Chapter Eight: Thornton v. Hadfield

 

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

by Bob Arnebeck

Table of Contents

Chapter Eight: Thornton v. Hadfield

84. Hadfield's simplification of the 1793 Conference Plan

Hadfield's reputation for being soft spoken extended to his pen. He wrote very little. When he had to defend his reputation against Thornton's attacks, he compressed his rage and what barbs he returned were ineffectual. The profane language he used when dealing with the men who worked for him may have reflected his discomfort dealing with so many Celts. Hoban was known by all as a friendly man, good to his friends, who fashioned an empire limited only by his faith. Then again half the city's building lots were originally owned by fellow Catholics. Because of his reticence, Hadfield was no match for Thornton. Because of his friends, Hoban was the one rival that Thornton could not thwart. He out lived Thornton. Unfortunately his personal papers burned in a house fire. One key to the survival of his empire may have been his respect for the chain of command. He never wrote letters to presidents which both Washington and Madison appreciated. He also never drew a design for the Capitol, which, of course, Thornton appreciated.

Thornton would later claim that he first showed the Capitol to Hadfield, but the young Englishman soon grasped that only the Irishman knew what the Capitol was supposed to look like. That Hoban referred to a design drawn by a departed Frenchman did not bother Hadfield. He had spent some time with Jefferson in Paris, but otherwise the plans for the Capitol formed a file of bits and pieces, just what you might expect from an Irishman. The ensuing feud between them which began immediately shows how much Thornton depended on Hoban and how fearful he was of learning anything from Hadfield. While in Rome the young Englishman had sketched Roman temples. To Thornton, such men were dangerous.

Hadfield soon understood that he faced two problems: how to build upon the North Wing foundation, the strength of which he doubted, without sections drawn that cut away the facade and showed how the interior of the building fit together. His other problem was that the design did not appeal to him at all. As for the first problem, the commissioners explained to the president, "he states he cannot progress without being furnished with the drawings, he being incapable of making them from the plans and papers delivered."(1) To address the second problem, Hadfield drew a new design for the whole building that did away with the basement.

Hadfield likely did not think he was ignoring Trumbull's advice to be respectful of the commissioners. Other than Thornton, no one privy to his criticism of the Capitol design considered it an attack on Thornton. What had been given to Hadfield had been drawn by Hallet prior to 1795 and Hoban since then. In the midst of the dispute, Scott went to Annapolis to lobby the Maryland legislature for support, but didn't stay long. He wrote to the president "the late disagreement between Messrs. Hadfield & Hoban render my attendance absolutely necessary at the City."(2)

Scott and White thought the president, who had been interested in Hadfield's appointment, should be aware of Hadfield's complaints. They also feared that if he didn't get his way, he would leave and publicly criticize the building as planned. They sent him to Philadelphia to meet the president and show his design for the building. They sent Hoban as well to defend the current plan. As for their own position: "We do not think ourselves at liberty to alter the plan which has progress’d in some degree..."(4) Thornton signed the letter. That his colleagues didn't send Thornton to Philadelphia and the president didn't ask him to come suggest that no one thought the design then being built was Thornton's. Thornton sent a personal letter to the president. The actual letter is missing but the president did send a reply to a November 1 letter from Thornton which brings to life the 2200 word draft of the letter in Thornton's papers.

Thornton first addressed Hadfield's claim that there were defects in the building: “Mr Hoban and I knew of these defects, not only in the foundation but also in some parts of the distribution of the interior—we lamented, and endeavoured to correct them—In some Instances we succeeded, some small ones may yet remain, but not of much Importance in our Estimation.” He assured the president that the foundation "as now compleated will be sufficiently strong; otherwise, proceeding with the superstructure would have been unwarrantable."

As for Hadfield needing sections and drawings. Thornton made a hero out of Hoban: "He has as many Drawings as Mr Hoban had, who never doubted a moment. He has indeed more, for Mr Hoban has with much attention and industry calculated the minutiæ of the finish to the parts now begun, and he does not hesitate to say he can proceed to make a compleat finish. Mr Hoban & I have made no material alteration that can affect the Sections of the principal Rooms made by Mr Hallet, indeed a Section of the Irish Parliament Hall would give a sufficient Idea to any Man conversant with Architecture of the intention of the Halls; and the Elevation, and Foundation, as now laid, would be sufficient to designate the rest with such a description as Mr Hoban has given."  Evidently, Jefferson's Halle aux bles had turned into the Irish Parliament. That Thornton did not mention Jefferson challenges his 1811 letter describing his respect for the author of the Capitol. However, Thornton's 1795 letter proves that prior to Thornton's appointment as a commissioner, Hallet drew the sections for both wings that were used a year after Thornton's appointment.

Irish Parliament above; Halle aux bles below

Halle aux bles

It is possible that Thornton added that Parliament House to his list of models relevant to his design because he saw a print of it in a book. However, Hoban had gotten his first lessons in architecture in Dublin and worked on Leinster House which, by the way, became the next Parliament House. Hoban was presumably one of "those jealous men who objected" to Thornton's plan because he "was not regularly brought up an architect.”  Hoban's motive for objecting to Hadfield's changes was likely to keep Thornton on his side when feuds between Irish and Sottish workers boiled up for a commissioners' decision and when his friends vied for contracts for supplying bricks and stone. However, perhaps more to the point, Hoban had to object to a supposed expert claiming there was still something wrong with the foundation of the North Wing. If there was something wrong, then he was to blame. Thornton's principal message to the president was don't risk losing Hoban by supporting Hadfield. He lauded Hoban who "had sometimes opposed my wishes, but I knew his motives were good, and I always admire independence." He made much of Hoban's promise to him to see the work through as planned if Hadfield "persisted in his refusal" to do so.

