Chapter 12: Designing the Octagon

 Chapter 12: Designing the Octagon

132. 18th century dragoon

In a January 23, 1799, letter General Washington indulged in one of the few pleasures arising from President Adams asking him to defend the country from possible French  aggression by raising and leading a provisional army. He rewarded the son of an old friend. He assured John Tayloe III that the rank of major in the dragoons "was a very honorable rank for someone with no military experience." He also assured him that lack of experience would not be a handicap. He would be paired with a captain of dragoons in the regular army now raised to the rank of major. That veteran dragoon was "a man of family; genteel in his person; has given proofs of his gallant behaviour, and was wounded in General Wayne’s victory over the combined Indian force in the year 1794." 

Then the General got down to business. 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." All three "were got by that valuable Jack Ass, Compound (who with another equally valuable, was poisoned, or died in most violent agonies, last winter) who was the descendent of Royal Gift, out of an Imported Jenny from Malta." He added that "Ready money would be very convenient to me, as my buildings in the City call for it...."(1)

The letter relegated his Capitol Hill houses to nine words. In his reply sent on February 10, Tayloe explained "respecting the Jack—Since I saw you Mr Ogle has given me 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.” The rest of his long letter asked the Generals advice on whether to pursue a military or political career. If he was in the provisional army, the "improvements I contemplate putting up in F. City" could begin with a house in a more central lot suitable for boarding congressmen or executive officers coming to the city and not a mansion in his largest lot for his growing family. In his letter, Tayloe made his not joining the army, staying in the Virginia legislature and running for congress seem to be in the national interest as he would join the fight to stop Jefferson and his pro-French Republican party from wielding power. If the General urged him to join the army, Tayloe said he would leave for Philadelphia as soon as possible.(2)

The General recognized the importance of the question and responded that day without a word about asses or houses. Since the domestic opposition to good government was at that moment a greater threat than the French, he strongly encouraged the political career. That meant that Tayloe would need a house by December 1801 when he came to the city to take his seat in congress. In Tayloe family legend, George Washington was credited with having much to do with the location of the Octagon. He did in the sense that he advised Tayloe to run for congress and build a residence in the city.(3) 

From that exchange of letters two interesting conclusions can be drawn. Despite buying his lot in the city in April 1797, Tayloe had gone only so far as to "contemplate" building. The other conclusion explains why so little is written about his eventual plans for the house. Breeding mules, honorable service in the military and politics were the stuff of a gentleman's conversation. The design and building of houses was a subject about which less said was better. Broaching that subject wasn't the obvious way to ingratiate oneself to another gentleman.(3) 

If Tayloe's letter had arrived three days earlier that second conclusion could have been tested. Thornton had just spent two nights at Mount Vernon.(4) It is understandable that the General and Tayloe would not mention Blagden and Lovering. But what if another gentleman had designed their houses?

This focus on February 1799 is not arbitrary. Tayloe's February 10 letter suggested that he had not yet decided on a design. A March 9 letter from Lovering to John Nicholson suggested that he had a design. Lovering wrote:  “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.”(5)  

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.(6)

Lovering wound up as the superintending architect overseeing the contractors who built the Octagon. That suggests he either eventually came up with security or Tayloe waved the need for it. But the contract for the house, according to what Thornton would report to the General, was not signed until mid-April. Is it possible that after March 9, Thornton stepped up to at least design the house? Of course, it is also possible that he had designed the house long before March 9 when Lovering lost the contract to build it.

There are no other letters or signed documents revealing the design process for the Octagon, but not to worry. What distinguishes architectural history is that it gives primacy to found structures and designs that informed those structures. The two unsigned and undated floor plans that are now in the Thornton 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."(7)

Unfortunately, the two designs are not dated. Thornton could have handed Tayloe a first design at any time after April 18, 1797, but it is unlikely that Tayloe would ask for revisions from Thornton before February if he was still contemplating rather than planning a building. 

The Washington-Thornton correspondence is no help in dating when Thornton might have drawn a design. Tayloe was mentioned once in 1798. In October 1798, Washington asked if Thornton knew who bought Gov. Henry Lee's lots around Peter's Hill. Thornton thought another Virginian, Presley Thornton, who was not a relative, bought the lots and sold them to "John Tayloe of Mount Airy. I cannot ascertain the Fact till I see some of the Parties, and I have not yet had an opportunity...." Then, in his April 19, 1799,  letter to the General about the danger of wooden cills getting damp, Thornton briefly reported the death and internment of the Daltons' daughter, the planned visit to Mount Vernon of several gentlemen from Baltimore, as well as this item: "Mr J. Tayloe of Virga has contracted to build a House in the City near the President’s Square of $13,000 value." Thornton did not say with whom Tayloe contracted.(8)

Since Tayloe did not live in the city, Thornton had little face-to-face contact with him. Beginning at the end of 1798, Mrs. Thornton began noting down their dinner guests. The General came to dinner on January 11, 1799. She also noted lesser men  like George Turner, Tristram Dalton, and Presley Thornton. If Tayloe had dined with the Thorntons, she would have noted that.(10) There is no evidence that Thornton dropped down to see Tayloe at Mount Airy. But that there is no evidence that Tayloe made contact with Thornton in February 1799 doesn't prove that he didn't.  

