Chapter Nine The Ingenious A
The Doctor Examined, or Why William Thornton Did Not Design the Octagon House or the Capitol
Chapter Nine: The Ingenious A
 |
| 116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the New Varnum Hotel |
Thornton never claimed in writing that he designed the houses built by Thomas Law, General Washington and John Tayloe for which ground was broken in 1799. No contemporary credited him for designing them. Other than the two undated, unsigned and unlabeled floor plans that resemble the Octagon's in Thornton's papers, Glenn Brown, Ridout and Harris find evidence that he did the designs in his correspondence with the General and a diary his wife kept in 1800. However, they never wrote that he designed the Octagon, Law's house, or the General's.
The once imposing houses the General had built on Capitol Hill have been torn down and the hill they were built on leveled to flatten the way between the Capitol and Union Station. On the grass of Upper Senate Park, designed and landscaped in the 20th century, a plaque credits Thornton for designing the houses. Glenn Brown based that claim and that Thornton superintended their construction based on "the letters of Washington." Brown didn't quote or cite the letters but did report that, in 1896, while the exterior of the houses had changed, "some of the interior works still remains intact and shows the skill and refinement of the architect in detail." Brown's claim is repeated on page 798 of the latest biography of the General, though nothing more is said of the houses then that they were "designed by Dr. William Thornton."(1)
 |
| Plaque in Upper Senate Park |
The Octagon which still stand seals Thornton's fame as an architect. Thornton's contribution to the Capitol's design was controversial at the time and throughout most of the 19th century. At the end of that century, Brown's crediting him for designing the Octagon all but ended the debate over his Capitol design. It proved he was an architect after all.
.jpg)
Law's house has been supplanted by a House office building. Since Law's and Tayloe's houses, both with oval rooms, were built at the same time, C. M. Harris decided that Thornton designed both. While there is no design in Thornton's papers resembling Law's house, in his essay introducing the on-line collection of Thornton's drawings at the Library of Congress, Harris connects the ovals in Law's house to the designs in his papers that resemble the Octagon:
Thornton probably first suggested the idea of using a curvilinear element to take an odd-angled corner lot a year earlier [1798], to Thomas Law, who had determined to build a residence on Capitol Hill, at the northwest corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street S.W. [sic, it was S.E.], but drawings for that project have not survived.... The two plan drawings for Tayloe's house, which became known in the nineteenth century as The Octagon, are more ambitious in their use of curvilinear forms than the modified plan to which Tayloe built.
In his commentary in the Papers of William Thornton, Harris credits Thornton with more than suggesting ovals. He refers to "his design for Thomas Law's town residence of 1800...."(2) Harris champions Thornton for using oval rooms to solve the problem both Law and Tayloe faced.
 |
| 117. The Octagon in the 20th century |
Law faced the problem first. After buying 500 lots, beginning in 1796, he was the most consistent developer in the city. Lured by Greenleaf's preaching that the "New Jerusalem" would be a commercial as well as political center, he decided to develop New Jersey Avenue. It was one of the shorter avenues but it afforded the quickest link between the Capitol and deep water. Law began building near the river. But by 1798, it was apparent that developing Square 689 was imperative because there were not enough houses surrounding the Capitol to bed and board congressmen when they came to the city in December 1800.
 |
Law decided to build a large house on the square's southeast corner lot, facing New Jersey Avenue and C Street SE, so that it could anchor a row of houses going up toward the Capitol as well as a row going west toward South Capitol Street. He would not own all the neighboring houses but he did finance their construction. A court would later agree that doing so helped satisfy his contract obligation to build 166 houses.(3) As for the style of that corner house, thanks to the city's building regulations, it obviously had to have a bowed front. By the way, that regulation no longer rules. A corner of the Longworth House Office Building which fills Square 689 faces the acute angle of the intersection with a flat front entrance several yards from the intersection. The entrance almost forms half of the hypotenuse to the angle made by the two streets.
Oval rooms became fashionable in late 18th century Britain and France. New country seats had them. In 1786, while on a prolonged stay in England, William Hamilton sent instructions on how to build Woodlands, then outside Philadelphia but now in that city's Fairmount Park. His mansion would have two notable oval rooms, a parlor and dining room.(4) However, putting oval rooms in a confined townhouse as opposed to a rambling country house or a monumental building like the Capitol or President's house would be more challenging.
The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found but they were likely Lovering's designs.(6) The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs. However, the September survey of the lot made clear to Lovering that the house needed a fifth floor, a basement kitchen, to level the house on the gently sloping lot. Law agreed and they signed an addendum to the contract that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." That Thornton wasn't involved in the design change suggests that he had nothing do with the design of Law's house.
The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found but they were likely Lovering's designs.(6) The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs. However, the September survey of the lot made clear to Lovering that the house needed a fifth floor, a basement kitchen, to level the house on the gently sloping lot. Law agreed and they signed an addendum to the contract that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." That Thornton wasn't involved in the design change suggests that he had nothing do with the design of Law's house.
Another clue that Lovering designed Law's house comes from something Thornton wrote and then crossed out. In the draft of his unsent letter to the secretary of state, Thornton explained Hadfield's insubordination in regards to the Executive office design, and that "the board applied to Mr. Lovering to calculate the expense of erecting such a building." After "Mr. Lovering," Thornton wrote and then crossed out "an ingenious A." Evidently, the rhetorician realized that the secretary of state might misinterpret that aside as a complement relating to Lovering's plain Executive office design. What likely had impressed Thornton was the house design Law had recently shown him. On June 24, the Thorntons drank tea at the Law's. His unsent personal letter to Pickering was drafted over that weekend prior to the letter the board sent to Pickering on June 25th.(7)
Why else would Thornton think that Lovering was an "ingenious A"rchitect the same weekend he had tea with Law? No one then or now thought that his cheapening Hadfield's Executive office design was ingenious. Architectural historian Pamela Scott rues that instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one."(8)
Lovering asked the board to hire him to build his design. But the board put his design out for bids and Lovering's was the third lowest. So Lovering did not show his ingenuity as a building contractor for the commissioners. In January 1798, the commissioners asked him to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter, but not an "ingenious A." In an October 1798 letter to the board, Lovering claimed that he had a hand in building two-thirds of the houses in the city.(9) It's not likely that the mere number of his projects impressed Thornton. He had never commented on the design features of the Twenty Buildings and nothing about the small houses likely pleased such an exponent of grandeur. That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering.
But could Lovering have made his design of Law's house before Thornton crossed out "ingenious A?" The commissioners' records note that the board's surveyor and Lovering laid the lot out on September 12. Before September, things weren't going well for Lovering. His attempt to establish a career independent of the bankrupt speculators proved difficult. In January 1798, Nicholson's creditors had Lovering arrested for nonpayment of debts that he incurred while working for Nicholson. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. All this happened after the Maryland legislature’s relatively short annual session. That prevented him from getting relief under the state's new bankruptcy law until the legislature reassembled in December.
During the building season of 1798, Lovering faced two problems: How to make money without losing it all to Nicholson's creditors, and how to acquire property without paying for it with money. He was told that owning property would leave him less at the mercy of judges and sheriffs. He decided that in lieu of money, he would ask to be paid in property. In his contract with Law there is no mention of Lovering's fee. Instead, Law stipulated that "work to be payed for by Mr. Lovering's prices with contractors...." Lovering would accrue credit with tradesmen he could trust, not with a gentleman possibly over extended and a future target for the same creditors who had been suing Lovering for three years.
The board paid Lovering $300 for his estimate and redesign of the Treasury building. On July 10, 1798, Lovering asked them to apply their payment as down payment on lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on the intersection. That suggests that Law had discussed if not accepted Lovering's design by July 10. But that date is 16 days after Thornton crossed out "ingenious A" in his draft letter.(10)
In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In 1800, in a letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering.
Stier's letters explain how Lovering tried to win a client. Lovering came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600....”
In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering little credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.(11)
Why else would Thornton think that Lovering was an "ingenious A"rchitect the same weekend he had tea with Law? No one then or now thought that his cheapening Hadfield's Executive office design was ingenious. Architectural historian Pamela Scott rues that instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one."(8)
Lovering asked the board to hire him to build his design. But the board put his design out for bids and Lovering's was the third lowest. So Lovering did not show his ingenuity as a building contractor for the commissioners. In January 1798, the commissioners asked him to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter, but not an "ingenious A." In an October 1798 letter to the board, Lovering claimed that he had a hand in building two-thirds of the houses in the city.(9) It's not likely that the mere number of his projects impressed Thornton. He had never commented on the design features of the Twenty Buildings and nothing about the small houses likely pleased such an exponent of grandeur. That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering.