The gist of Thornton's defense of the plan then being built was that it was cheaper and more stable than Hadfield's because a basement allowed for the use of shorter columns and pilasters on the outside of the building. As for the interior rooms, Hadfield objected to using arcades which allowed for the use of shorter columns. A basement also added height to the building. Hadfield's building would appear smaller which would make its being on the slope of the hill more noticeable. However, Hadfield did away with basement more for semantic reasons. According to the plans given to him, both legislative chambers would be on the ground floor. Obviously, that ground floor was the principal floor of the building. It made no sense to call it a basement and by placing columns and entablature above it give the impression that the second floor was the principal floor. He drew a plan amplifying the advantages of accepting that fact. The principal advantage was a grand portico on the same floor which would be cheaper and a very serviceable. Thornton mocked the grand columns Hadfield wanted. He told the commissioners he would make them thinner and Thornton derided that. 

Of course, the proper designation of a basement floor did not matter to Thornton. As long as the outer walls of the building had rusticated stone for the ground floor, a semblance of his awarded design remained. He didn't send any drawing up to the president. Instead, he listed the "rusticated basements" of English manor houses illustrated in Vitruvius Britannicus:

—I will only instance a few in England. Wentworth House, which is an elegant palace belonging to the Marquis of Rockingham, six hundred feet in length—and of the same Order viz. the Corinthian with a rustic Basement—Worksop-Manor House belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, three Hundred feet in extent yet only a small part of a superb Building once contemplated—Same Order rustic Basement. Holkham House—345 feet—Heveningham Hall, which is a very elegant Structure has a line of Pilasters supported on a rustic Arcade that runs the whole length—Chiswick House, the Seat of the Duke of Devonshire has a rustic Basement supporting fluted Columns of the Corinthian Order—Wentworth Castle, Seat of the Earl of Strafford abt 6 miles from Wentworth House is of the same Order on a rustic Arcade. Wanstead House is also Corinthian on a rustic Basement, & considered as a very chaste & beautiful Building—It was designed by the Author of the Book on Architecture called the Vitruvius Britannicus—These may serve to shew that a Basement (rusticated) is not only proper, but adopted by many of the first Architects. The expense is certainly less than any other mode of obtaining the same height.

Wanstead House

Finally, Hadfield's changes would require taking down "two or three courses of freestone at one corner," and the sills of windows which "...will give rise to a thousand murmurings from every quarter." Stone already prepared would be wasted. Work might not resume for another two years.

Thornton protested too much. Hadfield's East Elevation looked more like Thornton's March 1793 design than Hallet's July 1793 design. He would realize that in January. But he seemed handicapped by not having a drawing of his East Elevation. In his letter, he raise the possibility of Hoban's leaving if the president adopted Hadfield's design. No one else suggested that and going to Philadelphia and saying that to the president would have been completely out of character for Hoban. 

In Philadelphia, the president met with Hadfield and Hoban "in the presence of each other with the plans before us." The letter the president wrote to the commissioners afterwards suggested that he probably paid little attention to Thornton's letter. The president had an informative and non-contentious meeting. He found that there was no suggestion that any changes would be made to the interior of the building as planned. By discarding the basement, Hadfield thought the exterior would "assume a better appearance and the Portico be found more convenient than in the present plan." He thought two stories would create enough space and an attic would not be needed thus saving money. Then he said something that gratified the president. He assured him that the Capitol would have a dome. In his letter, the president explained: 

As far as I understand the matter, the difference lies simply in discarding the basement, & adding an attic story, if the latter shall be found necessary; but this (the attic) he thinks may be dispensed with, as sufficient elevation may be obtained, in the manner he has explained it, without—and to add a dome over the open or circular area or lobby, which in my judgment is a most desirable thing, & what I always expected was part of the original design, until otherwise informed in my late visits to the City, if strength can be given to it & sufficient light obtained.

It is hard to reconcile what the president wrote with the idea that he had previously instructed Thornton to undo "wilful errors." In his letter to the commissioners, the president made it clear that he wanted no more changes to the plan. He had told Hadfield "in decisive terms" that if "the plan on which you are proceeding is not capitally defective I cannot (after such changes, delays and expences as have been encountered already) consent to a departure from it...." That said, he “should have no objection" to Hadfield's changes "as he conceives his character as an Architect is in some measure at stake – and inasmuch as the present plan is no body's, but a compound of every body's....”

George Washington had never and would never suggest that in regards to any decision about the Capitol that Thornton's character as an architect was at stake. A personal letter he wrote to Thornton on the same day all but said that he approved Hadfield's plan solely on the basis of his character as an architect: “If [Hadfield] is the man of science he is represented to be, and merits the character he brings; if his proposed alterations can be accomplished without enhancing the expence or involving delay; if he will oblige himself to carry on the building to its final completion; and if he has exhibited any specimens of being a man of industry and arrangement I should have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that his plan ought to be adopted....” He thanked Thornton for "the explanations & details" in his letters, and added a warning about Hadfield: "if there be any cause to suspect him of ignorance—or misrepresentation much caution, & strict investigation ought to be used."

But, the president left the decision up to the commissioners because "I have not the precise knowledge of the characters you have to deal as well as all the facts in the matter." The commissioners had assumed the president would reject Hadfield's plan. After all, he had been harping on and they had been echoing the need to get the job done without anymore changes. Thornton seemed to hope for more than rejection of Hadfield's plan. He thought there was no need for  Hadfield. Given the president's evident regard for Hadfield, White did not want to fire him. Scott hurried back from Annapolis to protect Hadfield. He was later accused by friends of Hoban of making Hadfield his "favorite."

