Chapter 10 The Ingenious A

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

by Bob Arnebeck

 Table of contents

 Chapter Ten: The Ingenious A

116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the 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 those houses. But no one else claimed credit or was credited for designing the houses. His biographers give Thornton a good excuse for not stepping forward. Although he never put it quite this way, while his design for the Capitol fulfilled a duty to his adopted country that could never shame a true gentleman, Thornton feared that being a practicing architect would tarnish his reputation as a gentleman. So, while he brags about many accomplishment, he did not claim credit for designing the houses of his gentlemen friends. His biographers find evidence that he did in his private papers and in a diary his wife kept in 1800, even though she too never explicitly said he designed those houses. That he did is now settled history.

However, evidence gleaned from contemporary documents written in 1798 and 1799 casts doubt on that settled history and all but proves that William Lovering, who was supervising architect overseeing construction of Law's and Tayloe's houses, also designed them. The carpenter/architect worked for a living. He was not a gentleman and depended on their patronage. He would never boast of designing their houses, but he left clues that he did. As for the General's houses, his letters to Thornton almost mock Thornton's pretensions as an architect. For the General, a pleasing by-product of his building project was that it revenged Thornton's faulty Capitol design and inadequacies as a commissioner.

However, by not being more forthright in his criticism of Thornton, to this day the site of General's houses serves as a monument to Thornton the Architect. 

 

So does the Octagon. Since he was an amateur architect, Thornton's contribution to the Capitol's design was controversial at the time and throughout the 19th century. Crediting him for designing the Octagon all but ended the debate over his Capitol design. It proved he was an architect after all.

As it was being built, the Capitol loomed over everything to do with the building arts in the federal city. In September 1798, Thomas Law signed a building contract with William Lovering. In January of that year, he had schooled carpenters at the Capitol on how to build window sashes. In October 1798, General Washington signed a building contract with George Blagden. He had supervised the stone workers at both public buildings. For many, that Thornton had designed the Capitol is proof enough that he designed the General's houses. One item of evidence that Thornton designed the Octagon is that many of the men who Thornton, as a commissioner, paid for working on the Capitol later worked on the house.

Of course, the principal evidence linking Thornton to all three houses are oval rooms. It is thought, the Capitol's oval chambers were the General's favorite features. In his essay introducing the collection of Thornton's architectural drawings that the Library of Congress put on-line, Harris associates the Octagon's oval rooms with oval rooms in Law's house, and that proves that Thornton designed both houses:

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...."(1) Harris champions Thornton for solving the problem of building houses facing an intersection with an acute angle in a city where a building's wall had to be parallel to the streets. According to Harris, Law and Tayloe faced the same problem and solved it with Thornton's oval rooms.

 

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 the water front. 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 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 also helped satisfy his contract obligation to build 166 houses.(4) 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 the fashion 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.(8) However, putting oval rooms in a confined townhouse as opposed to a rambling country house would take some skill and ingenuity.

 

By 1797, the only oval rooms actually built in the federal city were Hoban's oval rooms in the President's house. No one has ever suggested that Hoban designed Law's or Tayloe's houses. By 1798, thanks to his education, position and income from the Tortola plantation, Thornton was solidly in Law's and the General's social set, while Hoban would never be. Plus, the relationship between Thornton and Law was more than social. They needed each other. For Thornton, Law provided entree to Mount Vernon. His wife made Law part of the family. For Law, Thornton provided information about the board of commissioners, and hopefully support during its deliberations. Thornton had planned oval rooms, albeit very large, for the Capitol and Law would have known about that.

The first record pertaining to Law's house was made by the commissioner's surveyor who laid out the lot with William Lovering on September 12, 1798. That doesn't prove that he designed the house. He could have simply already been hired to be the supervising architect of Thornton's design. By September 12, Lovering had drawn up a detailed contract for both he and Law to sign. The contract is extant, though not widely known. Archivists mislabeled the eleven page document as being written "circa 1794" so it escaped the scrutiny of researchers interested in what Law was planning to build in 1798. 

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 its 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.(7) However, the contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs, but it doesn't mention Thornton at all.

A final 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.(9)

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."(10)

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. When he helped the commissioners and their carpenter with sashes, he found 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 "ingenious" but not an "ingenious A."(11)

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. 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, 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.

