Chapter 10: The Case of the Ingenious A: Tayloe’s House

 

The contract Lovering signed with Law called for a parapet. Tayloe's house would also have a parapet. Law, Lovering, Tayloe and Thornton were familiar with London standards. Of course, that the Octagon has a parapet is cited as proof that Thornton designed the house. A more informing inference is that since Thornton didn’t mention Tayloe’s or Law’s pediments in his December 1798 exchange with the General, then he clearly hadn’t designed those houses. Then again, Tayloe probably didn’t have a design from his house by December 1798. Also, given what the General and Tayloe wrote to each other in January and February, neither gentleman burdened the other with design ideas. The only concern they shared was raising money to pay for their houses. In January 1799, the General broke the ice in that regard. He tried to get cash from Tayloe, not as a loan, but in return for a prize mule. However, the General was in no way crass. They had been corresponding about far more important matters and he mentioned his houses by-the-way.

The General notified Tayloe on January 23 that the Senate confirmed his nomination to be one of two majors in the dragoons in the Provisional Army that President Adams asked the General to raise to deter French aggression. He also recalled that in late 1797, Tayloe had expressed interest in buying "Jack Asses when I shd be disposed to part with any." The General offered him "three for $800, and one for $300." He added that "Ready money would be very convenient to me, as my buildings in the City call for it...."  In his reply sent on February 10, Tayloe worried that becoming an officer would force him to vacate his seat in the Virginia senate. He added that "respecting the Jack," 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.”

The General replied promptly and assured him that he need not accept the commission until the war actually started. He didn't mention their houses, or Thornton who had just spent two nights at Mount Vernon. Their exchange of letters suggests that the General was unaware that Tayloe also faced the burden of financing a house. That in turn suggests that Tayloe had just put his mind to solving that problem. Since he bought the lot in 1797, Tayloe had diversified his fame by, “with an infinity of fatigue,” becoming a senator in the Virginia legislature. That, he thought, destined him for a seat in congress. But he would not run in the upcoming April 1799 election. He intimated to the General that he would run in 1801 and that meant he did not need a house in the federal city until December 1801.

Historians crown him as the richest Virginian of his day with an estimated annual income of $60,000 a year. Contemporaries credited him with making $10,000 off breeding and racing horses. He was of that happy set of men who could toy with the future, especially with a genius like Thornton thinking about putting a house in his problematic lot since 1797. But do the psychology: his father died when John III was eight; when he reached his majority, he inherited everything; his seven older sisters may have bowed in reverence, but did their husband's? He had to have the best of everything but not to the point of folly. He needed a house of quality but could not be embarrassed by a L'Enfant. The house he had designed and built in Philadelphia was soon called “Morris’s Folly.” Whoever designed the Octagon was not given a carte blanche. All that points to Lovering as the designer of his house, if he could solve his insolvency problem.

All the evidence that Thornton designed the Octagon is in Thornton’s papers, not Tayloe’s. There are two undated and unsigned floor plans similar to the Octagon, but there is no evidence that Tayloe ever saw them. Ridout describes one as "a jumble of conflicting and asymmetrically placed geometric forms." He suggests that Thornton drew it before Tayloe bought the problematic lot in 1797 just to prove that a house could fit into it and conform to building regulations. Then he provided “a more thoughtfully executed plan” after Tayloe bought the lot. All to say, Thornton could have worked on a design for the house anytime between April 1797 and May X, 1799, when ground was broken. As an example of how Thornton may have gone about it, Ridout quotes Mrs. Thornton’s 1800 diary that described how a March 12 note from Daniel Carroll of Duddington asked Thornton to draw a design for two conjoined houses that they had previously discussed. On March 14, Thornton showed Carroll the design and on March 26 Thornton saw the houses being built. Given that work on the Tayloe house began May 7, 1799, then Thornton could have offered his design as late as April 23.

However, the date of the design can be narrowed to around February 1799. In a March 9 letter Lovering informed Nicholson that “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.” That Tayloe almost made a contract with Lovering before March 9 does not prove that he designed the house. Contracts need only specify the features of a house that he would build. As he would tell Stier, he didn't necessarily have to build one of the designs he drew for Stier. But there had to be some semblance of a design before a contract could be drawn up that one could put a price tag on. Vexed about every shilling, Tayloe would be careful that regard.