But could Lovering have made his design of Law's house before Thornton crossed out "ingenious A?" The commissioners' records note that the board's surveyor and Lovering laid the lot out on September 12. Before September, things weren't going well for Lovering. His attempt to establish a career independent of the bankrupt speculators proved difficult. In January 1798, Nicholson's creditors had Lovering arrested for nonpayment of debts that he incurred while working for Nicholson. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. All this happened after the Maryland legislature’s relatively short annual session. That prevented him from getting relief under the state's new bankruptcy law until the legislature reassembled in December.
During the building season of 1798, Lovering faced two problems: How to make money without losing it all to Nicholson's creditors, and how to acquire property without paying for it with money. He was told that owning property would leave him less at the mercy of judges and sheriffs. He decided that in lieu of money, he would ask to be paid in property. In his contract with Law there is no mention of Lovering's fee. Instead, Law stipulated that "work to be payed for by Mr. Lovering's prices with contractors...." Lovering would accrue credit with tradesmen he could trust, not with a gentleman possibly over extended and a future target for the same creditors who had been suing Lovering for three years.
The board paid Lovering $300 for his estimate and redesign of the Treasury building. On July 10, 1798, Lovering asked them to apply their payment as down payment on lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on the intersection. That suggests that Law had discussed if not accepted Lovering's design by July 10. But that date is 16 days after Thornton crossed out "ingenious A" in his draft letter.(10)
In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In 1800, in a letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering.
Stier's letters explain how Lovering tried to win a client. Lovering came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600....”
In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering little credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.(11)
 |
| 127. Stier's Riverdale |
But, is it possible that Thornton collaborated in some way with the design? After all, since December 1792, he had had ovals on his mind. A letter Lovering wrote to the board in October made clear that in architectural matters, he did not distinguish Thornton from his colleagues, which is to say, he didn't think Thornton was an architect. Lovering still had two more payments to make on the lot he bought near Law's houses. He asked the board that future payments for his Executive office design be used to cover two more annual payments on that lot. He was clutching at straws. The board had never said it would pay him more than $300, and it told him so. They advised him to take cash and not the lot. Lovering shot back, “I devoted Chearfully my time and Attention to the Office and have saved you at least 10,000 [for two office buildings] in particularizing the Building design and tho it would be natural for you Gentlemen unacquainted with the trouble of architectural details to under estimate my Services....”(12) Obviously, he had not just laid out Law's lot with Thornton's design in hand.
That doesn't prove that Thornton didn't design the Octagon, especially if he had designed the General's houses. Tayloe was a stranger to the city and to Law and Lovering, but not to the General. A word from him might have prompted Tayloe to call on the doctor. In the summer of 1798, Thornton certainly had time enough to draw house designs. With money from congress in hand and work on both the Capitol's roof and the Executive office going smoothly, the commissioners parted ways and took vacations. Scott went to medicinal springs for his health. White went to his farm.(13)
Thornton visited Mount Vernon in early July. Evidently he was working on his plans for the National University. In August, he gave a "plan" to Thomas Peter who then passed it on to the General on August 26 who sent it back to Peter the next day without commenting on the plan: "Doctr Thorntons plan is returned with thanks; our love to Patsy." Both the editors of Washington's and Thornton's papers suggest the plan in question was a design for a house. However, in January 1796, Thornton had told White that he was working on a "plan" for the National University and would pass it around to friends for comment. Why would the General return a house plan to Peter the next day if he thought he might copy that house plan for the houses he was thinking of building? He had good reason to immediately return a plan for the National University. Congress had tabled the memorial urging its creation. That set back was arguably the major embarrassment the General endured while he was president.(14)
In early September, the General asked Commissioner White to send him the prices of available lots on Capitol Hill. On September 6, White went with the board's surveyor to identify lots, had a map made, checked with his colleagues about prices and reported to the General on the 8th. On September 12, the General revealed his project in a letter to White. He boasted "I never require much time to execute any measure after I have resolved upon it." He even wanted the commissioners to find a contractor to "dig the Cellars, & lay the foundation" that fall "(and the earlier the better)." Then next summer, he wanted two joined houses built together as that "will look better, & come cheaper than building them seperately or at different times...." Then he discussed the design of the house, even though he was "not skilled in Architecture, and perhaps know as little of planning." He wanted the houses "plain," and enclosed "a sketch, to convey my ideas of the size of the houses, rooms, & manner of building them; to enable you [the commissioners] to enter into the Contract." In closing the letter, he added "My plan when it comes to be examined, may be radically wrong; if so, I persuade myself that Doctr Thornton (who understands these matters well) will have the goodness to suggest alterations."(15)
In early September, the General asked Commissioner White to send him the prices of available lots on Capitol Hill. On September 6, White went with the board's surveyor to identify lots, had a map made, checked with his colleagues about prices and reported to the General on the 8th. On September 12, the General revealed his project in a letter to White. He boasted "I never require much time to execute any measure after I have resolved upon it." He even wanted the commissioners to find a contractor to "dig the Cellars, & lay the foundation" that fall "(and the earlier the better)." Then next summer, he wanted two joined houses built together as that "will look better, & come cheaper than building them seperately or at different times...." Then he discussed the design of the house, even though he was "not skilled in Architecture, and perhaps know as little of planning." He wanted the houses "plain," and enclosed "a sketch, to convey my ideas of the size of the houses, rooms, & manner of building them; to enable you [the commissioners] to enter into the Contract." In closing the letter, he added "My plan when it comes to be examined, may be radically wrong; if so, I persuade myself that Doctr Thornton (who understands these matters well) will have the goodness to suggest alterations."(15)
 |
| The General's floor plan |
The General's parenthetical comment confirms posterity's take on Thornton. But the General's previous parenthetical comment challenges that take. He wanted work to begin that fall "(and the earlier the better)." While he never blamed Thornton specifically, he did fault design changes for delays in building the Capitol. The General enjoyed the traveling English actors who brought tragedy and farce to provincial stages. Farces abound in asides. They are the one liners that double the laughter. White likely got the joke. He had to endure Thornton's pouting about a 50 foot high modallion. His latest was objecting to the board getting around their inability to find mahogany to make doors by giving pine doors a mahogany finish. Thornton insisted that "mahogany is recommended by the best writers in architecture." If the General really wanted Thornton to examine the plan why did he write to White? The general wanted a contractor to examine the plan and fill in the blanks, so to speak, as economically as possible. As it turned out, White immediately gave the floor plan to Thornton. (16)
The board had to find a contractor which was not White's forte. Alone with the plan, Thornton did not "suggest alterations." If he saw it, which he likely did given the board's spirit of collegiality, he never revealed his reaction to the General's letter to White. He must have been shocked that the General used White to arrange matters with the board. The elderly Virginia lawyer knew nothing about architecture and little about the city. Due to his wife's protestations, the president had excused White from having to move to the city. Thornton had designed the Capitol and had thoroughly studied the city plan, had taken levels of the city, contemplated its landscaping, and, most pertinent, had invested in the city while White had not. Constrained from writing an angry letter to the man he worshiped, Thornton reacted by finding a way to compensate for the blow and to at least restore his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.
On April 5, 1793, when the board notified Thornton that the president had "given his formal approbation of your plan," they asked him to "be pleased to grant powers or put the business in a way of being closed on the acknowledgements your success entitles you." According to the prospectus, the winner had to choose between a medal worth $500 or $500, and would be awarded a lot "designated by impartial judges." Thornton took the money and evidently did nothing vis-a-vis the lot. For their public auctions in October 1791 and 1792, the board divided squares with proprietors and offered public lots for sale near the President's house and Capitol respectively. However, the president had not yet bought a lot. One could see where public business would be conducted, but not where exclusive neighborhoods would form.
On September 21, the day the General chose two lots, Thornton handed a letter to his colleagues asking that the board finally award him the prize lot. On October 1, 1798, Thomas Law and Notley Young, two advocates for the East side of the city, awarded Thornton a lot next to the General's. An obvious motive for arranging to get the lot was to profit from one of the most significant real estate transactions in the city's short history. The board sold the public lot to the General for $535.70. With the General building on it, the lots nearby would be worth much more. But Thornton was loath to give that impression.