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.(12)

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.(13)

 

127. Stier's Riverdale

If Lovering knew where Law was going to build by mid-July, he likely had shown him designs since mid-June and Law likely shared Lovering's ideas with his friend Thornton. By June 24, 1798, when he wrote his draft letter to the secretary of state, Thornton likely knew of Lovering's designs for Law's house.

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 makes 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....” Obviously, he had not just laid out Law's lot with Thornton's design in hand. Lovering designed Law's house to suit Law's needs and tastes.

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.(20) 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 who sent it back to Peter the next day. The General otherwise did not mention the plan. Congress still showed no interest in the project. Both the editors of Washington's and Thornton's papers suggest the plan in question was a design for the General's houses. 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 the plan to Peter the next day if the plan was a design for his houses? He didn't react to the plan because congress had tabled the memorial urging its creation. That set back was arguably the major embarrassment the General endured while he was president.(21)

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, 1798, Washington revealed his project in a letter to White, enclosed a sketch of a floor plan and seemed to ask him to solicit Thornton's opinion of it:

As I never require much time to execute any measure after I have resolved upon it; if an Undertaker could be engaged in the City, or its vicinity, to dig the Cellars, & lay the foundation; and the Commissioners would do me the favour to enter into a contract therefor, to the basement story, I could wish it to be set about and executed this fall (and the earlier the better). Any engagement they shall enter into on my behalf, shall be most religiously complied with. If an advance of money to carry on the work is required it may be engaged; and as two houses joined, & carried on together, will look better, & come cheaper than building them seperately or at different times, I have determined to commence two and if I can procure the means, complete both in the course of next summer.

I am not skilled in Architecture, and perhaps know as little of planning, but as the houses I mean to build will be plain, and (if placed on lot 16 in sqr. 634) will be adapted to the front of the lot, leaving allies, or entries to the back buildings, I enclose 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.

This sketch exhibits a view of the ground floor; the second, & third, if the Walls should be run up three (flush) stories, will be the same; and the Cellars may have a partition in them at the Chimnies—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.(22)

The General's floor plan

If he wanted Thornton's opinion why did he only write to White? And why write only to White when he wanted the commissioners to enter into a contract? Was he trying to avoid getting a letter back from Thornton who tended to write wordy missives? 

As it turned out, White gave the floor plan to Thornton. Scott may not have been available and that left only White and Thornton to form a board and find a contractor, which promised not to be easy. The General's letter revealed his naivete. No reputable builder would want to contract to only build a foundation in the fall. White had another reason to get back to Mount Vernon immediately. John Francis, proprietor of a popular Philadelphia boarding house, was then in the federal city, told the commissioners that he wanted to rent the houses, White hand delivered Francis's letter to the General. Evidently, White was uncertain if the General wanted to keep the transaction private. White left the floor plan behind with Thornton.(23)

Alone with the plan, Thornton did not "suggest alterations." In December, he suggested a parapet and earned a lecture from the General. 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 and others.

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 lot that, along with the $500, was the award for winning the Capitol design contest. Doing that was not a simple matter. The prospectus for the design contest required "impartial judges" to designate the 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. One of  Thornton's motives was likely 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.

Thornton decided to fulfill another ambition by couching his letter to his colleagues in way to make it seem that he was getting his due for more than just winning the design contest. He explained that his claiming the lot in 1793 had been "prevented by motives of delicacy." But he had "restored and accommodated [the plan] 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." Which is to say, the prize lot was his reward for correcting Hallet's willful errors.(24)

There is no evidence that when Thornton wrote his letter that anyone else thought that a narrative establishing him as the sole designer of the Capitol was of any importance. The imperative was to get the North Wing completed by December 1800. Everyone assumed the exterior of the South Wing would mirror the North Wing but with a larger legislative chamber and that the central section would have a dome. Thornton may have "presumed" that the "adopted plan" dictated that the central section reflect his "original ideas," but the General refused to see beyond the North Wing. Thornton's incompetence both as a designer and commissioner was one of the reasons forcing him to narrow his vision. Scott and White did not reply to Thornton's letter. They had never seen Thornton's award winning design.

The easiest way for Thornton to verify his claim was to get the General to acknowledge it, but Thornton did not seem eager to raise it with him. Evidently while spending three nights at Mount Vernon in early October, he didn't share the news with his host. In an October 25 letter, Thornton finally informed the General that he owned a lot next to his. Compared to his September 21 letter to his colleagues, he couched the matter differently. He explained that in 1793 he “had not demanded [a lot] from motives of Delicacy, but which I was entitled to for my plans of Capitol." He didn't claim that he had in the meanwhile restored his plans. He also didn't claim to have made elevations and sections for the Capitol.