The board then got Blagden to estimate the cost of building the competing plans and sent that to the president. Relying on Hoban and Thornton as their experts, they suggested that "the plan proposed by Mr Hadfield could not be executed so as to secure stability to the building." Scott and White also allowed Thornton to make the case that Hadfield wasn't needed without making a formal dissent to the president. In their letter to the president, they enclosed a letter Thornton wrote to the board giving "assurances" that the job could be done without Hadfield: "I promise to supply such drawings hereafter, as may be deemed sufficient for the prosecution of the Capitol, and in time to prevent any delay whatever." Thornton added that he was "authorized by Mr. Hoban to say that if Mr. Hadfield declines the superintendence of the building on the present plan, that he will engage to undertake it, and proceed with it to a finish."(7)

Thornton shifted from discounting the need for drawings to promising to provide all the drawings needed himself. What likely caused such an about face was the president's writing that "the present plan is no body's, but a compound of every body's." Without directly contradicting the president, Thornton notified his colleagues and the president that he could fulfill the design contest winner's obligation to provide drawings as needed.

The president didn't reply to the board's letter or show any appreciation for Thornton's offer. He had his secretary write that he approved of their "proceedings."(8) Hadfield worked on the Capitol until May 1798. But for the city's first comprehensive historian, Wilhelmus Bogart Bryan, Thornton's letter was evidence proving that  Glenn Brown, his colleague in the recently organized Columbia Historical Society, was right: Thornton did restore his design of the Capitol.

Bryan did note what the president said about the design but suggested that in "Washington's mind, at that time, at any rate, the authorship of the design was doubtful." Bryan assumed that Thornton did indeed begin to supply drawings and through that process dispelled the president's doubts and restored his original design.

There are no extant architectural drawings made by Thornton that could have been used to elucidate any of the work Hadfield supervised until he was fired in May 1798. Of course, working drawings are rarely preserved. In a letter written and published in 1819, Hadfield recalled that in regards to the exterior of the North Wing, "the finishing the practical working drawings of all the cornices, and other parts of the exterior of the North Wing from the plinth to the top of the ballustrades,... was doing no more than I was obliged to execute, as superintendant of the building."(9)

In his letter to the president, Thornton noted that Hoban had "calculated the minutiæ of the finish to the parts now begun." Given that and Hadfield's claim, there seemed to be little need for Thornton to supply "drawings hereafter, as may be deemed sufficient for the prosecution of the Capitol, and in time to prevent any delay whatever." Thornton would later claim that he made drawings, but he had a tendency to exaggerate. He told Lettsom in a February 1794 letter, "If a man wills to do, he does." Thornton mistook resolution for action. In his own mind, his claims came true.

After finding it difficult to build a relationship with the president, in a long November 26, 1795, letter to Lettsom,  Thornton claimed that on the lots they had both bought on Peter's Hill, he and the president "travelled over together on foot, and laid out our plans of future improvement...." They walked where "the President means to build his private house of residence in the city.... We were alone, and I thought myself highly favored by the manner in which this great man received my opinions. Thou wishes to see him - come to this region of happiness. I have many things confided to me, that, could I consistently with my duty disclose, would make our prospects appear truly grand." Seven months later, in June 1796,  the president would write to Commissioner White that he had heard nothing about Thornton's plans to move to the city.(10)

Meanwhile, in November 1795, the board was desperate for money. They found an amazing way to express that to the president. Thornton may not have written the letter but he certainly signed it: "many balances remain due for services rendered and a quarterly hire of black laborers; should the masters meet with difficulties in obtaining the wages of last year, at the very moment we are advertising for 120 laborers for next year, we shall certainly go into the market with a bad grace."(11) The speculators had stopped all payments. All three were in Philadelphia and, of course, so was congress that could so easily loan money to get its future home built. 

The president and board decided to send White who had served two terms in congress. White was the commissioner who knew the least about the Capitol. That proved embarrassing for Thornton. As White left for Philadelphia, he asked Hadfield to send a plan of the Capitol with the estimated cost and Hadfield sent his own plan. White shocked Thornton by reporting that a congressional committee asked for a copy of the plan for the Capitol, and he showed them Hadfield's. Thornton immediately sent up what he described as a "roll of papers" so the committee could see the "plans formerly adopted by the President, and now in progress...." The mail came but White did not get the plans. He informed Thornton that they had apparently been lost.

In a draft of a letter to White written on January 16, Thornton seemed at once to think the worst and shrug it off. He regretted that Hadfield's drawing was exhibited but noted "in fact it is not indispensably requisite to show the plans exactly as they are meant to be." Then Thornton revealed his dark fears of machinations "by one who does not wish well to my plans, or to anything that comes to me, and who, I believe, has urged Hadfield further than he intended to go." Thornton was probably thinking of Thomas Johnson who led the first board that first questioned Thornton's design, had alerted his brother in London about the need for an architect, and continued to stalk the city protecting his investments.

In the same letter, Thornton reiterated how he was putting Hadfield in his place. "Since your departure I have been occasionally engaged in making correct drawings for the Superintendent of the Capitol in which it will be impossible to make any mistake. In this I have paid great attention even to the minutiae, lest difficulties might be made where in reality none ever existed."

When Thornton wrote that, White had found that the plans had been sent to the War Office. In his letter to Thornton, he described them as "your," that is Thornton's, plans. That raises the question: Had Thornton suddenly made his prize winning design the operable plan? But in the same letter, White referred to the plan ''adopted by the president" which was essentially the phrase his colleagues used when warning Thornton not to make any changes. White was merely flattering Thornton's evident commitment to the "roll of papers" which was not a phrase Thornton would use to describe the elevation he would eventually draw to recapture the essence of his award winning design.

He probably sent White the same plans, or copies of them, that Hoban took to Philadelphia to show the president in November. In a February letter to White, Thornton promised to send other drawings to White and assured him "I have taken great pains with them and I hope I shall have no further trouble."(12) There is no evidence that he sent more drawings.

It took six months of lobbying for White to get a loan guarantee through congress. Until then, despite Thornton claiming to have made drawings to forward the work, Scott and Thornton delayed the usual spring resumption of work on the buildings. In mid-May, White returned to the city. Appalled that work had not resumed, he got the board to rally proprietors to loan money to pay workers and suppliers.(13) Then the board was "a good deal surprised" by Hadfield giving three months notice that he would leave the job.