Judging from what Thornton did in 1800, several historians see evidence that he would have been willing and able to help Tayloe in 1799. In 1896, when Glenn Brown concluded that Thornton had completely mastered his duties as a commissioner, it dispensed with the need to clear Thornton's desk, so to speak, in the winter of 1799. When Ridout wrote almost a century later, Mrs. Thornton's diary had been published and in it there was clear evidence that Thornton did have time: "If Mrs. Thornton's detailed diary for the year 1800 is any indication, Thornton would have been pleased to respond to the opportunity to produce a design for Tayloe, fitting it into quiet afternoons and evenings between his work routine as a commissioner." However, her 1800 diary also provides evidence that in February of that year, Thornton drew a design for his own house in Square 171 which also has an angular lot. (11)

But from January to April 1799, Thornton was relatively busy.  During the winter and early spring of 1800, the board had money and Hoban led a determined and better paid workforce. In 1799, at Thornton's insistence, the board was investigating its work force and trying to find evidence to fire Hoban. Such activity doesn't preclude a genius from meanwhile designing a house, but in this campaign to protect his legacy, Thornton didn't promise drawings that any common worker could follow. Instead, he refused to make any more drawings for the Capitol. Ironically, this struggle to defend his one sure claim to fame casts doubt on his second claim to fame, although it always bears remembering that Thornton never claimed that he designed Tayloe's house.

If done by Thornton, the second Octagon pre-design marks a remarkable advance in Thornton's approach to architecture. Any experienced architect could have made those adjustments. But Thornton would have to accept that a design of his might need to be changed, and not assume that his designs were inherently practical and that carping about difficulties in building them was born of envy for his genius or fear of the grandeur of his design. He would also have to accept that even though he wanted no compensation, he had to suit a rich patron who brings up the expense of building. Meanwhile, he would have to put up with that vexation while he battled Hoban.

At the commissioners' meeting on January 15, 1799, Thomas Watkins, a carpenter, complained that he was fired and another carpenter was docked in pay because they refused to join Hoban's artillery company. Thornton moved for an investigation of Hoban. Commissioners Scott and White voted against the motion.(12)  

Thornton persisted and so did reverberations from his investigation. In 1802, congress would abolish the board of commissioners. President Jefferson then appointed its clerk to take over the commissioners' duties, which for the moment entailed only accommodating the government. To save money, the new superintendent gave Hoban notice. Hoban 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."

The superintendent asked the president what to do. The president asked former commissioner White what could possibly motivate Hoban who had gotten advice from Luther Martin, one of the nation's top lawyers. White was back in Virginia longing to be appointed a federal judge. He had not talked to Hoban recently about his discontents. "I am much surprised at Hobans conduct," White replied on July 13, 1802, then he assured the president that he would have never stipulated that Hoban would be paid until the buildings were completed. But he wasn't surprised that Hoban would seek legal advice and sue to keep his job. "Some years ago both 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. I believe he would then have disputed their right,..."(13)

White's point seemed to be that Hoban's reaction to dismissal in 1802 had something to do with his anger at Thornton's and Scott's earlier investigation of him. The president didn't ask White why they wanted to get "Hoban out of the way."

How Thornton got Scott to eventually support an investigation is not known. A likely reason is that Thornton agreed to expand the investigation to include Redmund Purcell whose attacks on Hadfield the year before had embarrassed Scott who had been Hadfield's best friend on the board.(14)

When Hoban heard that the board had received letters from workers impugning his conduct, he asked the board to share that evidence. By that time, the complaint of Watkins was forgotten and 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.(15)

As the investigations unfolded, the board ordered Hoban to report on the progress of the buildings and, in a separate report, project the expenses for the coming building season. Hoban had done that for the President's house in other years, but not while he was under investigation. Hoban knew that foremen were being dismissed because the stone workers or brick layers under them had been dismissed. He likely feared that once he submitted reports, he might be considered expendable. At the same time, if he didn't submit them he could be fired for insubordination. That charge was the basis for the dismissal of Hallet in 1794 and Hadfield in 1798.

Hoban's strategy for avoiding those snares was to remind the board of Thornton's obligation as the Capitol design contest winner. Hoban wrote that he could not very well estimate expenses 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."(16) Hoban knew of that requirement because he too had been a design contest winner. 