If Thornton was fishing for vindication in his October 25 letter, he made it difficult for the General to oblige. In it, he gave him much more to digest. 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. However, there was a hitch. Thornton added that he could not 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, I should have been enabled to carry up a house now - I hope, however, to assist in making a respectable row of houses."

The General did not pry into Thornton's losses. He had used the same excuse at times: money rightfully expected was not forthcoming. Assuming all would turn out right, the General promised to share the cost of the party wall and authorized Thornton to get needed specifications from the contractor that he had asked the board to pick.(28)

The board had arranged for George Blagden, who with the stone work ending was no longer needed at the Capitol, to build the houses. 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 the commissioners' reply, signed by Thornton, they 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."(29) Thornton seemed as clueless as his colleagues and obviously had not designed the General or Law's houses. If he had, he could have at least shared some ideas on their relative expense. They didn't ask Lovering because the General would have had to pay for that service. Blagden himself wrote to the General and explained matters.

Thornton tried another way to serve the General. He persuaded him to have his slaves do more of the carpentry by preparing the floor boards and the scantling used to frame doors and windows.  He promised to obtain a specimen of different moldings, "thinking your people could work better by them, than by drawings." He didn't deliver on that promise, and the General didn't use his slaves. Thornton did join White in drawing up the contract. He had been appointed a county justice of the peace and had "stamped paper" which pleased the General, but Blagden delivered the contract to Mount Vernon alone.

The General did find 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."(30)

To perform that service, the General and Thornton had to correspond. 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, he suggested a change 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"

Washington 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."(31)

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

The General got a measure of revenge. His house would not have a parapet. However, Tayloe's house would. Taking the design Law or the General's houses from Thornton would not diminish his reputation. Taking the design of the Octagon away from him would. That parapet became important

In the several letters that passed between the General and the doctor at the end of 1798, there was no mention of Tayloe's house. When the doctor prescribed a parapet for the General, he did not cite Tayloe's exemplary design. However, there is evidence that Tayloe had not yet put his mind to getting a design. The first known mention of the  house was in a February 10, 1799, letter that Tayloe wrote to the General.

In July 1798, President Adams 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 explained that becoming an officer would force him to vacate his seat in the Virginia senate. The General promptly assured him that he need not accept the commission until the war actually started. 

 

"Respecting the Jack," Tayloe replied 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.” Then, a month later, Tayloe may have had a design. 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.” 

At that time, Tayloe was living in Virginia. It seems Lovering's month long process of wooing a client came up empty because his financial predicament made his assets suspect and getting security from others risky.(2) That suggests but doesn't prove that Lovering designed Tayloe's house. His contract to build Law's house shows that Lovering had drawings A. B. C. and D. before he drew up a contract. Why would the cost conscious Tayloe operate differently?

However, when dealing with Stier in 1801, Lovering readily gave up his own design ideas to build what Stier wanted. According to a letter Thornton wrote to the General, the contract for the house was not signed until mid-April. Is it possible that after March 9, Thornton stepped up to design the house? 

There are no letters or signed documents revealing the design process for the Octagon, but what distinguishes architectural history is that it gives primacy to found structures and extant designs that might have informed those structures. What remains of Lovering's work suggest that he couldn't have designed the Octagon. Thornton's Capitol design and two unsigned and undated floor plans that are now in the Thornton's papers that are similar to the actual floor plan of the house are crucial evidence that Thornton designed the house. 

As Ridout puts it: "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 that undermined the first plan

has largely been organized in the second,

 

and culminates in the final design as a balanced composition of a circle, two rectangles, and a pair of intersecting triangles."(3

)

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.

Given that principal rooms in the Octagon are rectangular and that there is no shortage of windows, 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. It is likely that Tayloe saw that relevant preliminary design and prodded the designer to come up with a cheaper design with smaller oval rooms. However, Tayloe did not live in the city or come to it until April 17. State politics kept him near Richmond that winter. In February, he joined his wife in her "confinement" after she gave birth to a son on January 29. That meant he would not head north for another 40 days or so. Then when he did leave on March 26, he got sick on the road and returned to Mount Airy.