In a draft letter he would write in 1798, two years after the events that he described, Thornton made Hadfield's "surprise" far more dramatic. He claimed that Hadfield made yet another design: 

His next idea was that as the building could not be reduced from from three to two stories it had better be changed to four stories. The President and Mr. Johnson were both here. They heard of these attempts so incongruous in themselves, with astonishment. The President determined that no alteration should take place, on which Mr. Hadfield resigned his office as Superintendent of the Capitol. The Board accepted his resignation

After he returned, acknowledged he had been hasty, requested to be admitted to the public service, acknowledged he had behaved to W.T. with great impropriety - that he had made objections to the plan and section when prompted by ambition to substitute his own, that he lamented such conduct, and though he had declared the plan not executable yet he assured the Board that it was and he would faithfully execute it, and at all times advise with W.T. - He was replaced [rehired] by unanimous consent of the Board.

Thornton never sent the letter. There is no evidence backing up his recollection. On June 13, 1796, the president left Philadelphia for Mount Vernon and didn't return until August 17. On June 19, he evidently was in Georgetown and paid $1,294 in cash to cover what he owed for lots he had bought in the city. On June 22, he began sending letters from Mount Vernon to his cabinet secretaries. While in Georgetown and the federal city, he could have learned about Hadfield's new design, if there was one. 

Hadfield gave his notice on June 24, and the board replied three days later. In their letter, there is no mention of the president or Hadfield's design: 

The board have had your notice of the 24th Inst. under consideration, & also the conversation which past at the board; and supposing your present situation at the Capitol to be an unpleasant one, they feel every disposition to relieve you from it—As you are to quit the Capitol at the end of 3 months, & this fact is well known among the people; we Suspect it will be difficult to keep up due authority among them; and that it will be best for both the public and yourself that you should be relieved from your present situation immediately; and that the board should pay your passage to England, or thirty five Guineas, in lieu thereof, instead of paying you three months Salary.

This letter gives the impression that Hadfield was unhappy with his "situation" at the Capitol. Indeed, the board wanted to release him from that situation as soon as possible for fear that the "people" there would no longer follow his commands. That suggests that Hadfield had problems with workers at the Capitol, not with the board and the president who were rarely at the Capitol.

On the 26th, the president replied to a letter the board sent to him on the 22nd. There was no mention of Hadfield in either letter. On June 29th, he received another letter from the board that after discussing three other issues, reported their "surprise" at Hadfield giving notice. They noted that they gave him "liberty to quit" and passage money. Then "he seems to have considered the subject better & has applied to withdraw his notice, promising every attention to carrying on the Capitol, as approved of by the President—." That last phrase suggests that his discomfort with the plan prompted his leaving, but it is better understood as an effort by Thornton to get  Hadfield to explicitly disavow his October 1795 plan. The board took him back, with a caveat. They were not obliged to renew his contracts in three months. No letters giving Hadfield's version of events in the summer of 1796 have survived.

In his reply to their letter, the president didn't comment on the board's letting Hadfield stay or applaud their defense of the approved plan once again threatened by Hadfield. He applauded "their decisive manner.... Coaxing a man to stay in office - or to do his duty while he is in it, is not the way to accomplish the object." The president's sharp reaction to the affair has been interpreted as evidence that, as Thornton would remember two years later, he was indeed upset at Hadfield. However, the commissioners had not coaxed Hadfield. In his July 1 letter, the president was comparing their experience with Hadfield to his experience with them. In his June 26 letter to them, he had once again tried to coax them to live in the city:  "It cannot be tolerated, that the Superintendant, and others, whose duty it is to see that every thing moves harmoniously as well as œeconomically; and who to effect these ought always to be on the spot, to receive applications & to provide instantaneously for wants, should be at the distance of thre⟨e⟩ miles from the active scenes of their employments."(13A)

The commissioners had been rather flippant when repelling the president's previous reminder in May. The city's land owners had sent a memorial pressing for that. In his letter written a year after the June 1795 debacle at the Capitol, the president had reminded Thornton and Scott that it would not have happened if they had lived in the city. In reply, they insisted that "If the commissioners had walked on the walls three times a day, they could not have prevented it.... We lament that any person could expect us to live there, before houses are prepared for accommodation—some of the board have always said, that they mean to remove thither as soon as even decent houses could be had—The proprietors have not been active in their preparations, otherwise, this cause of their complaint would not now exist." The use of the word "lament" suggests that Thornton wrote the letter. 

The president's July observation that dismissal was a better option than the futility of coaxing men to do their duty seemed to have made an impression on Thornton. On July 18, a newspaper notice announced the auction sale of his Georgetown house on August 4 and also announced "Immediate possession will be given as the proprietor is removing to the city of Washington." (14)

Hadfield would superintend the work at the Capitol for almost two more years. There is no evidence that he welcomed Thornton's supervision, other than Thornton's claim. In 1801, Hadfield wrote to President Jefferson  soliciting work. He claimed credit for having "superintended the execution of the most difficult part" of what had been built and revealed the "mortification" he felt at "seeing my work remain for the praise and reputation of those, who have meditated and effected my ruin." That suggests that Hadfield built Hallet's revision of Thornton's design while trying to avoid any advice from W.T. or Hoban.

An October 24, 1796, letter that the foremen of the stone masons, George Blagden, wrote to the board requesting drawings gives a different perspective. He asked for four drawings and at what height the columns embedded in the walls would gracefully narrow:

I find it expedient to solicit a resolution to the follow queries; shall the Pilasters diminish, how much and w[h]ere shall that determination commence. There being to be two modes to finishing between the said Pilasters a drawing for each will be necessary, commencing with the top of the Subb Plinth and ending at the top of Capitals. The dementions of each of their parts figured respectively. A drawing of one of the windows for principle and study if to a scale of one inch to foot the better. And also a drawing at large for the mouldings composing the whole of Entablature.