W. B. Bryan did not add Hoban's letter to the chain of evidence proving that Thornton had restored his original design of the Capitol. After all, it contradicted the claim Thornton made in 1798, which Bryan accepted as true, that he had provided all the drawings needed. Hoban had endorsed Hallet's criticisms of Thornton contest winning design, and the changes made to the design at the July 1793 conference arranged by Secretary of State Jefferson. In a November 1795 meeting with the president, Hoban had defended Hallet's revision of Thornton's design when it was attacked by Hadfield who was also at the meeting. In the summer of 1798, Hoban had designed and superintended construction of the Capitol's roof. 

Meanwhile, the board also began investigating Purcell. In a letter attacking Thornton and Scott, Purcell would allude to the Capitol elevation Thornton kept in his parlor that he showed to visitors and claimed as his original design. Hoban had no interest in who deserved credit for the design. His sole interest was keeping his job. If flattering Thornton's pretensions gave him leverage in countering Thornton's attack, Hoban would have been a fool not to do just that especially since he knew that  Thornton could not draw sections of the building.

However, that shot across Thornton's bow did not end the investigation. The board decided to hold hearings on Hoban. He demanded that they begin immediately. On March 18, the board summoned eleven workers to testify about the doings of Hoban and Purcell. Purcell claimed the right to be judged by peers and the board appointed Lovering, Harbaugh and another master carpenter to sit as a board. But they gave Purcell one day to prepare. On April 4, when Purcell missed his trial, the commissioners fired him as well as four carpenters implicated in his misdoings. Then, Commissioner White dissented from his colleagues' treatment of Purcell. That prompted the carpenter to cheer White on in an April 12 letter published in a newspaper on the 16th. Purcell announced his determination "to pour broadsides" into the hulls of Thornton and Scott. He accused Thornton, "the fribbling quack architect," of signing "his name to the only drawings of sections for the Capitol ever delivered to the commissioners' office, made out by another man."(17)

Depositions continued in Hoban's case until April 9. On April 15, he 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? He surely saw through Hoban's tactic. Given White's 1802 recollection that Hoban would take legal action if he was fired, lawyer White likely persuaded lawyer Scott that Hoban's case against Thornton for dereliction of duty was likely stronger that 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." Which is to say, they realized that Hoban had won, only he could make the drawings in time. Thornton had never practiced that principal. They knew that their agreeable and loquacious colleague simply did not make architectural drawings on demand.(18)(19)

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.

Then Thornton launched into a long description of the work on the walls of the Senate chamber which made clear his deep understanding of architecture: "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 also described what the staircases and entrances should look like but provided 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.

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. In his letter, Thornton noted that the drawings requested were for accommodating the House of Representatives in the North Wing until the South Wing could be completed. 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.

Thus, the First Architect of the Capitol, in the eyes of historians, stood his ground. Hoban got the North Wing ready for congress. On April 18, White and Scott formed the board and wrote to Hoban enclosing a copy of the letter Thornton sent to them. They also requested that Hoban make the necessary drawings "as conveniently you can." The next day, Thornton wrote to the General and reported on Tayloe's contract.(20)

The retention of Hoban maintained the continuity of the project. Commissioner Thornton certainly didn't lose face. He had never had much to do with on-going work at Capitol. Not having Hoban there when congress assembled would have kept more eyes focused on Thornton, but failing that, highlighting Hoban's transgressions assured Thornton the high ground if, in the rush to finish, walls began to fall down. He maintained good relations with his colleagues and Hoban. He still considered himself a man of destiny, but would he cotton to young John Tayloe telling him that what he drew had to be radically altered? 

On April 27, Thornton jotted in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot."(21) The commissioners required that their surveyors lay down the lines of any building before work started in order to be sure that the walls paralleled the nearby street. To suggest that Thornton laid down lines for a house he himself designed doesn't account for his laconic note nor possible embarrassment. The commissioner's surveyor worked with an agent of the builder when laying out the lot. For example, Lovering joined the surveyor when laying out Law's house. Thornton didn't note who joined him on the 27th. That was of no importance to him. He had a good reason to do the job. He was in the process of buying and importing two prize English thoroughbreds. All his sporting friends, Thomas Peter and Presley Thornton to name two, would have alerted him to the importance of getting on the good side of John Tayloe of Mount Airy.

Even though he wrote on March 9 that he lost a contract with a gentleman in Virginia, Lovering might have been there on April 27th. In the fall of 1798, while he 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 likely facilitated the back and forth with an architect over a design and contract for Tayloe's house. 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. (22)

In December, Lovering went to Annapolis where he found that while several legislators supported his bill for bankruptcy protection, other legislators questioned whether he was a citizen of Maryland, a requisite for getting protection. (Until congress took control of 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.(23)

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. However, he must have known that the prospect of getting anything from Morris and Nicholson was unlikely.(24)

Meanwhile, he looked for more building contracts. The likely way that he heard about Tayloe's project was through Dorsey who had helped him in Annapolis. In February, Lovering at least drew up specifications for and estimated the cost of a house. But his problems were not resolved in Annapolis. By March 9, he lost the contract and the prospect of getting any more business. Doing Law's house would be pointless. Any money he made would go directly to his creditors.That can explain why there is no evidence that he at least asked to be paid for his design for Tayloe's house. That money would go directly to his creditors.

