughout this whole process of submission and approval, Thornton had little contact, if any, with the president. Ten months after he submitted his design, Thornton solicited a job as the president's secretary. In that letter, he wrote: “My Situation in Life has precluded me from the honor of being but very partially known to you.”

The president's letter extolled Thornton's design and seemed to excuse its expense, whatever that might be. As long as the building could be used in December 1800, the interior and ornamental parts could be finished later:

Grandeur, Simplicity and Convenience appear to be so well combined in this plan of Doctor Thornton’s, that I have no doubt of its meeting with that approbation from you, which I have given it upon an attentive inspection, and which it has received from all those who have seen it and are considered as judges of such things.

How far the expense of such a building, as is exhibited by the plan, will comport with the funds of the City, you will be the best judges, after having made an estimate of the quantity of materials and labour to be employed in executing it. And to obviate objections that may be raised on this head, it should be considered, that the external of the building will be the only immediate expense to be incurred. The internal work—and many of the ornamental parts without, may be finished gradually, as the means will permit, and still the whole be completed within the time contemplated by law for the use of the building.

Although made fully aware that Thornton's design had to be the winning design, in their reply to the president, the commissioners equivocated: "the rooms for the different Branches of Congress and the Conference Room, are much to our satisfaction and its outward appearance we expect will be Striking, & pleasing. On the whole it gains our preference tho. we cannot but fear that several of the Small Rooms, of which there seems to us there are more than necessary, will want Light, perhaps by lessening the number of them the Objection may in some Measure be obviated—We have no estimate Accompanying the Plan, nor can one be formed soon which could give much satisfaction."

The president didn't reply to their letter but on his way from Philadelphia to Mount Vernon on April 2, just as the commissioners came to Georgetown for their April meeting, he gave them a one sentence letter approving Thornton's plan. On April 5, they wrote to Thornton with the good news. He was then back in Philadelphia. They asked him to arrange for how he wanted to receive "the acknowledgements your success entitles you" and "As soon as the nature of the work and your convenience will permit, we wish to be in possession of your explanations and remarks with the plan for we wish to mark out the ground, make preparations and even begin to lay the foundation this fall." Presumably the commissioners waved the requirement for "an Estimate of the Cubic Feet of Brick-Work." That Thornton had no idea what his plan might cost to build might have given the commissioners pause. Both the president and the commissioners understood what an architect should be able to do. In February, while the president was flush with his enthusiasm for Thornton's plan, James Hoban gave him an estimated of cost of the President's house if it was bigger, 77,000 Pounds Sterling or around $300,000. That shocked the president enough that on March 3 he instructed the commissioners to have Hoban shrink the plan back to his original dimensions.

Thornton would write in an 1805 "letter to congress" that he was asked to superintend construction of his design and that he declined. C. M. Harris, editor of Thornton's published papers, found no documentary evidence that he was offered the job as superintendent or that he had any interest in it. Harris makes the most of Thornton's tacit admission that he knew little about building: "...Thornton made no attempts to oversee the execution of his own design or to pursue a career in architecture. He was sensitive to the bias against professional men shared by most of the American gentry, the class of substantial land holders to which one part of him belonged, but he also preferred and was best suited for a broader field of endeavor."5 A simpler explanation is that the commissioners did not ask since it would cost them at least $1500 a year and along with the $500 award to Thornton came the condition that he provide more drawings and directions.

While he proved to the commissioners that he wasn't a real architect, in his short stay with them, he proved to be a font of advice. The commissioners clued him into what they thought was the immediate problem with the Capitol. Its site was too low on the slope of the hill requiring that the hill behind would have to be leveled at great expense. Once L'Enfant walked away, the surveyor Ellicott had offered to redraw the plan to correct that but the president said no. Faced with finally getting the foundation dug, the commissioners secured Thornton's endorsement for having the site higher on the hill. In their report to the president on their April meeting, the commissioners noted: "Doct. Thornton threw out an idea that the Capitol might be thrown back to the desirable spot and the center ornamented with a Figure of Columbus—The idea seems not to be disapproved by Mr Blodget, and Ellicot thinks there’s room enough—it does not seem to us that there’s any Sticking impropriety and with that you could consider it on the spot where you could have the most perfect idea of it." The president didn't react.

The commissioners did not wait for Thornton's reply to their April 5 requesting more information on his design. On April 10, they found something for poor Hallet to do. They sent Thornton's plan and asked him to estimate how much it would cost to build. Hallet had not sat idly by waiting to know his fate once Thornton won the prize. His reaction was to draw another design. In a letter to Jefferson, he warned "these very feelings [of respect for the commissioners] impose on me perhaps the duty to observe that if the views of economy with which I have maintained are necessary for the success of the establishment, we have greatly deviated from them in the choice we have just made." Jefferson notified the president that Hallet was drawing a new plan and sent Hallet's one page "succinct description" of it, which concluded "all the rooms, without exception, are lighted and aired directly, because they have all windows in outer walls." Despite casting that shadow on Thornton's plan, the president and Jefferson did not react to Hallet's reaction to Thornton's design, yet. Nor did they mention it to the commissioners.

The adoptions of Thornton's plan did not become the news of the day. There is no known public mention of it, let alone a description or image, rude though a pubished image must have been in that day. There evidently remained only the original in Georgetown then in Hallet's possessions. Thornton did not retain a copy, nor did the president or secretary of state have one made for future reference. Since the troubles with L'Enfant, the president worried that the whole project would be ridiculed or damned for being extravagant. Therefore, the less said about the Capitol design the better.