He couched his letter to his colleagues in a way that made it seem that he was getting his due for making sure the North Wing conformed to his original design. Of course, to do that he had to imply that the changes Hallet made to the design in July 1793 made his being awarded a lot problematical. So he wrote to the board that he had been
He couched his letter to his colleagues in a way that made it seem that he was getting his due for making sure the North Wing conformed to his original design. Of course, to do that he had to imply that the changes Hallet made to the design in July 1793 made his being awarded a lot problematical. So he wrote to the board that he had been
prevented by motives of delicacy from requesting your attention to a claim which I have from my drawings for the capitol of the United States being approved by the late President of the United States and the commissioners, our predecessors, which plan, though deviated in some respects, I restored and accommodated to my original ideas, and furnished correspondent elevations and sections for the same, which have thus far been carried into execution, and as no material change is now contemplated it is presumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted.(17)
Scott and White, both lawyers, authorized his getting a lot, but didn't reply to his letter. Because they didn't contradict Thornton, in his authoritative 1914 history of the city, W. B. Bryan insisted that proved that Thornton had indeed restored his original design.
However, having joined the board well after the July 1793 conference and after Thornton's plans went missing, Scott and White were in no position to judge and they evidently did not ask the General or Hoban for their opinion. Evidently they did not even tell the General that Thornton was given a lot adjoining his. Thornton got the lot on October 1. The General paid for his two lots on October 3. Even though Thornton visited Mount Vernon for three days that week, Thornton did not break the news until he wrote to the General on October 25.(18)
Until mid-September, the General dealt with White, and then he corresponded with the board. They arranged for George Blagden to
build the houses. With the stone work ending, he was no longer needed at the Capitol, The General asked them to draw up a contract with
Blagden and use their knowledge of suppliers and subcontractors to make
sure he wasn't being cheated. Then the General bristled at Blagden's
$12,982.29 estimate of the cost of the houses. He knew that Law had
contracted to build a house, "not much if any less than my two," for
under $6,000. He had calculated that his house would cost $8,000, or
$10,000 at most. So, he decided "to suspend any final decision until I
see Mr Blagdens estimate in detail, with your observations thereupon;
and what part of the work I can execute with my own Tradesmen, thereby
reducing the advances." In their reply, signed by Thornton, the commissioners admitted that they were not "able to say whether the Estimate on that subject is reasonable or not.... Hoban is confined by indisposition, or we would have taken his opinion on Mr Blagdin’s Estimate."(19) Thornton seemed as clueless as his colleagues and obviously had not designed the General or Law's houses.
Then on October 18, the day after receiving a letter from Thornton, the General honored him with a long reply. Thornton's letter is no longer extant. In his reply, the General thanked him "for the details - as I shall do on similar future occasions." The General appreciated Thornton as a source of information, but did not ask for advice. He simply announced how he planned to lower the contracted price for the house by using his own "people" to do some of the carpentry. Thornton replied on the 25th with an offer to send a specimen of different moldings to Mount Vernon so that with models to work with, his people could shape the wood before they brought it to the city. Thornton added that he and White had "formed a contract, with which Mr. Blagdin will wait on you." That gives the impression that Thornton chose the molding. However, the General had asked the commissioners to form a contract only after some back and forth between Blagden and the General. He had asked them to simply "cause efficient articles to be drawn under your Inspection & correction." He had not asked them to change the specifications regarding the molding detailed by Blagden. Thornton never sent molding to Mount Vernon. The General balked at "sending Negro Carpenters to the City, and having them to provide for there." As it turned out, the General asked Thornton to write the final signed contract because he was a county magistrate with "stamped paper," and it was signed on November 5. To have it notarized by another might have cost the General 75 cents a page. It is seven pages long. The draft of the contract that Blagden took to Mount Vernon was not in Thornton's hand writing.
The agreement attached to the listing of specifications for the building reveals Thornton's hand. It begins: "ARTICLES of Agreement this Day made and concluded between George Washington Esquire, Lieutenant General, and Commander in chief of the Armies of the United States, of the one Part, and George Blagdin of the City of Washington Stone Cutter of the other Part,..." To reduce the contract price to $11,000 the agreement also specified that "the Ironmongery to be furnished by the said George Washington agreeably to the above mentioned Specification thereof, as the same shall be required in the Course of the Building...." When it came time to buy the ironmongery, Thornton offered to buy it, but the General declined the offer. He wanted Blagden to buy it "because he would be a better judge of its quality." There is no evidence that because he wrote the contract, Thornton had anything to do with the design or construction of the houses.
Then Thornton offered another way to lower the contract price for the house. He offered
to build a three story brick house “or Houses on a similar plan” next
door and assume the full cost of the party wall, once he had the money. He prefaced his offer by revealing that "the Board allowed me the lot adjoining yours (it being awarded to me by Messrs. Young and Law for the premium which I had not demanded from motives of Delicacy, but which I was entitled to for my plans of Capitol.)" Did Thornton answer the parenthetical dig at his reputation in the General's letter to White, with a parenthetical riposte? In his letters, he rarely used parentheses. He
did get a lot, but his colleagues did not answer his letter confirming his claims
nor did they inform the General. His letter did not ignite a
discussion, let alone a celebration of his restoration of his design.
The Capitol seemed parenthetical to those gentlemen. Or, did he merely try to gain some credit from the General without claiming, as he did in his letter to his colleagues, that "no material change is now contemplated it is presumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted." The General had never acknowledged that and had never endorsed the elevation then hanging in Thornton's parlor.(20)
In reply, the General promised to share the cost of the party wall and authorized Thornton to get specifications from the contractor. He also found a way to assuage Thornton's obvious desire to have something to do with the houses: “as you reside in the City, and [are] always there, and have moreover been so obliging as to offer to receive the Bills and pay their amount (when presented by Mr Blagden) I will avail myself of this kindness." And that was all that Thornton did. In a 1799 letter to his old Lancashire friend Thomas Wilkinson, he wrote: "The late President General Washington, who appointed me here, continues to honor me with his particular friendship. I frequently visit and am visited by this great and good man, besides corresponding. He is now building two Government Houses in this city, and has confided to me his money transactions here, as a friend...."(21)
If Thornton had set in motion building a house next door, more might be known about his approach to the design and construction of houses but he never built next door. In his October 25 letter, he confessed to a temporary lack of funds and would not be able to build until he recovered from “some late heavy losses; not in Speculations, but matters of Confidence, to the amount of between four and five thousand Dollars...." He was likely alluding to his inability to mortgage his share of the Tortola plantation. Nonetheless, thanks to their correspondence, the doctor became interested in residential architecture.
If Thornton had set in motion building a house next door, more might be known about his approach to the design and construction of houses but he never built next door. In his October 25 letter, he confessed to a temporary lack of funds and would not be able to build until he recovered from “some late heavy losses; not in Speculations, but matters of Confidence, to the amount of between four and five thousand Dollars...." He was likely alluding to his inability to mortgage his share of the Tortola plantation. Nonetheless, thanks to their correspondence, the doctor became interested in residential architecture.
The General teased him for his reliance on the books he had so often cited in his dissents to the board's decisions. In a December 20 letter, the General decided to modify in his design: "I saw a building in Philadelphia of about the same front and elevation that are to be given to my two houses, which pleased me. It consisted also of two houses united - doors in the center - a pediment in the roof and dormer window on each side of it in front - skylights in the rear. If it is not incongruous with rules of architecture, I should be glad to have my two houses executed in this style."
Thornton wrote back: "it is a desideratum in architecture to hide as much as possible the roof - for which reason in London, there is a generally a parapet to hide the dormer windows. The pediment may with propriety be introduced, but I have some doubts with respect to its adding any beauty"
The General replied: "Rules of architecture are calculated, I presume, to give symmetry, and just proportion to all the orders, and parts of the building, in order to please the eye. Small departures from strict rules are discoverable only by skilful architects, or by the eye of criticism, while ninety-nine in a hundred - deficient of their knowledge - might be pleased with things not quite orthodox. This, more than probable, would be the case relative to a pediment in the roof over the doors of my houses in the city." The best that can be said of Thornton's contribution to the design of the General's house is that two months after the building contract was signed, the General did share his intention to change the design. Thornton argued against the idea, and the General did not take his advice. His houses would not have a parapet. By the way, the contract Lovering signed with Law called for a parapet. Tayloe's house would also have a parapet. Law, Lovering, Tayloe and Thornton were familiar with London standards.(22)
In
the letters still extant that passed between Law and the General there
is no mention of their houses. Fewer letters passed between the General
and Tayloe but they briefly shared frustrations about their houses. If
Tayloe was the richest Virginian at that time, the General was close
behind. Nonetheless, they both complained about the cost. In January 1799, the General
broke the ice in that regard. He tried to get cash from Tayloe, not as a
loan, but in return for a prize mule. However, the General was in no
way crass. They had been corresponding about far more important matters
and he mentioned his houses by-the-way.