On March 26, 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." 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."(25)

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,...”(26) 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."(27)

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 was signing a building contract. 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, in which case, thanks to the Chancellor, Lovering could have finally settled the contract to build Law’s house just three days after his morose letter to Nicholson. Lovering could now also sign Tayloe's contract. That contract has not been found. Work began in early May.(28)

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.(29) 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. He knew that it was in the realm of possibility that Nicholson might dun him. Evidently, what correspondence remains between Tayloe and Lovering was devoted to problems building the house. Ridout worked with Tayloe's papers and found nothing about the design of the Octagon.

Lovering all but declared that he designed the Octagon and Law's house in the advertisement he placed in the local newspapers a year later on May 1, 1800: "William Lovering, Architect and General Builder – Begs leave to inform his friends and the public, that he has removed from the City of Washington to Gay Street, the next street above the Union Tavern in Georgetown, where he plans to estimate all manner of building, either with materials and labor, or labor only. Specimens of buildings suitable for the obtuse or acute angles of the streets of the City of Washington, may be seen at his home."

In Building the Octagon, Ridout quotes the ad and characterizes it as a mere builder taking advantage of what he was learning while building a house designed by a genius: "Supervising architect William Lovering attempted to capitalize on his experience with the unorthodox plan of the Octagon by soliciting other commissions for the eccentrically shaped lots so common in Washington."(30) However, Lovering's ad did not merely offer "his experience." He offered to share "specimens of buildings," that is, plans and elevations to illustrate what could be built on angled lots. If he had followed the same pattern of trying to get a contract with Law and Tayloe as he would with Stier, then he made at least three specimens for each building, affording a client a choice of six solutions to the problem faced by building in an angled lot. Lovering was trying to get work based on his experience as a designer, not merely on his experience as a builder.

Meanwhile, Thornton looked forward to the arrival of Driver and Clifden. The last mention of Tayloe in a letter that Thornton wrote to the General was in a September 1799 letter excusing his not going out to Mount Vernon: "We 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." Hamilton  had something in common with Tayloe. His "Woodlands" outside of Philadelphia had oval rooms. However, he was a connoisseur of garden plants and likely came to see Thornton's illustrations for the unpublished Flora Tortoliensis. The conjunction of Tayloe and Hamilton, men with oval rooms, did not inspire Thornton to develop that theme in his letter to the General.(32)

He didn't say how he and Mrs. Thornton spent the day with Tayloe. He probably visited Thornton to see his stable of horses. They would soon be competitors and doing business in that regard. Clifden and Driver, the two English horses Thornton imported, would arrive in Norfolk in the fall.(33) There is no evidence that Tayloe helped Thornton buy and import his horses. When he advertised Clifden's services as a stud, he quoted a 1799 letter from his cousin Isaac Pickering, who was the son of the Lieutenant Governor of the British Virgin Islands, that verified the  horse's pedigree. Cousin Isaac lived in England and in 1798 was listed as owning 6 of the 104 plantations on Tortola. In a 1792 letter, Thornton wrote to his family's agent in England soliciting a loan, and burnished his credit rating by noting a previous loan from Pickering "for the horses" that he evidently had shipped from England to Tortola.(34)

Thornton would send Driver to Mount Airy to be trained and race in May. Unfortunately, in their correspondence Thornton and the General did not talk about thoroughbreds. The General enjoyed watching a race. He had once owned a horse descended from an Arabian horse, but Magnolia didn't fetch much money as a stud. He traded him for land and in 1788 vowed to only breed mules. In August 1798, when he found that he needed a "riding horse," he asked his old friend William Fitzhugh, a lion of the turf, to buy one for no more than $400.(35) It made no sense for Thornton to brag about his imported horses to the General especially after he had pleaded poverty for not being able to build next to the General's houses.