The arts of public relations were not unknown. Thornton had his Cadmus printed and sent a copy to the president, the commissioners and many other worthies. Promotion of architectural projects before they were actually built was not taboo. After being appointed Superintendent, and graciously offering to be paid in building lots, Blodget had persuaded the president and commissioners to hold a nationwide  "Lottery for the Improvement of the Federal City" with 50,000 tickets to be sold nationwide at $7 a ticket. The money raised would finance building the jackpot, a "Superb Hotel" on 8th Street NW just above Pennsylvania Avenue, at a cost of $50,000. There would also be many cash prizes, including one for $10,000. To find a design for the hotel, the commissioners solicited entries to a contest. Newspapers from Massachusetts to South Carolina reported that on April 9 "ten [designs] were presented so varied in their beauties as to astonish the collection of gentlemen who were present at the pleasing exhibition." The commissioners chose Hoban's design. 

Go to Chapter Four

Footnotes for Chapter Three

1.  GW to WT, 8 December 1799.

2. GW to Stuart, March 8, 1792.

3. "Pierre Lenfant" French Wikipedia; for "Peter" see Bowling, Kenneth, Peter Charles L'Enfant: Vision, Honor and Male Friendship in the Early American Republic...; on French military engineers see Duportail to GW 18 January 1778, and Walker, Paul, Engineers of Independence, pp353ff;

4. Hamilton to James Watson, 9 October 1792.

5.  on military career see L'Enfant to GW 18 February 1782; on ball Letters B. Rush, vot 1, 16 July 1782 to Ferguson, p. 277;on Cincinnati Knox to GW, 16 October 1783; on medals GW to Knox, 1 June 1786; GW to L'Enfant, 1 January 1787; L'Enfant to GW, 6 December 1786; his first letter to GW L'Enfant to GW, 4 September 1778;

6. On work in NYC see Driskel, Michael Paul. "By the Light of Providence "JSTOR, p. 720; Bowling, Kenneth L'Enfant..., pp. 8 & 9;

7. Dunlap, William,  History of the Rise of Arts and Design of the Arts of Design in America, vol. 1, 1834, p. 338; Humphries to L'Enfant 11 June 1789, in Morgan. J. D., "Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant," Journal of Columbia Historical Society, vol 2. p119. 

8. L'Enfant to GW, 11 Sept. 1789.

9. The law authorized the commissioners “to purchase or accept” land needed and “according to such Plans, as the President shall approve the said Commissioners, or any two of them shall prior to the first Monday in December in the year one thousand eight hundred, provide suitable buildings for the accommodation of Congress, and of the President, and for the public Offices of the government of the United States.” The law allowed Washington to accept “Plans,” not just a plan so it was assumed that meant he would decide on the plan for the city and plans for the public buildings.

10. Arnebeck, Fiery Trial, pp. 33ff. Also see Seat of Empire: the General and the Plan. 

11. Jefferson to L'Enfant, 10 April 1791;

12. Carroll to Madison, 23 April, 1791

13.  GW to Humphreys, 20 July 1791,

14. Jefferson to GW, 8 September 1791; Jefferson Memorandum: Queries for D.C. Commissioners 28 August 1791;  

15. Washington to Stuart, 20 Nov 1791; Stuart to Washington, 26 February 1792: In "To Tease and Torment" Two Presidents Confront Suspicions of Sodomy, I explore sexual dimensions of the troubles with L'Enfant. In Fiery Trial pp 62-110, I narrate L'Enfant's predicament. In "Give L'Enfant a Break", I do just that. I establish that he didn't employ slaves in Slave Labor in  the Capital; L'Enfant to Jefferson, 26 February 1792; L'Enfant to GW 17 January 1792 ;  

16. L'Enfant to GW 17 January 1792 Enclosure; Roberdeau to L'Enfant 18 June 1793 L'Enfant Papers LOC.

17. GW to Stuart, March 8, 1792.

18. L'Enfant to GW, 19 August 1791,

19. Trumbull to Bullfinch, 28 Jan 1818 p 271, Letters of John Trumbull; Trumbull to L'Enfant 9 March 1795.Donald Hawkins, "Origins of the Rotunda" USCHS Capitol Dome, Summer 2013 (pdf). 

20. 19. Wilson, Mabel O., Thomas Jefferson, Architect, "What He Saw..." by Lloyd DeWitt, p. 60 "Thus Jefferson changed the course of American architecture, just as he set out to do."  Churchill, James E., "Thomas Jefferson and Transposition of Ancient Design to the New World" 

21. GW to Commrs., 8 June 1792; Commrs. to GW, 19 July 1792; to trace Hoban's career in the city click here for excerpts from Through a Fiery Trial. 

22. "George Turner, (judge)" Wikipedia

23.  Hallet to Jefferson, 21 September 1792 ;  Mrs. Hallet to GW, 27 April 1795 

24. Blodget to Jefferson, 10 July 1792 ; also see Stuart to GW, 18 April 1792.

25. GW to Commrs., 23 July 1792 ;

26. Jefferson to Carroll, 13 October 1792; Hallet to Jefferson, 21 September 1792

27.  GW to Stuart, 30 November 1792 and reply 10 December 1792; more on Blodget as an architect see Hafertepe, Kenneth, "Banking Houses in the United States, 1781-1811, Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 35, no. 1 2000, pp. 9-14, 17-24 and the historic nomination documents for Blodget's Philadelphia house, Keeping Philadelphia Greenville Mansion.

28. Papers of William Thornton, Fellow Citizen to Commrs. 12 July 1792.