Given his promise of directions and drawings, it would seem that in the fall of 1796 Thornton would have been involved in that magical period when the walls of a building he thought he had designed began to rise in earnest. How the board or Thornton individually responded to Blagden's letter is not known, but it suggests that Thornton and Hadfield were not working together as the building progressed. At the same time, it suggests that Hadfield did not know the answers to Blagden's questions. Blagden also felt obliged to address the board as a whole rather than Thornton which suggests that he was not accustomed to getting drawings from Thornton.

A letter Thomas Law wrote to the president in February 1797 gives yet another perspective. Hadfield told him "that he could get the Capitol covered in this Season." Law urged him to so inform the commissioners. The architect demurred: “I shall be more likely to effect it by my own means without their knowing of my intention.”(15) The president didn't react. However, that Thornton did not make drawings did not upset anyone. No one expected them, least of all the president. The August auction of Thornton's Georgetown house raised expectations that he would move to the city. But the auction failed to find a buyer and Thornton didn't move.

In 1794, Thornton's settling in Georgetown to provide society for his wife and mother-in-law made sense. In 1796, society began moving into the federal city. Before the winter social season ended in Philadelphia, Thomas Law settled 10,000 Pounds Sterling on his bride, 20 year old Elizabeth ("Eliza" or "Betsy") Parke Custis, who was the most admired of the president's grand daughters. Law still hadn't gotten deeds for lots he had bought from Greenleaf, so he became a thorn in Morris's and Nicholson's sides. To relieve that pain, Nicholson moved a wet and dry goods merchant out the the Simmons house and let the Laws move into what forever more has been known as "Honeymoon House." 

Although the couple did not stay in that house long, once in the city Law began his building program at the river side foot of New Jersey Avenue with plans to build houses up the hill to the Capitol. Until his death in December 1799, when the General visited the city, he would stay with the Laws. Historians would credit Thornton for designing houses for both the General and Law. The designs for both were completed by October 1798. As will be shown, Thornton was not not asked to and did not design their houses. In the summer of 1798, he was as little interested in house design as he was in the summer of 1796. 

Other architects were designing houses in the summer of 1796. The other Nabob, William Duncanson, built The Maples, a country manor tucked in the slope southeast of the Capitol near 6th and D Streets SE. In the fall of 1796, Duncanson entertained the British minister and his lady there. Architectural historians would credit Lovering for designing the house, but in a lawsuit on another matter, Lovering testified that to help Duncanson hurry construction of the house, he provided seasoned building materials and measured the work so Duncanson could pay the builders. Lovering didn't testify that he was paid for designing or building the house. Both Law and Duncanson used Hallet. He divided his time between Philadelphia in the winter and the federal city in the summer. Given his detailed description of The Maples in a report to European investors, he most likely designed the house.(19)

Lovering was busy nearby. He mastermind the biggest building project of the summer. To fulfill an obligation made by Greenleaf in September 1793, Morris and Nicholson had to build 20 houses on lots owned by Daniel Carroll of Duddington or forfeit the lots and pay a $10,000 penalty. By the spring of 1796, no houses had been built nor any planned. Morris was inclined to renegotiate the contract with Carroll. Lovering went to Philadelphia and warned Morris and Nicholson that Carroll had "a most rigid disposition and will be glad to take any advantage."

The speculators knew that they had to do something to save their investment. Building houses would raise lot values throughout the city, especially if done with eclat. Beating Carroll's deadline would catch everyone's attention. Vowing that “Mr. Carroll shall not have the forfeiture,” Morris and Nicholson promised money. If the houses were only two stories and most shared party walls, Lovering thought they could be built by September. Morris told him that they "must be easy and cheap to execute and at the same time agreeable to purchasers and tenants." Lovering designed houses at the end of the block with storefront windows. While his designs for the houses have not been found, letters between Morris, Nicholson, Cranch, Lovering and William Prentiss, an English storekeeper who Nicholson hired as his builder, all mention Lovering's designs. Lovering described his drawings as "most suitable and economize as much as possible." Building began in late June 1796 on the square northwest of the intersection of South Capitol and N Streets SW. Despite Lovering being prostrated with a fever, his and Prentiss's crews beat the deadline. Both Morris and Nicholson came to the city and hosted a barbecue for 200 to celebrate the accomplishment. Initially, even Carroll was satisfied.

Their seeming success, enabled Morris to sell a neighboring corner lot to a merchant named Edward Langley. The contract for the sale had the proviso that Langley have his builder "conform to Lovering's design." This proviso was likely made and enforced to help the speculators if Carroll sued. Langley had the house/store built and then in 1798 tried to sell it. 

He had a city surveyor, Nicholas King, draw the building and its floor plan. In small print in the lower right hand corner of the advertisement, King wrote "Drawn by Nich. King July 14, 1798." Pamela Scott and other historians give King credit for designing the house. She rates the building as representing "the quality of houses and shops Carroll sought when he first contracted with Greenleaf."(20)

There is no evidence that Thornton was one of the celebrants at the barbecue. Even though encouraging private building was a commissioner's job, Thornton could be uncharacteristically cranky when going about it. While he was in Philadelphia, Commissioner White cultivated a developer named Joseph Cooke who built a row of houses in that city and wanted to do the same near the Capitol. Thornton wrote that he agreed with White that "we must accommodate every person as well as we can." But Thornton bristled at what Cooke built in Philadelphia: "...it is indeed the finest cook's shop I ever saw, but destitute of taste, and loaded with trifles, finery and whimwhams." In the same draft, Thornton bemoaned congressional critiques of the plan for the Capitol: "It would be destruction to alter a stone!" The board, formed by Thornton and Scott, offered Cooke lots at 12 cents a foot "if he really means to improve and soon." Cooke never built in the city.(21)

On September 19, the president declined a third term in office. He asked the commissioners to bring matters "relative to the business of the City" that needed his attention. Thornton finally found a way to take charge that consoled the president. On October 1, the board sent two letters outlining decisions that had to be made. Judging from the draft for a letter in Thornton's papers, he took the lead in addressing the president's top priority. The old board had assumed that the National University would be on land offered by Blodget between I and P Streets North and 11th and 5th Streets West. However, Thornton discovered that 5 or 6 acres in that parcel belonged to minors or had been sold to "strangers." He suggested a site on Peter's Hill already designated for government use, around which both he and the president owned lots. His colleagues endorsed the idea and the president signed off on it.