Instead, in his September 1 letter to the General, Thornton wrote about the future of the city. The General had forwarded a letter from Secretary of State Pickering to the commissioners offering a plan for the federal city's docks that would prevent yellow fever. Thornton reacted to that: "it is a highly interesting subject and one I have urged, for three years to the board." Then he noted continuing lot sales and added that "the Trustees, of Morris & Nicholson, are going to finish the Houses at the Point." Then as he often did, he projected into the future of the city's public space. He noted that "the navy-yard will be fixed... where I recommended it." He had prevented it from being placed on the square designated for the Marine Hospital. He also had preserved the reservation for "a military academy, for parade-ground, for the exercise of the great guns, for magazines, etc., etc." Then he found even higher ground: "I am jealous of innovations where decisions have been made after mature deliberation, and I yet hope that the city will be preserved from that extensive injury contemplated by some never-to-be-content and covetous individuals."(36)

That covetous marplot was undoubtedly George Walker. In May1799, his colleagues ruined Thornton's scheme to reserve for public purposes those small parcels of land left outside of building lots where angled avenues made intersections. He wanted them used for "churches, temples, infirmaries, public academies, dispensaries, market, public walks, fountains, statues, obelisks, & c." In a letter to the General, Thornton described Walker's request as an assault on the Plan. Washington sent the board a stern letter supporting Thornton. Walker wanted the parcels to give buyers of his clear access to streets. He wondered what "gods or goddesses" Thornton wanted honored in his "temples." Scott and White didn't back down and quietly granted Walker's wish, which didn't make it easier to attract buyers. Walker soon returned to Scotland and died in 1802.(37)

One letter written at the time gave an idea of the table talk at Mount Vernon when Thornton was there. Washington employed a secretary and in 1799, Tobias Lear, a failed Federal city merchant, had his old job back. Back in 1793 when Thornton heard that Greenleaf had backed Lear for a business trip to London, Thornton had applied in vain to be Washington's secretary. On September 12, 1799, Lear wrote to Thornton thanking him for some recent medical advice about treatment of a lame leg. He also revealed what was likely the drift of Thornton's conversation when they sat around the table at Mount Vernon:

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. 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.(38)

In his September 12 letter, Lear mentioned that Mrs. Washington was recovering from a serious illness. Thornton rushed to Mount Vernon and spent four nights. On September 20, the General started a process that led to Thornton designing a house. In 1797, Washington's nephew Lawrence, then a widower, moved into Mount Vernon. His living there led to his courtship of Nelly Custis, Martha Washington's third grand daughter, and their marriage at Mount Vernon on February 22, 1799. The newly weds lived at Mount Vernon. Since he planned to give the Mount Vernon house to another nephew, on September 20, Washington revealed that portion of his will that bequeathed 2000 acres of the Mount Vernon estate to Lewis for the express purpose of his building a house. Washington advised him that "few better sites for a house than Grays hill, and that range, are to be found in this County, or elsewhere." Washington urged him to build quickly and if Washington changed his mind he would cover the cost of Lewis's building expenses. Washington seemed to be prodding Lewis, who had a tendency to sickness and repose, to do something.

The General was somewhat repeating what he did in September 1798, deciding on a house, that led to a contract signed in November, ground breaking in April and construction during the summer. However, the General's nephew would not be hurried. In August 1800, Thornton would give a plan for his country house that would be finished in 1805. It's not certain when Thornton began making his plan, but in the half dozen letters exchanged between the General and Thornton, there is no mention of it.(39)

After his September visit, Thornton wrote four letters to Washington that have been lost. Washington answered them all. Save for thanking Thornton's step-father in Tortola for "the politeness he has been pleased be stow on me," the first three letters were all about the Capitol Hill houses especially painting and plastering in which Washington schooled Thornton. He took Thornton's advice in so far as wanting to sell the houses as soon as possible. 

In November, the General came to the city to inspect his houses on Capitol Hill. Tayloe family lore describes his making frequent inspections of the progress on the Octagon. When he came in August and then again in November, he probably did look at the house. In November, he also saw and enjoyed the interior of Law's house. Law would claim that "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.'"

Then Law accompanied the General back to Mount Vernon, as did Commissioner White, James Barry and Thornton. That was the prefect time for Thornton to reveal his genius as a residential architect. After they saw Law's oval rooms, he could have described the oval rooms planned for Tayloe's house. But, he had not designed those ovals. All the guests left the next morning.(41)

Ten days later, Thornton alluded to the two houses in a letter to President Adams. On November 21, 1799, Commissioners White and Thornton reported that while the buildings for congress and the Executive departments would be ready, finishing the President's house would cost $32,480.57 and raising that amount depended on collecting debts which was a problem. If the President's house wasn't ready in time, they assured the president "that a good house in a convenient situation may be provided at the seat of Government for the use of the President until that intended for his permanent residence shall be finished."