In the winter of 1799, could Tayloe have gotten a design from Thornton in the same way Carroll did in 1800? Extrapolating that process of notes and personal visits. Tayloe wasn’t in the city. In late January, the Tayloes had their third child. Tayloe joined his wife during her confinement. That done, in March he headed north to see the General and the secretary of war in Philadelphia. Then he got ill on the road and returned to Mount Airy6 After a quick visit to Mount Vernon on April 17, Tayloe signed the contract for his house. On April 19, Thornton so informed the General. For the Carroll model to hold, Thornton would have to give his design to Tayloe on the 18th, listen to his reaction, then revise the design. Once Tayloe accepted, with the advice of a carpenter and mason, or Lovering, someone would have had to stay up all night drawing up a contract.

In 1869, a local gossip column reported that William Henry Tayloe shared information about the Octagon with the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District. He noted that “the contract was made with William H. Dorsey." The contract is no longer extant. Tayloe also shared the names of contractors used to build the house, and didn’t mention Lovering.7  If Tayloe had the contract in hand, it evidently did not mention who designed the house. In a recollection he wrote for his son in 1870, he would credit Thornton. Dorsey was a Georgetown lawyer and state senator in Annapolis who was well known to Thornton professionally and socially. Dorsey could have easily asked Thornton for a design and then written to Tayloe all about it. But that would have taken weeks. Dorsey also knew Lovering.

During the summer of 1798, ever worried that he might be arrested, the arrival of his adult son from his first marriage added to Lovering's burdens. He began to plan a return to England. At the end of August, a friend of Nicholson's warned the speculator of the possible loss of “a man of abilities." Laying out Law's lot two weeks later kept him in the country. In the fall of 1798, while Lovering waited for the Maryland legislature to convene, he had to advertise his intention to ask for protection under Maryland's insolvency laws. His advertisement excited his creditors, who then leaned on the sheriff to arrest him. On December 4, Lovering wrote to Nicholson that “the advertisement of my intentions has been a great injury to me for I should have had several buildings.…"

In that same letter, he told Nicholson that he had conferred with Dorsey about the Greenleaf Point property. The five Philadelphia trustees who were trying to wring some money out of the speculators for the benefit of their creditors, hired Dorsey to represent them in Maryland. Lovering knew more about the property than anyone. He also mentioned to Nicholson that several legislators were helping him get insolvency protection. Senator Dorsey may have been one.8 However, other legislators questioned whether he was a citizen of Maryland, a requisite for getting protection. (Until congress moved to the District of Columbia, all who lived in the federal city lived in Maryland.) Just before adjourning in January, the legislature passed a bill granting him protection, provided he could prove his citizenship to the Chancellor, who was the highest legal officer in the state. When he appeared before the Chancellor for a final decision, creditors complained about the inadequacy of Lovering's bookkeeping, and his case was put off until February.

Lovering viewed the snag as a mere formality. On January 22, 1799, he appealed to Nicholson and Morris on their honor not to use his insolvency petition as a pretext for withholding what they owed him. Lovering understood that they were short of cash so he asked for Tennessee land as compensation, and claimed that he planned to go to London in the spring where he could easily sell it. Evidently, soon after he wrote that letter, he learned of Tayloe's project, likely from Dorsey.9 He likely tried to land a contract with Tayloe. In 1795 and 1797, he had made visits to Philadelphia. Mount Airy was closer. It is possible that he met with Tayloe but there is no evidence that he did.

Of course, that leaves the question: how did Lovering who lost a contract in March get a job in May? Dorsey would pay him $900 for his services which combined with $600 working for Law and at least one other job for $400 inspired Lovering to marry his third wife in December 1799, as noted by a Georgetown newspaper. How his problems were solved suggests that he designed the Octagon.

Lovering lost the contract on Tayloe's house because he could not put up security. The General required that Bladgen offer a $4,000 security for his $12,000 house. Hoban, who owned property in the city, backed Blagden. That Dorsey drew up a contract to be signed by himself and Tayloe was likely their way of relieving Lovering, who supplied all the specifications in the contract, from having to put up security. Lovering would advise but Dorsey would handle all the money. But even that  could be stymied by creditors.