Lovering had thrice traveled the 140 miles to Philadelphia, two times in the late winter. Mount Airy is around 100 miles from the federal city. With the General no longer monitoring operations, the three commissioners had been lax in maintaining a constant presence in the city. Ridout turns to Mrs. Thornton's 1800 diary to prove that Thornton had the time and inclination to design houses "between his work routine as a commissioner."(5) However, from January to April 1799, Thornton's work as a commissioner was not routine. 

 

He was finally holding the men working for the commissioners accountable. At Thornton's insistence, the board began investigating its work force and the one man who supervised operations. 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."(6)

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. 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.(7)

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 complaint 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. He also knew that to get his prize lot, Thornton claimed he provided sections as he restored his original design.(8)

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. While he superintended it in 1795, hired slaves and masons laid the foundation; in 1798, hired slaves and carpenters covered the building with a roof that Hoban designed. The board did not react or respond to his letter, which is to say, Scott and White did not contradict Hoban's assertion that Thornton had not provided drawings.

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.(9)

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."(10)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 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. Recalling his colleagues campaign to fire Hoban in 1799, White opined "I believe he would then have disputed their right,..." 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.(11)

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 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 and his descriptions were not plain nor expedient. As 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. But he offered no drawings. He also noted times when the board had asked Hoban for drawings, and suggested that doing drawings had always been Hoban's job.(12) 

Thus, the First Architect of the Capitol, in the eyes of historians, stood his ground. On April 18, his colleagues asked Hoban to make the necessary drawings "as conveniently you can." 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 that Tayloe signed a contract for a house. The contract Tayloe signed has been lost but Thornton likely witnessed the signatures.(13)

If he had made 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 the Daltons' 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 add that he designed the house.

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." He didn't note that he designed the house. 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. 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 protruding oval had several feet of flat wall on either side of the bow. That 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 was in the process of importing two prize race horses from England. They would arrive in the fall of 1799. Payments from the Tortola plantation accrued to Thornton's credit at the beginning of each year. At that time it took letters 3 to 4 months get cross the Atlantic. Thornton's purchase, facilitated in England by his cousin Isaac Pickering, was likely at least 9 months in the making, time enough for Thornton to calculate the need for Tayloe's services to train the three year old named Driver. 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 to observe the crucial elections in Virginia that ended on the 25th. However, Tayloe likely spent some time with Thornton. He was interested in gentlemen who were interested in horses. He had just placed an ad dated April 4 offering "for sale and at a great bargain if immediately applied for the celebrated running horse Gabriel." She had been shipped from England in December and arrived in Norfolk in March.(14)

Thornton may have also done the "ingenious A" a favor. Even though Lovering wrote on March 9 that he lost a contract with a gentleman in Virginia, he might have been there on April 27th, and Tayloe may have pulled strings to get him there. 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 likely gave Lovering more confidence. He had Law's sympathy. For building a house valued at $5800, Law accepted Lovering's lot across the street as security. For his houses, the General would ask for a $4000 security.

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 William Hammond Dorsey, the agent for the trustees who were trying to extract money from the bankrupt speculators. Dorsey would become Tayloe's agent in the city handling the finances for the Octagon project. He was also selected as Georgetown’s senator in the Maryland legislature. Lovering mentioned to Nicholson that several legislators were helping him get bankruptcy protection. (15)

In December, Lovering went to Annapolis where he found that 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.(16)

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 lands as compensation, and claimed that he planned to go to London in the spring where he could easily sell it. Soon after he wrote that letter, he learned of Tayloe's project and tried to land a contract. The likely way that he heard about Tayloe's project was through Dorsey who had helped him in Annapolis. Given that he had been making plans to take his family back to London, he may have been able to afford a trip to Mount Airy to see Tayloe. 

Then in his March 9 letter to Nicholson, he underscored his woes by reporting that due to having no security, he failed to get a contract with a gentleman in Virginia. In a March 26 letter, he explained to Nicholson that he couldn't go to Baltimore to do some business for him because "the Sherriff has taken every Shilling that I could raise and borrow to the amount of $69 for sundry fees &c. I will thank you for that 100 ac. of land in Georgia and wish them conveyed to my son Richard Lovering who is now at Washington." Unfortunately, when writing to Nicholson, Lovering had to be on his guard. In the friendly confines of Tunnicliff's hotel, he had entertained Nicholson with the idea of building 166 two story houses with dormer windows. But in early 1799, both Morris and Nicholson were in Philadelphia's Prune Street debtors prison. It made sense for Lovering to admit his failures in order to make his plight as dire as theirs. But he had to conceal his successes. He didn't mention the work he did for Law for fear that it would inspire the speculators to dun him.(17)

After March 26, Lovering entered the surreal world of debt where making money would only benefit his tormentors. Any money he made would go directly to his creditors. That explains why there is no evidence that he at least asked to be paid for his design for Tayloe's house.