Then on December 13, 1799, Commissioner White paused in Leesburg, Virginia, during a snow storm as he made his way from the federal city to his home in Winchester. There he wrote a private letter to President Adams that amplified the assurance made in the board's letter. "It was not thought proper in a public paper to be more particular," White explained, "but the houses alluded to were, one building and in great forwardness near the Presidents Square, by Mr Tayloe of Virginia, and two new houses built by Mr. Carroll and Mr Law, near the Capital—Any one of these three is better than the President of the U. States, as such, has resided in—."(42)

White visited Mount Vernon as frequently as Thornton did. Washington wrote to his old friend White about things that he didn't discuss in his letters to Thornton. The General wrote letters to both of them on December 8, 1799. Both had written to him with news that the Maryland legislature bought stock in the Potomac Company. White's letter is missing but judging from Washington's reply, he discussed worries and rumors about a shortage of housing near the Capitol. In his reply, the General discussed the news about the Potomac Company. Then he sorted through rumors and innuendos about the housing situation that sought "to the attempt of diverting the followers of the Government from engaging houses in the vicinity of the Capitol." He trusted "that matters will still go right."

In his letter, Thornton reported that the attorney general ruled that the commissioners could not get a loan. Thornton also reported that the Maryland legislature approved plans to build a canal connecting the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Thornton knew that news would cheer the General and it did. Other correspondents shared the same news but only in his reply to Thornton did the General strike a tone celebrating the march of progress: "As a citizen of the United States, it gives me pleasure, at all times, to hear that works of public utility are resolved on, and in a state of progression—wheresoever adopted, and whensoever begun."

Then the General addressed the board's problem: "no doubt ever occured to my mind" that the commissioners could get a loan. Then, much as Thornton did in his September 1 letter, he celebrated the big picture and also vented his spleen: " by 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. Instead of a firey trial it would have been more appropriate to have said, it has passed, or is on its passage through, the Ordeal of local interests, destructive Jealousies, and inveterate prejudices; as difficult, and as dangerous I conceive, as any of the other ordeals."(43)

The General discussed housing problems with White, not with Thornton. That serves as evidence that he didn’t design and Tayloe’s and Law’s houses. At the same time, it is evident that the General truly liked the younger man so eager to serve and so eager to share his visions of the future. What vexations Thornton had caused had long been forgotten. The General had avoided other vexations by not giving Thornton too much head in the matter of building two plain houses on Capitol Hill. The General had much to do with Thornton rise, and Thornton knew it. A week after writing that stirring letter to Thornton, the General was dead.

Thornton joined the Laws as they hurried to Mount Vernon at the news of the General's decline, but they arrived a day late. Years later Thornton wrote down a curious twist to his grieving. He fantasized that he urged the family to take advantage of a winter cold spell which preserved the corpse and let him bring the General back to life with a tracheotomy and blood transfusion. Not a few biographers and historians dutifully record that Thornton did indeed suggest that.

The premise is false. Thornton recalled that the weather was "very cold, and he [the body] remained in a frozen state for many days." Judging by Thomas Jefferson's temperature readings at Monticello in the almost always colder Virginia foothills, the weather at Mount Vernon was not that cold. On December 15 at Monticello, it was 41 at 4 pm, 36 on the 16th and 41 on the 17th. It was cold the day he was buried on the 18th, only 22 at 4pm at Monticello.

Thornton's story contradicts what he actually said to the mourners. 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.(44)

Thornton knew that by corresponding with Washington, he became a part of history. In an 1804 pamphlet, he would brag about how many letters Washington wrote to him.(40) In the fall of 1799, Tayloe's house, Law's house and Washington's houses were on their way to completion. If Thornton had designed just one of them, he would claimed a place in history by writing about it in a letter to the General.

But while making much of a lack of evidence, what then to make of Lovering? If he did design the Octagon, as well as build it, why is there now no evidence that he did, especially since he was a professional architect? Why wasn't his May 1800 ad more explicit? In the spring of 1801, he advertised his services as a builder again. He only claimed: "Wm. Lovering has been in the practice of drawing for and superintending great part of the buildings in the City of Washington and vicinity." In 1804, he placed an in Alexandria, Virginia, "where he Draws, Designs, and makes estimates of all manner of Buildings and also MEASURES AND VALUES all the different work connected to the building art." He was ready to "contract for any building and complete the same, from a palace to a cottage, which will be executed in the most masterly and economic style." He claimed he had "long experience" but didn't list any houses he designed or built.

In 1809, he placed as ad in Baltimore, which exuded a complete command of his craft: "Begs leave to inform the gentlemen of Baltimore and its environs, that they may be supplied with plans, elevations and sections of any building intended to be erected, with the estimates of the different work particularized in a manner in which it is impossible for any dispute to arise, and gives instructions to the different workmen that they have no occasion to make any inquiry during the execution of the building." That same year, he placed an ad in Philadelphia.(45)