Thornton wrote back: "it is a desideratum in architecture to hide as much as possible the roof - for which reason in London, there is a generally a parapet to hide the dormer windows. The pediment may with propriety be introduced, but I have some doubts with respect to its adding any beauty"
The General replied: "Rules of architecture are calculated, I presume, to give symmetry, and just proportion to all the orders, and parts of the building, in order to please the eye. Small departures from strict rules are discoverable only by skilful architects, or by the eye of criticism, while ninety-nine in a hundred - deficient of their knowledge - might be pleased with things not quite orthodox. This, more than probable, would be the case relative to a pediment in the roof over the doors of my houses in the city." The best that can be said of Thornton's contribution to the design of the General's house is that two months after the building contract was signed, the General did share his intention to change the design. Thornton argued against the idea, and the General did not take his advice. His houses would not have a parapet. By the way, the contract Lovering signed with Law called for a parapet. Tayloe's house would also have a parapet. Law, Lovering, Tayloe and Thornton were familiar with London standards.(22)
 |
| 131. Two houses built by the General on right. Street below had been leveled during construction of the New Capitol. The house on the left was not built by Thornton |
In July 1798, President Adams had asked the General to once again be a general, and raise a provisional army to defend the country from possible French aggression. John Tayloe III promptly volunteered and on January 23 the Senate confirmed the appointment of the General's officers. The General notified Tayloe that he would be one of two majors in the dragoons.
 |
| 132. 18th century dragoon |
He also recalled that in late 1797, Tayloe had expressed interest in buying "Jack Asses when I shd be disposed to part with any." The General offered him "three for $800, and one for $300." He added that "Ready money would be very convenient to me, as my buildings in the City call for it...." In his reply sent on February 10, Tayloe worried that becoming an officer would force him to vacate his seat in the Virginia senate. "Respecting the Jack," Tayloe explained that his father-in-law gave him "a very fine one—consequently my wants on that head [are] supplied—Beside this—I am anxious to appropriate every shilling I can raise—towards the improvements I contemplate putting up in the F. City.” If Latrobe had just shown Tayloe his elaborate designs, Tayloe's anxiety about money is understandable.(23)
The General replied promptly and assured him that he need not accept the commission until the war actually started. He didn't mention houses, or Thornton who had just spent two nights at Mount Vernon. The General did know that Thornton knew Tayloe. In his October 25, 1798, letter to the General, Thornton answered a query about lots sold near Peter's Hill. Thornton thought that Presley Thornton, no relation, may have sold them to Tayloe, but that he, Thornton, had not seen either gentleman recently. Likely until that day, Tayloe had not been in touch with Thornton or probably anybody else about a design.
With the beginning of the new year, Tayloe likely began thinking about the design. He would crow in his February letter to the General that "I have with an infinity of fatigue succeeded in my Election to the State Senate against a man who is a warm partisan, in opposition to Government." Both he and the General knew that opposition to the government infected so-called Republicans through out the country. To prove himself more useful to the Federalist cause, Tayloe thought of a greater office and informed the General "I beg leave in confidence to remark to you—that my pretensions to a Seat in Congress from this District are well grounded—if at the Election in 1801—I should be legally qualified to represent it..." Tayloe made his attendance at a race course known by an equipage, that is carriage, horses and servants, that no one else could match. He needed a house in the federal city that no one else, save the president, could match.
Meanwhile in December 1798 and for a few months after, Mrs. Thornton began listing notables who came to their F Street house for dinner. Presley Thornton dined with them in early January. Tayloe didn't. He was tied down in Richmond by legislative business and politics. Then after the birth of William Henry Tayloe on January 29, he joined his wife in Mount Airy for her confinement. That meant he would not head north for another 40 days or so. Then when he did leave on March 26, principally to go to Philadelphia to talk with the secretary of war, he got sick on the road and returned to Mount Airy. He did not get to the Federal City until mid-April.(24)
Of course, he didn't have to see Thornton. To contact Thornton, Tayloe could have used the good offices of Presley Thornton or other gentlemen who went back forth from federal city to their Virginia seats. However, if Thornton and Tayloe messaged each other, it was probably about horses. When Presley Thornton dined with the William Thorntons so did the Fitzhughs. Until the advent of the Tayloes, William Fitzhugh ruled the turf in Virginia. The Thorntons had dined with the Philip Fitzhughs a week earlier. In January 1800, Tayloe would send a message to Thornton through Fitzhugh and what Mrs. Thornton wrote in her diary suggests that the message had to do with horses not the house. Indeed back in 1799, Tayloe may have tried to sell Thornton a horse. Tayloe placed an ad dated April 4 offering "for sale and at a great bargain if immediately applied for the celebrated running horse Gabriel."At the same time, Thornton was arranging to buy horses in England with the help of his rich cousin Isaac Pickering. Driver and Clifden would land in Norfolk in November 1799.(25)
Meanwhile, there is evidence that Tayloe had a design in hand and a contract all but signed a month after he worried to the General about its cost. While Latrobe could draw grandeur with ease and Thornton could describe it, one architect had gained a repetition for economizing. On March 9, William Lovering wrote to John Nicholson: “I shall not be able to get any business at this place owing to being insolvent. I could have had a Building to do upon a contract close to fifteen thousand dollars for a Gentleman in Virginia but could get no security therefore have lost it and I hope and trust you will do something for me.”
The letter doesn't prove that Lovering made a design for Tayloe's house, but Lovering's contract to build Law's house shows that he had drawings A. B. C. and D. before he drew up a contract. Why would the cost conscious Tayloe operate differently by signing a contract before he had a design?
A little over a month later, on April 17, Tayloe would sign a contract to build the house with a lawyer. In an 1869 communication with the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District, William Henry Tayloe, shared information on the Octagon. As a newspaper reporter put it: "The letter gives the names of the mechanics employed in the building of the dwelling in the years 1799 and 1800. The contract was made with William H. Dorsey. The building commenced in May 9, 1799, and ended December 1801." The report then listed then names of the mechanics, Evidently, the letter did not mention Lovering.(26)
Lovering and Dorsey would wind up overseeing construction of the Octagon, the former as superintending architect and the latter as financial agent. Dorsey's family had gained its wealth by exploiting iron ore deposits near Annapolis that helped build Baltimore. Tayloe also owned iron works in Virginia. William, the fourth son, trained to be a lawyer1 and settled in Georgetown after marrying into a family that owned 4,500 acres in nearby Maryland. Selling and mortgaging that land judiciously made him a man of affairs. After election to Maryland House of Delegates in 1796, he was selected as Georgetown’s senator in the Maryland legislature. His legislative experience in Annapolis likely convinced the Philadelphia investors' trustees trying to get their money back from the bankrupt speculators to make them his agent. In a December 4, 1798, letter to Nicholson, Lovering mentioned conferring with Dorsey which was another way of assuring Nicholson that he had shared with Dorsey his intimate knowledge of the value of the houses built by the speculators. Lovering was then around 50 years old and had served Greenleaf, Morris, Nicholson and Thomas Law in succession as well as the commissioners. He had a grip on the reality of designing and building houses in the federal city that likely impressed Dorsey then 35 years old. When and how Dorsey made himself known to Tayloe is not known but beginning with the November races and during the legislative session Annapolis had its social season.
Dorsey was also aware of Lovering's financial problems. During the summer of 1798, ever worried that he might be arrested, the arrival of his adult son from his first marriage added to Lovering's burdens. He began to plan a return to England. At the end of August, a friend of Nicholson's warned the speculator of the possible loss of “a man of abilities." Laying out Law's lot two weeks later kept him in the country. In the fall of 1798, while Lovering waited for the Maryland legislature to convene, he had to advertise his intention to declare bankruptcy. His advertisement excited his creditors, who then leaned on the sheriff to arrest him. On December 4, Lovering wrote to Nicholson that “the advertisement of my intentions has been a great injury to me for I should have had several buildings...."
In that same letter, he told Nicholson that he had conferred with Dorsey about the Greenleaf Point property. Lovering mentioned to Nicholson that several legislators were helping him get bankruptcy protection. Senator Dorsey may have been one. However, other legislators questioned whether he was a citizen of Maryland, a requisite for getting protection. (Until congress moved to the District of Columbia, all who lived in the federal city lived in Maryland.) Just before adjourning in January, the legislature passed a bill granting him protection, provided he could prove his citizenship to the Chancellor, who was the highest legal officer in the state. When he appeared before the Chancellor for a final decision, creditors complained about the inadequacy of Lovering's bookkeeping, and his case was put off until February.