On April 10, the new sheriff notified Lovering that his creditors had writs that would force the sheriff to seize all of Lovering's property the following day. He would also put a notice in the newspaper warning people not to do business with him. 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." Tayloe or his agent Dorsey also reacted in that they hired him to supervise construction of Tayloe's house. That raises the question, assuming that they helped Lovering get bankruptcy protestion, would they have gone to such lengths if Lovering had not also designed the house? (18)

However, Lovering evidently didn't sign the contract Thornton mentioned in his April 19 letter. 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,...”(19) Then suddenly, Lovering landed on his feet. 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."(20)

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.

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. Lovering could now also sign Tayloe's contract. Work began in early May.

Lovering certainly didn't leave town. On May 9, the commissioners asked him to inspect the slating on the roof of the President's house.(21) Then he began working as superintending architect at the Octagon for which he was paid $900. As he began working again, Lovering stopped writing to Nicholson who died while in prison in December 1800. That Lovering was able to get to work, presumably fulfilling the contract he first presented to Tayloe or his representative Dorsey in March, doesn't prove that he began building a house that he designed. Harris claims that "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."(22) That suggests that there is written evidence that Thornton designed Tayloe's house, but there isn't. It's a matter of inferences, pairing a mention of Tayloe's contract as the third item of gossip in Thornton's April 19 letter to the General.

When work on the General's houses began in mid-April 1799, Thornton tried to do more than merely give money to Blagden. He began to operate as if he were the superintending architect of the project. He likely knew that the General did not consider him as such. 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,  the doctor wrote to the General:

When Colonel Lear was here he said you were desirous of knowing if Mr Blagdin had laid in all the materials requisite for your Houses, as you thought they would not only be likely to rise, but probably be difficultly obtained properly Seasoned. I called on him, but not meeting with him I went the Day before yesterday to his Partner Mr Lenthall, who informed me that every Contract was made, and every material provided for. The Lumber is not yet delivered, but Mr Littleton Dennis, of the Eastern Shore, Maryland, who regularly supplied us, has been engaged in preparing what they will want, and I think he may be depended on. I 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. Evidently, the General thought Thornton honest enough to transfer his payments to Blagden, able enough to relay the General's advice about building methods, but the legacy of Thornton's incompetence as an overseer of work gave the General pause.(32)

Stymied at correcting details, Thornton looked at the big picture. The General became vexed at the widespread rumor that John Francis was going to rent his houses and board congressmen. Since that rumor deterred other interested parties, he thought Francis should agree on the rent. He asked Thornton to find out what was customary. 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. I am induced to think the Houses would sell very well, because their Situation is uncommonly fine, and the Exterior of the Houses is calculated to attract notice. Many Gentlemen of Fortune will visit the City and be suddenly inclined to fix here. They will find your Houses perfectly suitable, being not only commodious but elegant.

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 Francis approached Commissioner Thornton to see if, as well as renting the houses, he could buy a lot next door. He needed more room for boarders. Since Francis also wanted to build back buildings behind the houses, Thornton wrote to the General that he “refused to name any price,” and Francis lost interest.(33) 

As the work progressed, the General schooled contractors as well as Thornton. He reminded Thornton to get the contractors to paint sashes before installing them, instructed him on the proper mixture of sand in the paint for the walls and lectured him on plaster of Paris. After that last lesson, Thornton referred him to a pamphlet on the subject written by a Pennsylvania judge. While president, Washington had asked the judge to do the research and write the pamphlet.(34)

Historians who don't credit Thornton for designing the houses credit him for overseeing their construction. In her diary, Mrs. Thornton said he superintended the houses. The best evidence that he didn't comes from Thornton himself. 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...."(35) If he had had anything else to do with the houses, he would have bragged about that.

When he wrote to Wilkinson, Law's and Tayloe's houses were also "now building." Law's family was well known in England and rich Virginians who had gone to Eton and Cambridge were not unknowns. There would seem to be no reason not to tell his old friend about designing their houses. The simple reason why he didn't is because he hadn't. 