On April 10, the new sheriff notified Lovering that his creditors had writs that would force the seizure of all his property the following day. The sheriff would also put a notice in the newspaper warning people not to do business with Lovering. Because court was in session at the county seat in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, there were no lawyers in town to help Lovering. Someone advised him to hurry to Annapolis and see the Chancellor. Lovering lacked money for the trip. He got it from Thomas Law. In Annapolis, Lovering saw the Chancellor, who quashed the sheriff's writs. This is such a fairy tale ending to Lovering's crisis that one has to suspect the fine hand of a superior power. Indeed, in November, the legislature had elected Benjamin Ogle governor. He was Tayloe's father-in-law. Lovering had the joy of writing to Nicholson about the reaction of their creditors when Lovering gave them the Chancellor's order: “You would have been pleased to see their chagrin." However, beaten down so long, Lovering evidently didn't anticipate that he would soon have three jobs. In an April 22 letter to Nicholson, Lovering sounded like a man with no hope: “I have nothing to do here and shall be soon be on my way to Philadelphia, as I now am down to the last shilling without any hope of getting any relief,...” 

Then suddenly, Lovering landed on his feet. On April 25, 1799, Thomas Law wrote to George Washington that “your corner stone is to be laid today and I am to attend” and that same day Law would sign a building contract. Presumably, thanks to the Chancellor's order, Lovering signed that contract to build Law’s house just three days after his morose letter to Nicholson. Maryland legislators had arranged another job for him. During its session the Maryland legislature had authorized a tax levy for repairs to or replacement of the Prince George's County Courthouse in Upper Marlboro. On April 26, the justices of the Levy Court opted for a new courthouse and asked "William Lovering of the City of Washington Architect, to draft a plan thereof...." He would receive $400 for his design and construction of the building would be under his "Direction and Inspection." Would Dorsey and Tayloe go to such lengths to help Lovering only because he was a good carpenter? But he never explicitly claimed the he designed and built the house.

However, in May 1800, Lovering owned the design for Law’s and Tayloe’s house in a newspaper advertisement: "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." 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. He was trying to get work based on his experience as a designer, not merely on his experience as a builder Indeed, assuming that he wooed Tayloe just as he would woo Stier, then there were at least three floor plans that were extant suitable for a house to face an intersection that formed an acute, one of those not used could have wound up as the “thoughtful” design now in Thornton’s papers.

Could Lovering have been more explicit? In 1807, master carpenter Andrew McDonald advertised his services with this reminder. He had "finished the buildings on Rock Hill, near Georgetown, for the late Gustavus Scott, esq...; and also finished that elegant building belonging to Colonel John Tayloe..." So, why didn't Lovering associate his name with Tayloe's house? Lovering probably decided that he could not publicly claim his designs because that would diminish the glory of house owners like Tayloe, Law and Stier. Instead, he had to rely on their good word, which he probably never heard. On June 14, 1801, Tayloe wrote to Lovering: "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." Dorsey calculated that the project cost $28,476.82 well over the contract price of $13,000. That should temper modern claims that it was "constructed with enslaved labor." By the way, in that letter Tayloe demanded that McDonald be fired. Stier also became vexed at Lovering because of delays in building his house. In a letter to his son, Stier called Lovering a "blockhead."

In his future advertisements, Lovering did not reveal what he had designed or built. In an April 1801 ad, he claimed that he had "been in the practice of drawing for and superintending great part of the buildings in the City of Washington and vicinity." But he didn't say which ones. In an 1804 ad, he announced that he had relocated to Alexandria "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 an ad in Baltimore, which exuded a complete command of his profession: "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." He also offered to build and added: "his abilities may be known by resorting to different works which he has executed..."12 He mastered his profession and left his mark on houses throughout the federal city then he moved on to Baltimore, Philadelphia and back to Baltimore where he died in 1813.

His modern reputation for architectural design suffers because he built too many houses. He was also the wrong type of man that architects in the modern era wanted to honor. A man trained as a carpenter who the exigencies of the moment forced into making memorable designs could not compare to Dr. William Thornton M.D. It was better for their purposes to honor a talented amateur who had never built anything and heralding his success proves the supremacy of design over engineering.