Lovering viewed the snag as a mere formality. On January 22, 1799, he appealed to Nicholson and Morris on their honor not to use his bankruptcy petition as a pretext for withholding what they owed him. Lovering understood that they were short of cash so he asked for Tennessee land as compensation, and claimed that he planned to go to London in the spring where he could easily sell it. Evidently, soon after he wrote that letter, he learned of Tayloe's project and tried to land a contract with his tried method of offering a choice of designs. In 1795 and 1797, he had made visits to Philadelphia. Mount Airy was closer. The likely way that he heard about Tayloe's project was through Dorsey.
Is it possible that Tayloe or Dorsey had Thornton's design in hand and asked Lovering to estimate its cost and build it? By claiming that Thornton designed the Octagon, Glenn Brown secured Thornton's fame for being the first architect of the Capitol. However, since Thornton took pride it not being a trained architect why should suddenly began acting like a trained architect by designing three large and expensive houses? While Brown's supposing he did sealed Thornton's fame, in January 1799, Thornton set out to seal his fame as the architect of the Capitol by getting rid of Hoban. When congress came in 1800, he would be the last architect standing.
As
Commissioner White put in an 1802 letter to President Jefferson, "both
of the my colleagues were desirous of getting Hoban out of the way and
amazing exertions were made to find something in his conduct which would
justify them in dismissing him."(27) At
first Thornton stood alone. He moved for an investigation of a charge
that Hoban fired a carpenter because he would not join the artillery
militia. There was no second. Then Thornton broadened the investigation
and Scott joined him. In February 1799, the board asked carpenters and
joiners for complaints against both Hoban and Redmund Purcell who played
such a large role in getting Hadfield out of the way. Scott thought he was the source of a rumor that the commissioner stole
building materials from the public stores for his own house. The board
soon charged Purcell for not properly supervising men working under him
during the winter. He even paid slave sawyers their shilling a day while
doing little work. Purcell asked for time to prepare a defense. The
board gave him two days and then fired him when he didn't appear before a
board of carpenters chosen to hear his case. Commissioner White, a
lawyer, didn't like that rush to judgment.
Meanwhile, when Hoban heard that the board had received letters from workers impugning his conduct, he asked the board to share that evidence. The investigation centered on the complaints of an English joiner, Joseph Middleton, who claimed that Hoban did not provide the drawings and materials he needed to build shutters that the board hired him to build. On March 12, Hoban explained that he had given Middleton what he needed to make doors and doubted he had time to make shutters.
As the investigations continued, the board ordered Hoban to estimate the cost of getting the Capitol in a state to receive congress in December 1800. He had done annual estimates for work on the President's house that the board had sent to congress, but he had designed and supervised construction of that building. He replied that he could not very well estimate expenses at the Capitol for the coming season because he had no "plan or sections of the building to calculate by, nor the parts in detail, all which should be put into the hands of the superintendent." Hoban knew of that requirement because he too had been a design contest winner.
Hoban's letter was disingenuous. No one knew the Capitol design better than he did. He had seen and criticized Thornton's original design, endorsed Hallet's revision of it, and defended it against Hadfield in 1795. He superintended construction when the foundation was laid, and since 1798 when the building was covered with a roof. The board did not react or respond to his letter.
Unlike Purcell, Hoban asked the board to begin hearing evidence at once and that process continued until April 9. Then in an April 12 letter to White, Purcell announced his determination "to pour broadsides" into the hulls of Thornton and Scott. He attacked "the fribbling quack architect who smuggled his name to the only drawing of sections for the Capitol ever delivered to the commissioners' office, made out by another man." There were also no updated plans based on the work already done, and Thornton should draw them. In his attack, Purcell mentioned Thornton's extant elevation, but it was not in the hands of the superintendent: "The original plan is hung as a trophy to science in his [Thornton's] parlor." The letter was published on April 16.(28)
On April 15, Hoban asked the board for "drawings necessary for carrying on the following work at the Capitol, viz. 1st. The East entrance and staircase, 2nd. The Elliptic staircase, 3rd. The back staircase, 4. The Representatives Chamber, 5. The Senate Chamber." This time the board reacted to Hoban's request. White had already signaled his sympathy for Hoban, and evidently persuaded Scott to stop the investigation. Why did Scott switch?
In 1802, congress abolished the board. President Jefferson then appointed its clerk to take over the commissioners' duties, which for the moment entailed only accommodating the government and not finishing the Capitol and President's house. To save money and because he was not needed, the new superintendent gave Hoban notice. He hired Maryland's leading lawyer and threatened to sue on the grounds that the board had renewed his contract in 1801 on condition that he work until the Capitol and President's house "shall be finished." That puzzled the president who then asked White about Hoban's reaction to being fired. White didn't recall the contract renewal which he never would have approved. He had not seen Hoban since leaving the board but did opine that in 1799, if his colleagues had fired Hoban, he "would then have disputed their right,..." to dismiss him. In 1799, White likely persuaded lawyer Scott that Hoban's case against Thornton for dereliction of duty was likely stronger than any case that could be made against Hoban who had built the President's house and was finishing the North Wing of the Capitol.
White and Scott passed Hoban's request on to Thornton and reminded him that in 1795, he had written a letter to his colleagues assuring them that he would provide drawings to carry on the work. They also noted that doing so was an obligation of the design contest winner. Indeed, "your letter of 17th of November 1795 admits the principle." That suggests that Thornton had never practiced that principal. If he had, his colleagues could simply ask him to supply the drawings as usual.
Thornton wrote the draft of his reply to his colleagues on April 17. He began by pointing out that he had already made enough drawings and that he was on hand to give advice. He reminded them that the "late Superintendent," meaning Hadfield, was "expressly engaged to furnish the detailed drawings.…" No historian has produced an example of Thornton sketching something for Hadfield to draw. He didn’t, for example, sketch the Capitol roof and relied on forcing Hadfield to stipulate in writing that the roof would not be higher than the balustrade.
Thornton found an ingenious way to split hairs and free himself from any principle that he should make drawings in order to get the Capitol ready for congress. He reminded the board that it "had determined not to finish the rooms in a splendid and expensive style at present but in a plain manner...." He argued that such "plain" expedients to get the building ready for use were not part of his design and not his responsibility. The stairways were to be temporary and made of wood. They were an expedient. Otherwise, he would be anxious to make drawings. He evidently forgot that in his November 1795 letter he had written "...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."
Then he launched into a written description of features in each room. For the Senate chamber, he wrote: "I propose that the columns be executed in the ancient Ionic order with the volutes curved in the middle over the column and with an astragal below the volutes to form a neck to the column: the shaft of the column plain - the entablature full but plain and without modilions."
That's not exactly from Chambers who described Ionic columns with "angular volutes with an astragal and fillet below the volute." Chambers at least provided a glossary. A volute is a scroll. An astragal is "a small moulding whose profile is semi-circular."Thornton wished marble for the columns but accepted substitutes.
If he had drawn the house design, the way he shared the news demonstrated uncharacteristic humility. His April 19 letter to the General was principally about the dangers of wooden sills getting damp. Thornton mentioned the Tayloe house as the third item in a string of gossip. He briefly reported the death and internment of a gentleman's daughter, the planned visit to Mount Vernon of several gentlemen from Baltimore, as well as: "Mr J. Tayloe of Virga has contracted to build a House in the City near the President’s Square of $13,000 value." He didn't mention the other party or who who designed the house.(30)
Lovering lacked money for the trip. He got it from Thomas Law. In Annapolis, Lovering saw the Chancellor, who quashed the sheriff's writs. This is such a fairy tale ending to Lovering's crisis that one has to suspect the fine hand of a superior power. Indeed, in November, the legislature had elected Benjamin Ogle governor. He was Tayloe's father-in-law. Lovering had the joy of writing to Nicholson about the reaction of their creditors when Lovering gave them the Chancellor's order: “You would have been pleased to see their chagrin." However, beaten down so long, Lovering evidently didn't anticipate that he would soon have three jobs. In an April 22 letter to Nicholson, Lovering sounded like a man with no hope: “I have nothing to do here and shall be soon be on my way to Philadelphia, as I now am down to the last shilling without any hope of getting any relief,...”
But all that said, could Tayloe have hired Lovering to build a design drawn by Thornton. Tayloe's contract is not extant. Ridout found nothing in Tayloe's papers revealing the design process for the Octagon. The principle pieces of evidence cited as proof that Thornton designed the Octagon are two unsigned and undated floor plans that resemble the floor plan of the house as built. Evidently, circa 1896, Glenn Brown drew the first extant floor plan of the innovative design. 