On September 1, Thornton wrote to the General primarily to do his assigned duty and explain the latest bill from Blagden. On August 28, the General had sent Thornton a short note asking for that. Then in his reply Thornton revealed that he and Mrs. Thornton "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...." The proximity of Thornton, Tayloe and Tayloe's house is suggestive. Woodlands had oval rooms, too, but the added conjunction of Tayloe and Hamilton did not inspire Thornton to share his thoughts on oval rooms or Tayloe's house with the General. 

That others were designing and building houses did not distract Thornton from the big picture. He reported on the board's business: 

I was pleased to see Mr Pickering’s Letter to you, which you did us the honor of transmitting, for our Perusal. It is a Subject highly interesting, and one I have urged, for three years, to the Board. 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....

The General replied and primarily gave instructions for Blagden and added: "I am glad to hear that your late sales have been productive, & that the people of Baltimore are turning their attention towards the Federal City. At all times we shall be glad to see you & Mrs Thornton here...." He avoided commenting on Thornton's bragging about disagreeing with his colleagues. The General's secretary, Tobias Lear, was more effusive when he wrote to Thornton a few days later: "I am very happy to learn that the prospects in the city are brightening fast. You will become every day more and more important, and I have not a doubt but the improvements will be rapid beyond example." That was the perfect segue for congratulating Thornton for the work being done on Law's, Tayloe's and the General's houses. Instead, Lear gloried in the Big Picture as produced by Thornton over the years during table talk at Mount Vernon: 

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.(24)

Then in September 1799, 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 last of Martha Washington's unmarried grand daughters. But the General didn't mention the house to Thornton.

Then, in November 1799, the General came to the city to see his houses. He also went inside Law's almost finished house. In April, Law sent a letter to Greenleaf describing the house and the visit: 

On the ground floor there is a handsome oval room 32 by 24 and a room adjoining 20 by 28 - the oval room is so handsomely furnished that I wish to leave the eagle round glasses, carpet and couches in them as they are suited to the room - above stairs is a dressing room and a bedroom 21 by 20 - a center room with a fireplace about 17 by 13, an oval room 30 by 25 - and a room 20 by 11 with a fireplace - the same upstairs - say 8 bedrooms or 7 bedrooms and an oval sitting room.... General Washington 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.

The General likely checked on the progress of Tayloe's house. At the end of the day, Law, another proprietor James Barry, Commissioners 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 mansions then under construction that were a likely a topic of their conversations.

Ten days later, 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 house Daniel Carroll had built in 1798 just south of Capitol Hill. If he indeed had a secret, Thornton kept it. T(37)

On December 14, Thornton joined the Laws as they hurried to Mount Vernon at the news of the General's decline, but they arrived a day late. Tobias Lear wrote in his diary that he wanted to delay the burial so more members of the family could attend, but Drs. Craik and Thornton insisted that because of the inflammatory nature of Washington's illness, there could be no delay in his burial. In that day, it was thought that death did not still the corrupting powers of some diseases. Thornton also told Lear that the body should be encased in lead presumably to preserve the remains for burial in the Capitol.(43)

With the possible exception of Mrs. Law, Thornton was well liked by the General's family. Mrs. Thornton was universally appreciated. When he returned to the city, he learned by letter that his mother, who he had not seen since October 1792, had died in Tortola. The General also liked and appreciated Thornton. He wrote one of his last letters to Thornton. He also wrote to Commissioner White about housing problems on Capitol. He wrote to Thornton about canals and the eventual eclat of the city. However, no one had greater experience in assessing the reliability of those who tried to serve him. Thornton had high self esteem and likely thought the General's acceptance of him and his idea was unconditional. Indeed, one upshot of Thornton's mourning was that he became more assertive about his talents as an architect and his noticed. Historians today think passages in his wife's diary prove that he designed Law's and Tayloe's houses. But his assertiveness, and problems arising from it troubled President Jefferson and Thornton lost any power over the design of the Capitol.

  Go the Chapter 11

 Footnotes for Chapter 11

1. Brown,  1896, p. 63; Chernow, Ron, Washington: a Life,  p. 794; Harris, Charles M.,  William Thornton 1759-1828,  LOC; Harris, Papers of William Thornton, p. 588.