In other matters, Thornton dissented from his colleagues and in one case the president seemed to back Thornton.  His colleagues wanted embassies along the Mall. Thornton thought they should be on both sides of the Square south of the President's house. The president at least opposed embassies on the Mall. However, the president showed no interest in his idea to build a politicians' ghetto along the Mall. Thornton assured him that someday the government would "build at public expense a mansion house for each representative in both houses of Congress in a similar style by which all improper competition in point of grandeur will be avoided;..." Scott and White recommended that the Executive office buildings for the Treasury and War Departments flank the President's house. Thornton wanted  them north of the President's house, because "to place brick buildings (though ornamented with free stone) as wings in any way connected with a stone edifice would not only be novel, but irregular and improper." The president decided his successor should decide.

There is no evidence that Thornton took any interest in the design of the Executive offices, the next public buildings to be built after the President's house and Capitol. In late 1796, the board asked Hadfield and Hoban for designs and chose Hadfield's. Thornton likely avoided that project because monetary constraints foretold plain buildings built with bricks. Perhaps, his lack of interest in houses reflected his disdain for brick buildings.(22)

Thornton did not conceal his interest in filling out the L'Enfant Plan, and that attracted the attention of John Nicholson who got the board's approval for a scheme that made all the speculators' lots vendible through the sale of certificates to purchase them in three years. Robert Morris was far more famous, but Nicholson prided himself on reading the pulse of the future. Commissioner White did not trust him. He had been in Philadelphia when State Comptroller Nicholson faced impeachment for swindling the state. Scott decided that by helping the speculators develop their federal city property, he might also become sufficiently rich. He became so amenable to their schemes that Nicholson worried that the commissioner might plunder the speculators. As for Thornton, Nicholson wrote to Morris that he was "faithful as the needle to the pole" and "stands by me." But he didn't plunge like Scott did. Perhaps Thornton's kindness in sharing a “good pipe of Madeira,” caused Nicholson to misjudge him. He wrote to Morris on December 9, 1796, that he “made a strong attack on him to get his paper." Thornton parried by saying "his wife and mother-in-law would be alarmed.”

Eventually, it dawned on all that Morris and Nicholson had no money. Morris took a circuitous route back to Philadelphia to avoid creditors and made his home his castle where common law kept the sheriff from serving writs. Nicholson found his castle in a room in a Capitol Hill hotel that he financed. He fed Lovering with promises. To reassure creditors and entice investors, Nicholson had Lovering estimate the value of the speculators' houses. He valued the brick houses at $100,839 and the wooden houses and shops at $11,821. Assuming that Nicholson would raise money, Lovering proposed building 166 three-story houses with dormer windows, which would rent or sell for 25% more than two-story houses. However, in reality, Lovering's building career was grinding to a halt. On New Year's Day, he wrote to Nicholson: "I conceive myself of so little use or consequence that must hardly be worth your notice.... It will be impossible for me to continue in this City with such perturbations of mind and embarrassed circumstances."  Nicholson promptly gave Lovering $45. Then he paid Lovering $5 a day when he marked trees for lumber. Then on January 16, Lovering's ill wife died. Nicholson loaned his carriage for the ride to Rock Creek cemetery. Nicholson was not a sentimental man. In a letter to Morris, his reaction to her death was that now the builder would get back to finishing the houses on South Capitol Street. On February 4, creditors lured Nicholson out of his castle. He was briefly jailed in Georgetown but enough gullible men loath to see the bubble collapse paid his bail. Shortly after that, without giving anyone notice, Nicholson returned to Philadelphia. Lovering followed him and saw Morris too. He wrote back to Cranch: "they are at wits end almost."(26)

At the same time that he parried Nicholson, Thornton arranged to rent a house of F Street Northwest just east of the 14th Street. In a December 26 letter, the president congratulated Thornton.  There was a need to "bed and board" congressmen near the Capitol, but to give "eclat" to the city, the president thought  "...buildings between the Capitol and President's house ought to be encouraged as much as possible - and nothing would have a greater tendency toward accomplishing this, than the Commissioners making that part of the city their resident, and compelling all those who are under their control to do the same...."(24) He didn't suggest that Thornton build any houses for those under his control.

Blodget was his landlord. That Blodget built houses in the city did not mean that he was in the city. Indeed, he was slowly losing what grip he had on it. He could not pay Hoban to finish the Grand Hotel. That didn't check Hoban. Thornton settled at the edge of Hoban's empire. On 14th Street near the President's house, Hoban had built the so called Little Hotel. His own house was in the area as were houses of his foremen. A rental he built was condemned as a whore house by the commissioners who rented another Hoban rental nearby for office space.  Both are hailed as architects, but Hoban had designed and built most of the buildings around them. Thornton had not designed and built anything.

However, that Thornton evinced no interest as an architect in residential housing in 1796 doesn't prove that he didn't design the Octagon house for which ground was broken in May 1799. But it does suggest that his mind was elsewhere. He couldn't even focus on the importance of individual building lots. His colleague Gustavus Scott did and made money off of what was essentially one of Thornton's Big Picture ideas. Scott's real estate coup also begins the story of the Octagon.