Ridout argues that "a careful comparison of these two preliminary plans with the first-floor plan of the house as built leaves little doubt of their relationship. The jumble of conflicting and asymmetrically placed geometric forms of the first plan 
Back to Thornton's dated activities. On April 27, Thornton jotted down in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot." The official process of setting out a lot required a representative of the board in consultation with the architect and/or property owner to ascertain that the design conformed to building regulations. Thornton didn't note who represented Tayloe. Whether a curvilinear front could be parallel to intersecting straight streets was a question that required special understanding from the commissioners' representative. Law's design had already gotten a pass, but Tayloe's design was different. The front wall with a projecting oval had several feet of flat wall on either side of the bow. That part of the wall did not parallel the nearby streets. It marked a hypotenuse to the angled intersection.
Thornton was likely there representing the commissioners so that he could do Tayloe a favor for the very good reason that he needed Tayloe's services to train Driver, his three year old imported horse. Offering a house design is a dangerous favor to give. New houses can be costly and problematical, but bending a rule? That said, Tayloe wasn't in the federal city on April 27. He had returned to Mount Airy for the crucial Virginia elections in which he was re-elected to the state senate. One would think that if Thornton had designed the house and condescended to also set the lot, that Tayloe would have been gentleman enough to be there. If Lovering had designed the house, he would have felt no obligation at all to be there. It would seem that with work beginning on the house, the design process had ended. However, C. M. Harris suggests that Thornton designed the house after the contract was signed and work began: "Thornton's work on his design for Tayloe can be dated to the period between April and September 1799 on the basis of letters he wrote to George Washington."(37)
Meanwhile, when Hoban heard that the board had received letters from workers impugning his conduct, he asked the board to share that evidence. The investigation centered on the complaints of an English joiner, Joseph Middleton, who claimed that Hoban did not provide the drawings and materials he needed to build shutters that the board hired him to build. On March 12, Hoban explained that he had given Middleton what he needed to make doors and doubted he had time to make shutters.
As the investigations continued, the board ordered Hoban to estimate the cost of getting the Capitol in a state to receive congress in December 1800. He had done annual estimates for work on the President's house that the board had sent to congress, but he had designed and supervised construction of that building. He replied that he could not very well estimate expenses at the Capitol for the coming season because he had no "plan or sections of the building to calculate by, nor the parts in detail, all which should be put into the hands of the superintendent." Hoban knew of that requirement because he too had been a design contest winner.
Hoban's letter was disingenuous. No one knew the Capitol design better than he did. He had seen and criticized Thornton's original design, endorsed Hallet's revision of it, and defended it against Hadfield in 1795. He superintended construction when the foundation was laid, and since 1798 when the building was covered with a roof. The board did not react or respond to his letter.
Unlike Purcell, Hoban asked the board to begin hearing evidence at once and that process continued until April 9. Then in an April 12 letter to White, Purcell announced his determination "to pour broadsides" into the hulls of Thornton and Scott. He attacked "the fribbling quack architect who smuggled his name to the only drawing of sections for the Capitol ever delivered to the commissioners' office, made out by another man." There were also no updated plans based on the work already done, and Thornton should draw them. In his attack, Purcell mentioned Thornton's extant elevation, but it was not in the hands of the superintendent: "The original plan is hung as a trophy to science in his [Thornton's] parlor." The letter was published on April 16.(28)
On April 15, Hoban asked the board for "drawings necessary for carrying on the following work at the Capitol, viz. 1st. The East entrance and staircase, 2nd. The Elliptic staircase, 3rd. The back staircase, 4. The Representatives Chamber, 5. The Senate Chamber." This time the board reacted to Hoban's request. White had already signaled his sympathy for Hoban, and evidently persuaded Scott to stop the investigation. Why did Scott switch?
In 1802, congress abolished the board. President Jefferson then appointed its clerk to take over the commissioners' duties, which for the moment entailed only accommodating the government and not finishing the Capitol and President's house. To save money and because he was not needed, the new superintendent gave Hoban notice. He hired Maryland's leading lawyer and threatened to sue on the grounds that the board had renewed his contract in 1801 on condition that he work until the Capitol and President's house "shall be finished." That puzzled the president who then asked White about Hoban's reaction to being fired. White didn't recall the contract renewal which he never would have approved. He had not seen Hoban since leaving the board but did opine that in 1799, if his colleagues had fired Hoban, he "would then have disputed their right,..." to dismiss him. In 1799, White likely persuaded lawyer Scott that Hoban's case against Thornton for dereliction of duty was likely stronger than any case that could be made against Hoban who had built the President's house and was finishing the North Wing of the Capitol.
White and Scott passed Hoban's request on to Thornton and reminded him that in 1795, he had written a letter to his colleagues assuring them that he would provide drawings to carry on the work. They also noted that doing so was an obligation of the design contest winner. Indeed, "your letter of 17th of November 1795 admits the principle." That suggests that Thornton had never practiced that principal. If he had, his colleagues could simply ask him to supply the drawings as usual.
Thornton wrote the draft of his reply to his colleagues on April 17. He began by pointing out that he had already made enough drawings and that he was on hand to give advice. He reminded them that the "late Superintendent," meaning Hadfield, was "expressly engaged to furnish the detailed drawings.…" No historian has produced an example of Thornton sketching something for Hadfield to draw. He didn’t, for example, sketch the Capitol roof and relied on forcing Hadfield to stipulate in writing that the roof would not be higher than the balustrade.
Thornton found an ingenious way to split hairs and free himself from any principle that he should make drawings in order to get the Capitol ready for congress. He reminded the board that it "had determined not to finish the rooms in a splendid and expensive style at present but in a plain manner...." He argued that such "plain" expedients to get the building ready for use were not part of his design and not his responsibility. The stairways were to be temporary and made of wood. They were an expedient. Otherwise, he would be anxious to make drawings. He evidently forgot that in his November 1795 letter he had written "...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."
Then he launched into a written description of features in each room. For the Senate chamber, he wrote: "I propose that the columns be executed in the ancient Ionic order with the volutes curved in the middle over the column and with an astragal below the volutes to form a neck to the column: the shaft of the column plain - the entablature full but plain and without modilions."
That's not exactly from Chambers who described Ionic columns with "angular volutes with an astragal and fillet below the volute." Chambers at least provided a glossary. A volute is a scroll. An astragal is "a small moulding whose profile is semi-circular."Thornton wished marble for the columns but accepted substitutes.
He thought one of the walls of the library, which was to be the House's temporary chamber, "ought to be taken down." He explained how timbers could be supported in another way and where to form an arch to create a "lighted closet." He added: "ceiling coved." A 1799 description of the room written by Hoban and sent to congress noted the coved ceiling. After seeming to have an answer for everything, Thornton solicited more questions, but he offered no drawings. He noted times when the board had asked Hoban for drawings, and suggested that doing drawings had always been Hoban's job. However, Hoban asked for drawings and his colleagues reminded him of his promise to make drawings. On April 18, Thornton's colleagues asked Hoban to make the necessary drawings "as conveniently you can."(29)
Meanwhile,
Tayloe didn't head north until mid-April and on the 17th dined with the
General at Mount Vernon, then left after breakfast. On the 19th,
Thornton informed the General by letter that Tayloe signed a contract for a house. The contract has been lost but Thornton likely witnessed the signatures.
If he had drawn the house design, the way he shared the news demonstrated uncharacteristic humility. His April 19 letter to the General was principally about the dangers of wooden sills getting damp. Thornton mentioned the Tayloe house as the third item in a string of gossip. He briefly reported the death and internment of a gentleman's daughter, the planned visit to Mount Vernon of several gentlemen from Baltimore, as well as: "Mr J. Tayloe of Virga has contracted to build a House in the City near the President’s Square of $13,000 value." He didn't mention the other party or who who designed the house.(30)
Evidently, Dorsey signed the contract because as the financial agent disbursing money for the house, he thought he would have sufficient control over the project. He did more for Tayloe than Thornton did for the General. The doctor only gave the General's checks to Blagden. Dorsey would pay all subcontractors and Lovering, who had no financial responsibility for the project. However, he had to be freed from harassment by creditors, and it seems that Dorsey and Tayloe helped him. That Tayloe took the risk of eventually hiring Lovering to
oversee building the house suggests other builders turned down the job
involving oval rooms. That in turn suggests that if he were the only
builder able to address the problem then, contrary to the opinions of Ridout
and Harris, he was able to draw plans to solve the problem.
On April 10, the new sheriff notified Lovering that his creditors had writs that would force the seizure of all his property the following day. The sheriff would also put a notice in the newspaper warning people not to do business with Lovering. Because court was in session at the county seat in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, there were no lawyers in town to help Lovering. Someone advised him to hurry to Annapolis and see the Chancellor.