2. Clark, Greenleaf and Law p. 255.

3. Surdocs Image View (XII p. 187)

4. Pratt v. Law, No. 659, US Supreme Court, 9 Cranch 456, pp. 779ff.

5. Bryan, p. 311 "If Mr. Lovering was the principal in this enterprise, and not merely the architect,...."

6. House report 397 United States Congressional serial set. 5407 Page 803.

7. Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..." ;  

8. Corosino, Catherine Ann, The Woodlands: Documentation of an American Interior, Thesis, U. of Penn, 1997.  

9. WT to Pickering 23-25 June 1798 draft; AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83.

10. Scott, Pamela, "Designing the Executive Office Buildings."

11. 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.

12. Lovering to Nicholson, January 14, 1798, Nicholson papers; Lovering to Commissioners, 10 July, 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.

13. Margaret Law Callcott, editor, Mistress of Riverdale, pp. 28-9; Law to Greenleaf, April 9, 1800, Adams Papers.

14. 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.

15.  The Diary of Mrs. William Thornton, p. 94.

16. Harris p. 586 ; Scott, Pamela in Creating Capitol Hill;

17. Law to Greenleaf, April 9, 1800, Adams Papers.

18.  The Diary of Mrs. William Thornton, p. 90.

19. Law to GW, 4 May 1798, .GW to Law, 7 May 1798.  AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83.

20.  Mrs. Dalton to Abigail Adams, 28 July 1798;

21. GW to Peter 27 August 1798; Harris pp. 473-4.

22. White to GW, 8 September 1798; GW to White, 12 September 1798;

23. footnote to John Francis to GW, 15 September 1798;

24. 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;

25. Latrobe Correspondence, p. 376; Washington Federalist 16 April 1799; Bryan p. 317.

26. AMT notebook, vol. image 121; GW's diary; WT to GW 25 October 1798;

27. WT to Commrs. 10 May 1798, Harris p. 453.

28. AMT notebook, vol. 1 image 121; GW's diary 6 July 1798; GW to WT, 18 October 1798;  GW to WT 28 October 1798; On the balance sheet he kept in his own mind, perhaps he thought his inability to mortgage his share of the plantation or his Lancashire property after his grandmother's death in 1797 was a loss carried over year to year. All to say, bankers did not have enough confidence in him to loan him a six thousand dollars.

29. Commrs. to GW, 27 September, 3, 4, 15, 25, October 1798; GW to Commrs. 28 September 4, 17, 22, 27 October 1798.

30. Op. Cit.

31. GW to WT, 20 December 1798, WT to GW 21 December, 1798; GW to WT 30 December 1798. 

32. WT to GW 19 April 1799; GW to WT 21 April 1799.

33. WT to GW 19 July 1799; GW to WT, 1 August, 1799.

34.  GW to WT, 30 January, 29 September, 1 October, 1 December 1799; WT to GW, 5 December 1799, Founders online, Harris, p. 515; 

34. Mary Carr, Thomas Wilkinson: A Friend of Wordsworth, p. 11. In 1896, Glenn Brown wrote "Dr. Thornton was the architect and superintendent, as shown by letters of Washington," but Brown neither quoted nor cited any letters. Future historians found no reason to disagree with Brown. Ron Chernow, George Washington's 2010 biographer, credits Thornton as the houses' designer.

36. Ridout, pp. 68-9.

37. 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.")

38.  The Diary of Mrs. William Thornton, pp. 103-112; Natl. Intelligencer 5 January 1801

39.  Scott et al, Creating Capitol Hill

40. Mrs. J. Q. Adams to John Adams, 22 November1820; A. Adams to Cranch, 4 February 1800 footnote 3; Law to Greenleaf 9 April 1800; see also Abigail Adams to Anna Greenleaf Cranch, 17 April 1800.

41. GW to WT 5 September 1799; GW to Lewis, 20 September 1799 ; Diary p. 115; Harris, p.582

42. WT to Marshall, 6 January1800, Harris p. 526-7; WT to Blodget 21 February 1800, Harris pp. 535ff; 

43. GW to WT 8 December 1799, Jefferson's weather observations , page 25; Lear Journal, Clements Library. Harris, p. 528; Thornton did not date his brief recollection of his patron’s death. However, in it he described Thomas Law as the brother of Lord Ellenborough. The latter Law became a Lord in  April 1802 and died in 1818; Thompson, Mary V. "Death Defied" Mount Vernon Museum

 .