In a meeting with the board in mid-November 1796, the president seemed to support Thornton's idea of putting embassies south of the President's house. Among the six squares that Thornton thought should have embassies was Square 170. The board decided they best divide Square 170, which is to say, they would divvy the lots in the square 50-50 with its original owners. That was requisite before any development could begin. On November 19, 1796, Commissioners Scott and White met with David Burnes and Samuel Davidson and agreed that Lot 8, the largest lot in the square, should belong to the public. Thornton was not there. Two days later, Scott bought Lot 8, from the board. In April 1797, he would sell the lot to John Tayloe III at a handsome profit.(23)

Division sheet for Square 170

Meanwhile, Thornton curated the Big Picture. Thornton had the opportunity to imbue the L'Enfant Plan with more grandeur because the March 1791 agreement between the president and the original landowners did not transfer title to any land in the city to the government for its own use. Since 1791, that land had been held in trust until the president signified that the city plan was finalized. All the land to be taken for public use had to be described and measured. Before leaving office, the president wanted to sign off on a comprehensive and legally impeccable document that once signed by the trustees would effect the transfer of all the property to the government once the landowners were paid.

Thornton began making a minute examination of the L'Enfant Plan with ruler in hand. He noted all the large intersections created by angling avenues crossing the grid of streets. Many of those intersections created space that dwarfed the need to accommodate traffic. He described each one and calculated the area and how much buying each plot would cost the government. For example: "No. 10 At the junction of Kentucky with the intersection of North Carolina and Massachusetts Avenue admitting a street of 100 feet in front of the surrounding squares will leave an area or parallelogram of 686 1/2 feet by 191 1/2 feet containing 131,465 square feet." A map accompanied the list. He added that "these areas will serve for fountains, obelisks, statues, temples, etc. etc. - or will be amply sufficient for handsome churches, public academies, etc. - and most of them ornamented with grass-plots, gravel walks, trees, etc.." The president liked the idea in so far as taking that land for public use meant the grumbling original landowners would get $66 an acre for the land taken.(25) By the way, the lot Tayloe would buy faced an intersection enlarged by New York Avenue crossing 18th Street at an angle. However, Thornton didn't pinpoint that intersection as big enough for public embellishments.

However, filling in the blanks in L'Enfant's Plan did not divert the president's attention from the Capitol. On January 29 he wrote: "I persuade myself that great exertions will be used to forward the Capitol in preference to any other object." On February 15, he reiterated: "...the public mind is in a state of doubt, if not in despair of having the principal building in readiness for Congress, by the time contemplated—for these reasons I say, and for others which might be enumerated, I am now decidedly of opinion that the edifices for the Executive Offices ought to be suspended; that the work on the house for the President should advance no faster (at the expence or retardment of the Capitol) than is necessary to keep pace therewith and to preserve it from injury; and that all the means (not essential for other purposes) & all the force, ought to be employed on the Capitol...."

The president referred only to the North Wing where the Senate would sit in its chamber and the House in a room upstairs that was to be a library. No one pressed the president to finalize the design of the Capitol and decide whether the central dome would cover, as the president put it in November 1795, "the open or circular area or lobby." With the project depending on congressional support, it was not the time to address the South Wing which would certainly cost as much as the North Wing or to breath a word about the dome, vestibule and conference room which would cost more. However, in a  his February 20 letter to the commissioners assuring them that what L'Enfant drew on his plan to represent the President's house had not been approved by the president, he checked move respecting the design of the Capitol that was likely initiated by Thornton, In a p.s. he added: "I am informed that Mr Hadfield is enquiring, in this City, for Carvers. I earnestly recommend, that all carving not absolutely necessary to preserve consistency, may be avoided; as well to save time and expence, as because I believe it is not so much the taste now as formerly."

The board was trying to take advantage of the failure of Robert Morris which led the dismissal of stone carvers working on an ornate mansion designed by L'Enfant. The president may have learned that lesson from his old friend Robert Morris gagging on the expense of L'Enfant's grandiose ideas. To Hadfield's delight, his being brought back to the federal city without carvers on the payroll allowed him to claim part of the design of the building's exterior. Instead of Thornton's ornaments topping the basement impost cornices, Hadfield's plain cornices topped by a line of molding "was accepted as an  improvement and executed accordingly."(16)

How Thornton reacted to that is not known. He couldn't have been pleased, but historians have not noticed the comeuppance suffered by one who they suppose had special orders from the president to have his way with the Capitol. However, the ingenuous Thornton took his ups and downs as a commissioner in stride. In February, the president thanked the commissioners. For the rest of his life, Thornton cherished the letter. As he put it to Dr. Lettsom in October 1797, the president "wrote a very flattering letter of approbation to the commissioners, testifying his satisfaction and pleasure in their conduct, observing, too, that if any of us retired from office, the country would experience a great loss." The president didn't write that. In his February 27 letter, he put it this way: "I think the United States are interested in the continuance of you in their service, and therefore I should regret, if either of you by resignation, should deprive them of the assistance which I believe you are able to give in the business committed to your care."(2)

Go to Chapter Nine

Footnotes to Chapter Nine:

1. Commrs to GW 27 September 1795,   31 October 1795

2. Scott to GW, 13 November 1795, 

3.  Weld, Isaac, Travels Through the States of North America...., p. 82

4.  Op. cit. Oct 31, 1795

5.  WT to GW 2 November 1795

6.  GW to Commrs, 9 November 1795, Commrs to GW, 18 November 1795 ; Purcell to White, 12 April 1799 in Washington Federalist 16 April 1799