Lovering lacked money for the trip. He got it from Thomas Law. In Annapolis, Lovering saw the Chancellor, who quashed the sheriff's writs. This is such a fairy tale ending to Lovering's crisis that one has to suspect the fine hand of a superior power. Indeed, in November, the legislature had elected Benjamin Ogle governor. He was Tayloe's father-in-law. Lovering had the joy of writing to Nicholson about the reaction of their creditors when Lovering gave them the Chancellor's order: “You would have been pleased to see their chagrin." However, beaten down so long, Lovering evidently didn't anticipate that he would soon have three jobs. In an April 22 letter to Nicholson, Lovering sounded like a man with no hope: “I have nothing to do here and shall be soon be on my way to Philadelphia, as I now am down to the last shilling without any hope of getting any relief,...”
Then suddenly, Lovering landed on his feet. On April 25, 1799, Thomas Law wrote to George Washington that “your corner stone is to be laid today and I am to attend” and that same day Law would sign a building contract. Presumably, thanks to the Chancellor's order Lovering signed that contract to build Law’s house just three days after his morose letter to Nicholson. Maryland legislators had arranged another job for him. During its session the Maryland legislature had authorized a tax levy for repairs to or replacement of the Prince George's County Courthouse in Upper Marlboro. On April 26, the justices of the Levy Court opted for a new courthouse and asked "William Lovering of the City of Washington Architect, to draft a plan thereof...." He would receive $400 for his design and construction of the building would be under his "Direction and Inspection."(34)
 |
| 139A.
What had been built under Lovering was later added to throughout the
19th century. The porch and back buildings were not his design. The
secular steeple was likely within the $12,000 budget for the project. |
Then on April 27, Thornton jotted down in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot." The official process of setting out a lot required a representative of the board in consultation with the architect and/or property owner to ascertain that the design conformed to building regulations. Thornton didn't note who represented Tayloe. Back in September, Lovering showed one of the commissioner's surveyor how he design would fit into a corner lot of Square 689. Likely he showed Thornton how his design would fit into Lot 8 of Square 170. On May 9, work began on the lot.1 As he began working again, Lovering stopped writing to
Nicholson who died while in prison in December 1800.(35)
But all that said, could Tayloe have hired Lovering to build a design drawn by Thornton. Tayloe's contract is not extant. Ridout found nothing in Tayloe's papers revealing the design process for the Octagon. The principle pieces of evidence cited as proof that Thornton designed the Octagon are two unsigned and undated floor plans that resemble the floor plan of the house as built. Evidently, circa 1896, Glenn Brown drew the first extant floor plan of the innovative design.
Ridout argues that "a careful comparison of these two preliminary plans with the first-floor plan of the house as built leaves little doubt of their relationship. The jumble of conflicting and asymmetrically placed geometric forms of the first plan
has largely been organized in the second,
Ridout doesn't note that the first design only has 5 windows facing the streets instead of 9. The first design also shows an aversion to rectangular rooms. On the floor depicted, the only rectangular room is small and next to the staircase. The second and actual floor plan make rectangular rooms the principal rooms. The floor plan that Ridout identifies as the first preliminary design is an outlier that apart from being suitable to face an angled intersections has no logical relationship to the other preliminary floor plan or the actual house. In May 1797, Thornton had bought a lot that faced an angled intersection. He likely drew the first design for that lot. The other design in his papers was likely a copy of one of the three preliminary designs Lovering offered or sent to Tayloe that Thornton used as a model for his design.(36)
Back to Thornton's dated activities. On April 27, Thornton jotted down in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot." The official process of setting out a lot required a representative of the board in consultation with the architect and/or property owner to ascertain that the design conformed to building regulations. Thornton didn't note who represented Tayloe. Whether a curvilinear front could be parallel to intersecting straight streets was a question that required special understanding from the commissioners' representative. Law's design had already gotten a pass, but Tayloe's design was different. The front wall with a projecting oval had several feet of flat wall on either side of the bow. That part of the wall did not parallel the nearby streets. It marked a hypotenuse to the angled intersection.
Thornton was likely there representing the commissioners so that he could do Tayloe a favor for the very good reason that he needed Tayloe's services to train Driver, his three year old imported horse. Offering a house design is a dangerous favor to give. New houses can be costly and problematical, but bending a rule? That said, Tayloe wasn't in the federal city on April 27. He had returned to Mount Airy for the crucial Virginia elections in which he was re-elected to the state senate. One would think that if Thornton had designed the house and condescended to also set the lot, that Tayloe would have been gentleman enough to be there. If Lovering had designed the house, he would have felt no obligation at all to be there.
However, Thornton primarily wrote to the General about the General's houses, and not as much about them as he hoped. He tried and failed to become superintending architect. In March, the General had relied on his nephew Lawrence Lewis to see what Blagden was up to and learned from him that nothing had been done. He knew that his secretary Tobias Lear was staying with Thornton and getting treatment for a lame leg. He asked Lear, not Thornton, to prod Blagden. Lear told his host and, on April 19, in the same letter that he mentioned Tayloe's contract, the doctor reported to General that he couldn't find Blagden but "his partner, Mr. Lenthall informed me that every Contract was made, and every material provided for." The English carpenter, John Lenthall, likely had more experience building houses than Blagden. Thornton also "visited the workmen the Day before yesterday, & they progress to my Satisfaction. I took the liberty of directing Stone Sills to be laid, instead of wooden ones, to the outer Doors of the Basement, as wood decays very soon, when so much exposed to the damp; but I desired Mr Blagdin would do them with as little expense as possible." In reply, the General allowed that he expected the sills to be stone. But Thornton never again mentioned correcting Blagden's workers. He was careful not to cross that line again.(38)
Stymied at correcting details, Thornton looked at the big picture. The General asked Thornton to find out what would be the customary rent for houses like his. In his reply, Thornton discussed the issue at length, concluded that 10% of the cost of construction would be fair, but he had a better idea: "...preserve them unrented, and keep them for sale, fixing a price on them together or separately; and I have no Doubt you could sell them for nine or ten thousand Dollars each, and if you were inclined to lay out the proceeds again in building other Houses this might be repeated to your Advantage, without any trouble, with perfect safety from risk, and to the great improvement of the City." In reply, other than thanking him "for the information, and sentiments," the General didn't react to Thornton's suggestion that in the waning years of his illustrious life, he become a real estate developer. Then Thornton drove away a boarding house manager who back in September 1798 had expressed an interest in renting the house. Because the prospective renter wanted to build back buildings, Thornton wrote to the General that he “refused to name any price.”(39)
Stymied at correcting details, Thornton looked at the big picture. The General asked Thornton to find out what would be the customary rent for houses like his. In his reply, Thornton discussed the issue at length, concluded that 10% of the cost of construction would be fair, but he had a better idea: "...preserve them unrented, and keep them for sale, fixing a price on them together or separately; and I have no Doubt you could sell them for nine or ten thousand Dollars each, and if you were inclined to lay out the proceeds again in building other Houses this might be repeated to your Advantage, without any trouble, with perfect safety from risk, and to the great improvement of the City." In reply, other than thanking him "for the information, and sentiments," the General didn't react to Thornton's suggestion that in the waning years of his illustrious life, he become a real estate developer. Then Thornton drove away a boarding house manager who back in September 1798 had expressed an interest in renting the house. Because the prospective renter wanted to build back buildings, Thornton wrote to the General that he “refused to name any price.”(39)
On September 1, in reply to a note from the General about his next payment to Blagden, Thornton wrote a long letter that tried to compensate for he and his wife not making a visit to Mount Vernon as they had hoped. They"meant to have paid our respects to you and Mrs Washington Yesterday, but Mr Tayloe of Mount Airy spent the Day with us, and Mr Wm Hamilton of the Woodlands, near Philada is to be with us tomorrow. He is returning immediately, and laments he cannot have the happiness of paying you a Visit...." Hamilton's Woodlands had oval rooms, too, but the proximity of Thornton, Hamilton, Tayloe and Tayloe's house did not inspire Thornton to share his thoughts on oval rooms or Tayloe's house.
Then after explaining the latest bill from Blagden, he reported on progress in the city without mentioning Tayloe's house:
Our late Sales [of lots] have been very productive, and purchases of great extent have been made by persons resident in Baltimore. We shall continue them as long as we find Purchasers. The Trustees, of Morris & Nicholson, are going to finish the Houses at the Point.... The Navy-Yard will be fixed, I have reason to believe, where I recommended it—in the Space South of Square 930. The Board voted a portion of the Marine-hospital Square for that purpose. I remonstrated to them & to the Secretary of the Navy, stating the impropriety of touching Grounds already appropriated, and wished also the point of the City to be left for a Military Academy; for parade-Ground; for the Exercise of the great Guns; for Magazines, &c. &c....