A 2025 on-line description of Tayloe’s house leaves no doubt of Thornton’s brilliance:

This three-story brick house breaks with the traditional late Georgian and early Federal house planning that preceded it. Many of the leading European architects of the late 18th century sought to achieve a new direction in architecture through a design philosophy that sought to combine simple, basic geometrical shapes while using a minimum of unnecessary decoration. Thornton, the Octagon’s architect, traveled extensively in both England and in France and was no doubt alive to this philosophy. Presented with a building site that did not lend itself readily to a stereotyped solution, Thornton took full advantage of his opportunity and brought to the new Federal City a building of startling freshness and originality which has never been surpassed.13

Given that, to attribute the design of the Octagon to Lovering, an architect whose design philosophy was to please the client, is a sacrilege. It damns the history of architecture to mean considerations. It suggests that Tayloe saw that an oval room solved the problematic building lot and that “using a minimum of unnecessary decoration” went easier on the pocket book.

Lovering’s advertisements don’t explicitly say that he designed the Octagon but the evidence cited in favor Thornton as the designer is less persuasive. In the editorial notes in The Papers of William Thornton, C. M. Harris suggests  that Thornton designed the house after the contract was written and work began: "Thornton's work on his design for Tayloe can be dated to the period between April and September 1799 on the basis of letters he wrote to George Washington."14 He didn’t cite any particular evidence. In his April 19 letter, Thornton only informed the General that Tayloe had signed a contract for $13,000. The bulk of his letter described how he tried to superintend construction of the General’s houses. He inspected the work and told Blagden’s men to replace a wooden sill with a stone sill as specified in the contract. If he had designed Tayloe’s house, he could have burnished his credentials as a superintending architect by revealing his role in helping Tayloe. Instead, his news about Tayloe’s house was just one of three short items of gossip along with a sudden death and tourists heading for Mount Vernon. The General did not respond to his being a busy-body at the Capitol Hill house site and Thornton never did it again. On September 1, in reply to a note from the General about his next payment to Blagden, Thornton wrote a long letter that tried to compensate for he and his wife not making a visit to Mount Vernon as they had hoped. Instead, “Mr Tayloe of Mount Airy spent the Day with us…” Then after explaining the latest bill from Blagden, he reported on progress in the city without mentioning Tayloe's house.

Harris also cites seven visits to the house in 1800 mentioned in Mrs. Thornton’s diary. In only one did she write anything about the house. On January 7, they “walked to take a look at Mr. Tayloe’s house which begins to make a handsome appearance.” Harris suggests that her husband was checking on the house he designed. However, as is often the case in diaries, the sentence before she described her walk relates to the walk: "The Commissioners received a letter from the Secy of the Navy (Mr. Stoddert) mentioning that the President's time being expired in the house he now occupies that he intends removing his furniture here in June." The letter also shared the president’s anger at any suggestion that he live elsewhere. In November 1799, Thornton and White had formed the board and wrote a letter alerting President Adams that for lack of money the President's house might not be finished when he moved to the city. If so, they claimed there were three houses that might be rented each better than what the president rented in Philadelphia. In a private letter sent in December, White revealed what houses he and Thornton had in mind: Tayloe's house, Law's house and the mansion Daniel Carroll had built in 1798 just south of Capitol Hill. The Carrolls had moved into their house; the Laws were showing theirs off, but Tayloes was half done. The Tayloes did not expect to move into their house until the fall of 1801.On January 7, Scott likely told Thornton to look at Tayloe’s house and see first hand that his and White’s suggestion that the president could live there was nonsense.

In November, Thornton went inside to see Coade chimney pieces just imported from London. Harris thinks they as well as an iron stove from Carron Iron Work near Edinburgh "likely reflect Thornton's specific recommendations." While touring with Faujas in 1784, Thornton visited the Carron works. Of course, Tayloe was educated in England and no stranger to the stoves of his rich friends. Lovering had worked in London. Harris notes that in a 1797 letter to Nicholson, that Lovering mentioned using Coade stone in a house he built on Greenleaf's Point. In early December, Mrs. Thornton found time to see the chimney pieces but wrote nothing about them, the interior of the house, or her husband having anything to do with it. Tayloe's weren't the only chimney pieces that Thornton went out of his way to see in 1800. Back in May, she noted that her husband previewed a sale of chimney pieces at Tunnicliff's hotel.

Ridout takes another tack to associate Thornton with perhaps the most photographed decorative element in the house. Glenn Brown, by the way, thought Thornton designed its decorations. As it turned out, not all of the Coade shipment arrived which, in July 1801, prompted Tayloe to head a letter to Coade: "Mr. Coade - ought to be Mr. Shark." In September, George Andrews, an ornament maker that Thornton hired in 1800 to ornament the interior walls of the President's house, came to the rescue. That convinces Ridout that "Thornton can doubtless by credited with Andrew's employment at the Octagon." However, since May, Andrews had been advertising that he made chimney pieces and his "Composition Manufactory" was "in the rear of the President's house."16 Dorsey and Lovering likely noticed him.