The best proof that Thornton didn't design the Octagon would be Tayloe crediting Lovering for the design. However, the house cost well over the contracted price of $13,000. In a June 14, 1801, letter to Lovering, Tayloe fumed "my Object is to be done with the building as quickly as I can with the least trouble and vexation - for the expense of it already alarms me to death when I think of it."(46) Tayloe's ire and the long time he took to build the house might explain why Lovering's May 1800 newspaper advertisement offering specimens of houses for lots with obtuse and acute angles did not attract any takers, except Thornton. It is also might explain why Tayloe is not known to have ever said a good word about Lovering. Stier also became vexed at Lovering because of delays in building his house. In a letter to his son, Stier called Lovering a "blockhead."(47)

That said, while working on the Octagon, Lovering prospered. In 1799, he married Mrs. Susan White, a Georgetown widow. He formed a partnership with the brickmaker William Lovell. They advertised for slaves, men and boys, to make bricks. Lovell supplied bricks for the Octagon and he also began building two brick houses near the President's square likely with Lovering designing and superintending them. In 1802, the Union Tavern and Washington Hotel opened and ads boasted that it had a "coffee room 34 feet by 22, and a room over same, now finishing." In 1794, one of the houses Lovering built for James Greenleaf was amenable to conversion to a hotel. One of the oval rooms he built for Thomas Law was 32 feet long.(48)

Lovering also supervised work at the Capitol. The House of Representatives decided being upstairs in the North Wing wouldn't do. To better accommodate its 106 members, the commissioners ordered a temporary meeting place built on the site of the South Wing. Once again the board needed the services of an architect and once again Thornton didn't mind Hoban making the design, with the caveats that it be elliptical in shape, use the foundation already laid and incorporate features that could be used when the permanent South Wing was built. President Jefferson agreed with that approach. All did not go well. On January 17, 1802, Commissioners Thornton and White wrote a letter to Lovering chiding him for being “so inattentive to the work places under your superintendence at the Capitol that Mr. Clagget and all his hands [likely his slaves] have quited the building.” Delays and cost overruns did not bode well for Lovering's future reputation.

The Seventh Congress convened on December 7, 1801, in what Thornton called "the elliptical room" and members soon called the "oven." It was that stuffy. More menacing were unstable walls that had to be buttressed on the outside. Thornton's orders didn't work out. In 1803, in his report on the condition of Capitol, written before his feud with Thornton began, Latrobe noted that the temporary building seemed to be "intended for the permanent basement of the elliptical colonnade" Latrobe found that foundation poorly laid and "wholly unfit to carry the weight of the colonnade."(49)

Lovering wrote to President Jefferson in 1802, but not about the Capitol. At the request of President Adams' servant, Lovering had made a contraption for drying linens but didn't finish it before Adams left office. Lovering was left holding the bill from the blacksmith who made the"mangle." On June 16, 1802, he mentioned the bill in a letter to Jefferson and offered to show his servants how to use the apparatus. Jefferson's secretary replied that there was no need nor money for it. His last known letters were written in 1805 to support Hoban's defense of his work on the President's house.

Lovering moved to Philadelphia by 1809 and then died in Baltimore in 1813. As an epitaph, it can be said that he built too many houses which diminished his reputation as an architect in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Thornton continued to factor prominently in the history of the city. There is more evidence cherished by Thornton's biographers that needs to be sifted. That evidence suggests that it was very unlikely that Thornton designed the Octagon.(50)

Unfortunately, none of that evidence points a finger at Lovering. He came to America, was almost ruined by the speculators, and, when given the opportunity, proved his skill. The houses he built and likely designed were notable in their local context, but the federal city grew very slowly. When the city's brief building boom petered out in 1803, Lovering did not have the resources and roots to persist. At the same time, Baltimore was booming and Philadelphia weathered both epidemics and spectacular bankruptcies and remained the nation's leading city. In 1805, Lovering was likely 55 years old, not an easy time to start a new life, but he tried and evidently didn't make a memorable mark in those booming cities would might have echoed his accomplishments in the federal city. Thornton never drew a rhetorical sword against Lovering. Judging from very brief mentions in Mrs. Thornton's diary and notebooks, Lovering and her husband got along well enough. Thornton could have sealed Lovering's fame since he was familiar with his trials and triumphs. But when he once wrote that Lovering was "an ingenious A," he quickly crossed it out.

Chapter 13

Footnotes for Chapter 12

1.   GW to Tayloe, 23 January 1799, for GW's interest in asses see 23 January 1799 to Robert Lewis.

2.  Tayloe to GW, 10 February 1799, and footnotes

3. GW to Tayloe 12 February 1799; Harris, p. 584.

4. GW's diary 7 February 1799;

5. Lovering to Nicholson 9 March 1799, Nicholson Papers. 

6.  In his contract with Blagden, the General required $4,000 security which the contractor established thanks to Hoban backing him, see footnotes to GW to commrs., 27 October 1798