In his brief reply, the General didn't react but his secretary Tobias Lear did: "I hope the grand and magnificent will be combined with the useful in all the new public undertakings. We are not working for our selves or our children; but for ages to come, and the works should be admired as well as used. Your wharves and the introduction of running water are among the first objects. Let no little mindedness or contracted views of private interest prevent their being accomplished upon the most extensive and beautiful plan that the nature of things will admit of - and - But hold, I am talking to one who has considered and understands these subjects much better than myself, and who, I trust, will exert himself to have everything done in the best manner."(40)
Simply put, Thornton did not give the impression that he was interested in designing a house. He had more important things to do. In September, just after Thornton had spent four night at Mount Vernon, the General gave his nephew Lawrence Lewis 2000 acres and urged him to build a house. He had just married the only grand daughter still living at Mount Vernon. But the General didn't mention the house to Thornton.(41)
In November, the General came to the city, riding by Tayloe's and checking on his own houses. He also went inside Law's almost finished house. In April, Law sent a letter to Greenleaf describing the General's reaction. house and the visit. He "was so pleased with it, that he said "I would never recommend to a wife to counteract her husband's wishes but in this instance, and I advise Mrs. Law not to agree to a sale." At the end of the day, Law, another proprietor, Commissioner White and Thornton accompanied the General back to Mount Vernon and spent the night. There is no evidence that the party of gentlemen patted Thornton on the back for designing the houses then under construction that were a likely a topic of their conversation.(42)
Of the two commissioners, White seemed more interested in housing in the federal city. Ten days later after visiting Mount Vernon, Thornton and White formed the board and wrote a letter alerting President Adams that for lack of money the President's house might not be finished. If so, there were three houses that might be rented each better than what the president rented in Philadelphia. In a private letter sent in December, White revealed what houses he and Thornton had in mind: Tayloe's house, Law's house and the mansion Daniel Carroll had built in 1798 just south of Capitol Hill.(43)
Both commissioners wrote to the General after the Maryland legislature signaled its support for the Potomac Company as well as the Chesapeake and Delaware canal. On December 8, the
General replied to both. He wrote to White about housing problems on Capitol Hill. He
wrote to Thornton about canals and the future of the city: Thanks to "...the obstructions continually thrown in its way—by friends or enemies—this City has had to pass through a firey trial—Yet, I trust will, ultimately, escape the Ordeal with eclat."(44)
Footnotes for Chapter 10
1. Brown, 1896, p. 63; Chernow, Ron, Washington: a Life, p. 794;
2. Harris, Charles M., William Thornton 1759-1828, LOC; Harris, Papers of William Thornton, p. 588.
3. Pratt v. Law, No. 659, US Supreme Court, 9 Cranch 456, pp. 779ff; Clark, Greenleaf and Law p. 255.
4. Corosino, Catherine Ann, The Woodlands: Documentation of an American Interior, Thesis, U. of Penn, 1997.
5. ad in 16 December 1797 Washington Gazette; 14 November 1797, Alexandria Advertiser
6. Bryan, p. 311; Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..." ;
7. WT to Pickering 23-25 June 1798 draft; AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83.
8. Scott, Pamela, "Designing the Executive Office Buildings."
9. Lovering to commrs., June 21, 1798; commrs. proceedings June 20, 1798; Lovering to commrs., January 9, 1798, commrs. records.; proceedings 12 January 1798; Lovering to commrs., October 4, 1798, commrs. records.
10. Lovering to Nicholson, January 14, 1798, Nicholson papers; Lovering to Commissioners, 10 July, 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.
11. Margaret Law Callcott, editor, Mistress of Riverdale, pp. 28-9; Law to Greenleaf, April 9, 1800, Adams Papers.
12. Lovering to Commrs. 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.
13. Mrs. Dalton to Abigail Adams, 28 July 1798;
14. GW to Peter 27 August 1798; Harris pp. 473-4; WT to White 16 January 1796, Harris p. 375.
15. White to GW, 8 September 1798; GW to White, 12 September 1798.
16. On GW's sense of humor see Manca, Joseph, “George Washington’s Use of Humor During the Revolutionary War.” Journal of the American Revolution, February 5, 2015; WT to Commrs 21 September 1798, Harris pp. 472, 475; footnote to John Francis to GW, 15 September 1798.
17. White to GW 15 December 1796; WT to Commrs. 21 September 1798; Commrs. to GW, 27 September 1798.
18. Bryan, p. 316-7; AMT notebook, vol. 1 image 121; GW's diary; WT to GW 25 October 1798;
19. Blagden to GW; Commrs to GW, 3 October 1798, reply 4 October 1798; Commrs. to GW, 4, 1798.
20. GW to WT, 18 October 1798; WT to GW, 25 October ; GW to Commrs. 22 October 1798, 27 October 1798;
21. GW to WT 28 October 1798,; Mary Carr, Thomas Wilkinson: A Friend of Wordsworth, p. 11
22. WT to GW GW to WT, 20 December 1798, WT to GW 21 December, 1798; GW to WT 30 December 1798,
23. Adams to GW 22 June 1798; GW to McHenry 22 July 1798; GW to Tayloe 21 July 1798; GW to Tayloe, 23 January 1799, for GW's interest in asses see 23 January 1799 to Robert Lewis.; Tayloe to GW, 10 February 1799, and footnotes; in a 24 January 1798 letter Latrobe wrote "as for the foederal city, I have never seen it...." and enjoyed his friend's comparison of the city to "a Giant with pygmy limbs." A journal he kept of his brief visit to the city in April 1798 is missing. Carter, pp. 457 & 378 fn. 8
24. GW to Tayloe 12 February 1799; GW's diary 7 February 1799; Tayloe to GW 10 February 1799, & 26 March 1799.
25. AMT notebook vol. 1 image 122; Federal Gazette 8 May 1799; Mrs. Thornton's diary pp. 99, 129.
26. Lovering to Nicholson 9 March 1799.
27. 29. Jefferson to White, 2 July 1802; White to Jefferson, 13 July 1802.
28. Commrs. Proceedings, 2 and 15 January 1799; Proceedings 18 March 1799; Hoban to Commrs. 12 March 1799; Middleton to Commrs 22 March 1799; Centinel of Liberty 16 April 1799 p. 1.
29. Hoban to Commrs. 15 April 1799; WT to Commrs. 17 April 1799; Chambers, Treatise, vol. II, pp. 368. 408, 425; Brown, Capitol in 1800; Commrs to Hoban, 18 April 1799, Commrs. records.
30. WT to GW, 19 April 1799;
31. Lovering to Nicholson, December 4, 1798, Nicholson papers; on Dorsey see Ridout p. 71, and Papenfuse, Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, vol. 426, p. 279
32. Lovering to Nicholson, 27 December 1798 and 4 & 22 January 1799.
33.
34. Lovering to Nicholson 26 March, 10 & 17 April 1799. For another view of Lovering’s debt problems see Tunnicliff to Nicholson, 9 April 1799; Lovering to Nicholson 22 April 1799; Sarson, Steven, The Tobacco-Plantation South in the Early American Atlantic World, pp. 11-2.
35. Law to GW, 25 April 1799, Law's April letter to Washington was undated, but marked received April 5. However, the modern editors of Washington's papers cite internal evidence for dating the letter as sent on April 25; Commrs to Lovering 9 May 1799 Commrs. records.
36. Ridout pp.62-5.
37. April 27, 1799 entry in notebook or Almanac in Thornton's papers in Library of Congress, reel 7; for problems the board's surveyors faced see Robert King, Sr., to Jefferson 5 June 1802; Tayloe to GW 29 April 1799; on horse purchase see Pickering letter in "Clifden" ad in Maryland Advertiser 10 April 1800, also; Harris, p. 585.
38. GW to Lear 31 March 1799; WT to GW 19 April 1799; GW to WT 21 April 1799; for instances of GW instructing WT about house building see GW to WT, 30 January, 29 September, 1 October, 1 December 1799; WT to GW, 5 December 1799, Founders online, Harris, p. 515;
39. WT to GW 19 July 1799; GW to WT, 1 August, 1799;
40. WT to GW 1 September 1799; GW to WT 5 September 1799; Lear to WT, 12 September 1799, Harris, pp. 508-9.
41. GW to Lewis, 20 September 1799 ; Diary p. 115; Harris, p.582
42. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams papers; GW diary
43. Commrs to Adams, 21 November 1799; White to Adams 13 December 1799 ( the editors of these on-line papers transcribed "Taylor" but the letter clearly reads "Tayloe;")
44. GW to White 8 December 1799; GW to WT 8 December 1799.
Comments
Post a Comment