Harris and Pamela Scott also cite the diary to prove that Thornton designed Law’s house. She described a visit to the house with her husband, Mrs. Law’s sister and her husband Thomas Peter. Harris opines that "Thornton's role... is partially but substantially documented by his wife's diary for 1800." On Sunday January 12, they found Law's house locked. So, they "entered by the kitchen Window and went all over it— It is a very pleasant roomy house but the Oval drawing room is spoiled by the lowness of the Ceiling, and two Niches, which destroy the shape of the Room….” Her only other mention of the house came on February 17: "Mr. Law is fixed in his new house and is quite pleased with it...."

Certainly, that Thornton climbed through the kitchen window to get inside suggests he had some authority, though his friendship with Law and his touring with Mrs. Law's sister might have given him sufficient license to do that. Pamela Scott puts it this way: "It was designed by William Thornton, and was 'a very pleasant roomy house' according to Anna Maria Thornton."18 But how does one account for Mrs. Thornton's criticism of the oval drawing room's low ceiling? Her husband likely informed it. In 1797, Thornton had written to Dr. Fothergill about the Capitol's as yet unbuilt grand oval vestibule that was 114 feet in diameter and "full of broad prominent lights and broad deep shadows." He originally called the grand oval vestibule “the dome.” Perhaps, when he saw the floor plan for Law’s house, he did not understand that the oval rooms would be 12 and 10 feet high. Fitting oval rooms into a five story townhouse was alien to Thornton's sensibilities.19 By the way, Tayloe's oval room also had a 12 foot ceiling.

Harris and Ridout miss two diary entries that help prove that Thornton did not design the Octagon. On February 1, she noted:  "The ground covered with the deepest snow we have ever seen here (in 5 yrs.) - river frozen over. Dr. T- engaged in drawing at his plan for a House to build one day or another on Sq. 171." He evidently finished the design on February 2. On the 4th, Mrs. Thornton  "began to copy on a larger scale the elevation and ground plan of the house."20

What Thornton drew suggests that he didn't design the Octagon. Her diary told a simple story. He didn't like Law's oval room. So he designed a house with better oval rooms. His wife thought Law's house roomy and Tayloe's brick wall handsome, so he showed her what a handsome and roomy house should look like The larger design with oval rooms in Thornton's papers that is thought to be his first take on the Octagon design, is likely his final design for a house on Lot 17 in Square 171. Thornton designed a house to rival Tayloe's and Law's. A slope to the south toward the river precluded building on the western half of Square 171 until the area was leveled. A house on lot 17 at the angled intersection of New York Avenue and 17th Street NW would face the President's house. That left Thornton with the same problem that the architect of the Octagon and Law's house had solved. That meant he could copy Lovering's solution and out do it with a nobler house. Someone looking down from the President’s house would see a miniature of Thornton’s Capitol.     Thornton's habit of studying floor plans and elevations in books before drawing his own suggests that he asked Lovering for one of his preliminary plans for the Octagon. In May 1800, he may have advertised that he had them because of the interest Thornton showed in them back in January.

Harris and Ridout don’t mention references to Tayloe in the diary likely because one can easily infer that the budding friendship between Thornton and Tayloe was about horses. In November 1799, Clifden and Driver arrived in Newport. The day Thornton spent with Tayloe in late August 1799 likely involved a tour of Thornton’s farm and stables. Indeed, on April 27, 1799, Thornton may have done Tayloe a favor that Tayloe repaid by advising him how to train Driver. On that day, Thornton jotted down in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot." The official process of setting out a lot required a representative of the board in consultation with the builder and/or property owner to ascertain that the design conformed to building regulations. Thornton didn't note who represented Tayloe, who wasn't there. He had returned to Mount Airy for the crucial Virginia elections.21 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 gotten a pass, but Tayloe's design was different. The front wall with a projecting oval had several feet of flat wall on either side of the bow. That part of the wall did not parallel the nearby streets. It marked a hypotenuse to the angled intersection. Thornton was likely there representing the commissioners so that he could do Tayloe a favor for the very good reason that he needed Tayloe's services to train Driver. Offering a house design is a dangerous favor to give. New houses can be costly and problematical, but bending a rule?