7.  Ridout, p. 65

8.  WT to GW 25 October 1798;  WT to GW, 19 April 1799.

10. Anna Maria Thornton Papers,  vol. 1, image.

11. Ridout, p. 61.

12. Commrs. Proceedings, 2 and 15 January 1799.

13.  Jefferson to White, 2 July 1802; White to Jefferson, 13 July 1802

14. WT to GW 14 February 1799, 

15.  Proceedings 18 March 1799; Hoban to Commrs. 12 March 1799; Middleton to Commrs 22 March 1799

16. Hoban to commrs. 12 March 1799; Commrs to Hoban 28 March 1799, Commrs. records

17. Arnebeck, Fiery Trial, p. 515; Proceedings, 2 and 4 April 1799; Centinel of Liberty 16 April 1799 p. 1

18.  Hoban to Commrs. 15 April 1799; Commrs. to WT,  ;

19. C. M. Harris tries to make the case that Thornton did make drawings. But he quotes from the commissioners' proceedings several months after Hoban called his bluff. The board directed Hoban to "furnish him, in conformity to drawing given to John Kearney by Wm. Thornton - in the ancient Ionic stile, but with volutes like the modern ionic." That hardly proves that anyone previously relied on Thornton for drawings. That passage in the proceedings was written by Thornton himself, Harris pp. 488-90; 

20. WT to Commrs. 17 April 1799; Chambers, Treatise, vol. II, pp. 368. 408, 425; Commrs to Hoban, 18 April 1799, Commrs. records.

21. April 27 entry in notebook or Almanac in Thornton's papers in Library of Congress, reel 7.

22. 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

23. Lovering to Nicholson, 27 December 1798 and 4 January 1799.

24.  Lovering to Nicholson, 22 January 1799

25. Lovering to Nicholson 26 March & 17 April 1799.

26. Lovering to Nicholson 22 April 1799.

27. Sarson, Steven,  The Tobacco-Plantation South in the Early American Atlantic World, pp. 11-2.

28. Law to GW, 25 April 1799.

29. Commrs to Lovering 9 May 1799 Commrs. records.

30. Ridout, p. 123.

32. WT to GW 1 September 1799; "William Hamilton" in Natl. Gallery of Art, History of Early American Landscape Design (on-line).

33. Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, page 129, 14 April 1800.

34. WT to Dick 26 September 1792, Harris, Papers of William Thornton; Jenkins, Tortola, p. 75.

35. 30 November 1788, GW to Henry Lee, GW to William Fitzhugh 5 August 1798 Founders online.

36.  WT to GW, 1 September, 1799; Pickering lost a son to the 1793 epidemic. GW to WT, 5 September 1799, Founders online.

37. WT to GW, 31 May, 1799; Walker to GW, 5 August, 1799, Founders online.

38.  Lear to WT, 12 September 1799, Harris, pp. 508-9.

39. GW's diary, 13 September 1799; GW to Lewis, 20 September 1799.

40.  GW to WT, 6 October 1799;Thornton,  William, "Political Economy: Founded in Justice and Humanity, in a letter to a friend" 1804.

41. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams Papers; GW's diary 11 November 1799.

42. Commrs to Adams, 21 November 1799, Commrs. records; White to Adams 13 December 1799 (the editors of the on-line papers transcribed "Taylor" but the letter clearly reads "Tayloe.")

43. GW to White 8 December 1799; GW to WT 8 December 1799.

44.  Jefferson, Thomas, "Daily Record, 1 July 1776-18 December 1799" Jefferson Paper, series 7 vol, 2, Library of Congress, page 25; "Tobias Lear, a minute account of the sickness and death of the George Washington," William Clements Library digital collections; 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.

45. Natl. Intelligencer 8 May 1801; Alexandria Daily Advertiser, vol. 4, no. 1060, page 4, 11 August 1804 ; American Commer. Adv. 17 June 1809; Poulson's Amer. Daily 23 September1809.

46. John Tayloe letterbook, quoted in Kamoie dissertation p. 200 footnote.

47. Callcott, Margaret, editor, ...Letters of Rosalie Stier Calvert, p.29.

48. Natl. Intelligencer January 23, 1800. Ridout, p. 137 n. 20; Commissioners proceedings, May 15, 1800; National Intelligencer ad date 26 November 1802.

49. Commrs. Records; Claggett and his slaves who he insisted should be paid the wages of skilled workers also worked at the Octagon. Tayloe refused and Claggett won a court case against him; Latrobe to president******------ p.279.

50. Lovering to Jefferson, 16 June 1802; Washington Federalist, 6 March 1805, p. 2;  Baltimore City Directory. 1810, p. 117; AMT notebook vol. 3 image 124; Brereton-Goodwin, Faye, "Thomas Brereton of Dublin, Ireland, Pennsylvania USA"p. 23: Lovering's third wife moved in with her step-daughter's family after William Lovering died. Amelia Lovering married Capt. John Brereton, USN, in 1814.