7. WT to Commrs. 17 November 1795, Harris p. 337.

8. footnote to  Commrs to GW, 18 November 1795

9.  Bryan, History of the National Capital. vol. 1 pp. 315-17, The Washington Gazette 6 February 1819.

10. Pettigrew 2 pp 544-45, 21 February 1794; WT to Lettsom, 26 November 1795; Pettigrew 2: 549-55; GW to White 5 June 1796; As for GW sharing confidences with WT, a few weeks before writing to Lettsom, WT did have to deal with a "private" letter from GW. On November 4, 1795, GW sent a letter to the board marked "private." Since Scott was in Annapolis and White in Virginia, Thornton opened and read the letter. He wrote back immediately and assured the president: "I consider your Letter as of so private a Nature, that I have transcribed it myself, and have forwarded a Copy to each of my Colleagues, whose motions will be governed thereby." This is the only letter written by WT to GW excluded by the editor of Thornton's published papers and for good reason. Because of his inexperience in Maryland politics, Thornton misunderstood the letter. Baltimore promoters had always been wary of developments along the Potomac. The president simply warned Scott to not misjudge the situation when he went to Annapolis to get the state to buy shares in the Potomac Company and loan money to the commissioners. He made his warning private because he dare not give written evidence that he tried to influence the Maryland legislature to favor development of the Potomac Valley. GW to commrs, 4 November 1795; WT to GW 7 November1795 

11. Commrs. to GW 31 December 1795 

12. WT to White draft 7 March 1796, Harris pp. 369-380, 387-392; Johnson to GW, 29 August 1795 ; GW to Johnson 24 August 1795 ;A biographer of Hadfield thinks Thornton was referring to Gustavus Scott, but Thornton had been Scott's ally in their fight with Greenleaf and Johnson. The latter had ridiculed Thornton's plan. There is no evidence that Scott ever criticized it.  King, George Hadfield: Architect of the Federal City.

13.  White to GW,  25 May 1796

13A. GW to Commrs. 26 June 1796;  1 July 1796,

14. draft letter WT to Pickering,  23-25 June 1798, Harris p. 455; Commrs to GW 29 June 1795    GWto Commrs. 10 June 1796 footnote 3;

15. Hadfield to Jefferson, 27 March 1801; Blagden to Commrs, 24, October 1796, Commrs records; Law to GW, 8 February 1797;

16. GW to Commrs 20 February 1797 ; Bryan, History of National Capital volume one, pp. 317-8; The Gazette 6 February 1819; Hunsberger, 'The Architecture of George Hadfield;" The president may also have been reacting to what was being called Morris's Folly, the house for Robert Morris designed, built but not finished by L'Enfant. It was not finished because Morris went bankrupt. Most observers blamed L'Enfant's passion for ornaments for delaying completion of the mansion.There were indeed stone carvers in Philadelphia out of work. At least one Italian carver did go down to the federal city. Smith, Morris's Folly, pp. 142-3.

17. GW to Commrs 22 May 1796, Commrs to GW, 31 May 1796, GW to White 5 June 1796;  Commrs to GW 31 May 1796; Centinnel of Liberty and Georgetown Advertiser 2 August 1796

18. AMT notebook vol. 1 image xxx; Cranch advertisement Washington Gazette, June 22, 1796.

19. Prentiss to Nicholson  29 February 1796; Stuart to GW, 25 February 1796; Hallet to Nicholson, 30 July 1795; Twining, Travels in America a Hundred Years Ago, p. 102ff ; Law to GW, 11 May 1796  ;  Hallet to Law, undated, Law Family Papers, Maryland Historical Society. Simmons' ads in Washington Gazette July and  October 1795; Hallet letter copied with "Observation sur la Valeur des terreins de la Ville Federale soit Washington" Holland Land Company Papers reel 54. In his 1901 book Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City,  Allen Clark credited William Lovering for designing The Maples but did not cite any evidence. For Lovering's testimony see "Letter to John Mercer", 7 September 1803 Baltimore Republican; Law to Commrs, recalled but unsourced, alludes to his invention. 

20. Clark, Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 129; Lovering to Nicholson, 12 July 1796, Nicholson Papers Lovering to Nicholson, June 27, 1796; Morris to Cranch April 12 and May 30; Lovering to Nicholson, 7 June 1796, 12 July 1796; Lovering to Morris, 29 April 1796, Morris papers; Langley and Morris contract 26 September 1796, Greenleaf Papers; Scott, Creating Capitol Hill, pp. 82, 79.

21.WT to White draft 7 March 1796; for description of Cooke's building, see Smith, Morris's Folly, p. 126.  

22. WT to GW, 13 September 1796, Harris pp. 395-7; WT to GW, 1 October 1796 ; Scott to GW, 1 October 1796; summary of House action 26 December 1796. Harris pp 290. Also see White to Madison, 2 December 1796, WT to GW, 14 February 1797,

23.       1796 Division sheet in the Office of the Surveyor Land Management Record System.;  Square 170.

24.  GW to WT, 26 December 1796.

25. WT to GW, 14 February 1797 

26.Nicholson to Commrs. 31 August & 24 Sept 1796, 26 October 1796, Commrs. records; Nicholson to Morris, December 9, 1796, Nicholson to Morris, 5 February 1797; Tunnicliff to Nicholson, 17 April 1797, Nicholson papers; for work load caused by Nicholson's schemes see  Cranch to his mother, 28 April 1796; For rise in value of M & N notes see William Smith to Reed and Forde 14 and 23 September 1796, Reed and Forde Papers; Nicholson diary and for more on Nicholson see excerpts from Through a Fiery Trial; for Nicholson's efforts to manage his schemes see Nicholson to Morris 18 November 1796: Morris to Nicholson 10 January 1797, Haverford College; Nicholson to Morris, 27 April 1797, Nicholson papers. Scott also bought North American Land Company shares, 8 July 1797, NALC papers. For his hopes of good fortune see Scott to Morris, 10 May 1797, Hist. Soc. of Pennsylvania. Lovering to Nicholson, 1 January 1797;  Morris to Nicholson 10 January 1797, Haverford College. , 20 January 1797; Dorsey; Prentiss to Nicholson 17 April 1797: Nicholson to Lovering, 17 March 1797, Nicholson Papers;