On January 24, 1800, on his way from Mount Airy to Annapolis, Tayloe sent a message to Thornton who was in nearby Virginia trying to get a gentleman to take a filly and share profits from the sale of her future foals. While returning home after a tea in Georgetown, Mrs. Thornton bumped into her husband on his way to Georgetown to see Tayloe at the Union Tavern. The doctor got back home at 9 pm. Tayloe had to get an early start for Annapolis in the morning. When in Annapolis, Tayloe graciously helped determine the legal status of property in Georgetown owned by Thornton's sister-in-law who lived in the Virgin Islands. They evidently also talked about horses.22

In February 1800, Mrs. Thornton would account for their 23 horses and note that Driver would soon be sent to Mount Airy to be trained for racing by Tayloe. In the spring of 1800, Thornton entered the informal Maryland brotherhood of breeders. Page 4 of the April 7, 1800, Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertisers was full of its doings. An advertisement offered the stud services of "The Celebrated Running Horse Clifden, imported from England last autumn by William Thornton, esquire, of the city of Washington...." On the same page, a notice from the commissioners was signed by Thornton. But Tayloe dominated the page. There was a longer ad offering the services of Mufti, "imported last August by John Tayloe, esquire, of Mount Airy;" a long ad about Ranger noted that he had beaten Ridgely's Medley who "ran a dead heat with Major Tayloe's Leviathan, who is thought the best horse in Virginia;" and a letter from Tayloe certifying the pedigree of Dunganon and that he was sold "out of training for 500 Guineas."23

Profiting off their horses that year took on added importance for the Thorntons because money did not come from the Tortola plantation as it usually did. Thornton needed a loan from Thomas Law to cover $2,358.43 due in 75 days for a bounced check and hefty penalty. However, the Thorntons didn't stint on entertaining the many important newcomers to the city. The Thorntons also expected Driver to return ready to race and win purses. Then  on June 18, the same day they entertained the secretaries of State, War and the Navy, Mrs. Thornton wrote "Driver returned from Virginia in the Afternoon, lame and in bad plight."24

Judging from her diary, the Thorntons cut Tayloe off. If Tayloe came to the city or Georgetown again while his house was being built, she didn't mention it her diary. Her husband went to the November 1800 Alexandria races which Tayloe dominated but she didn’t mention that or that her husband saw him.25 If Mrs. Thornton kept a diary in 1801 and 1802, they are no longer extant. They might have revealed her and her husband’s reaction to Tayloe ruining Driver. Thornton waited until the spring of 1802 just after the Tayloe moved into their new winter home to publicly attack Tayloe.

In May 1801, Tayloe lost his election for a congressional seat by 307 votes, but it wasn't close. There were only 1107 voters. Defeat must have stung because he arranged another way to add eclat to his making the federal city his family's winter home. In December 1801, he heralded his arrival in a signed notice in the Washington Federalist newspaper. He would become a resident of the City of Washington "...on or about" January 10, 1802. That meant his house was effectively finished, but that was not the point of his notice. In it, he invited a match race with anyone and "can be accommodated, for his own sum, not less than $1500." William O. Sprigg responded and a match race for $3000 was scheduled for May 13. Sprigg's horse had beaten Tayloe's in the city's first Jockey Club races in November.26

Thornton could not accept the challenge. Driver was in no shape to race. Thornton blamed Tayloe. First appearing in early April 1802 and periodically published through June, a notice in the National Intelligencer offered Driver as a stud and suggested that Tayloe ruined a horse that would surely have been one of the greatest racers:

Driver was never tried but once, by John Tayloe, esq., at Tappanoe in Virginia when the bets were in favor of the winner (Yaricot) distancing the field; but Driver lost one heat by only a few feet, and the other heat by only four inches, in three mile heats, distancing the other horses; which as Driver, like his celebrated sire, is a four mile horse, was thought a great race, especially as he was much out of order in consequence of a bad cough. Col. Holmes [probably Hoomes] told me he was thought by those who saw him run, one of the best bottomed horses in America, or perhaps in the world. Driver was put into training the last autumn, but met with an accident that prevented his starting; however, he proved one of the fleetest horses Mr. Duvall ever trained, and of ever lasting bottom.

Every American breeder knew that horses that raced at Tappanoe had been trained by Tayloe prior to the race and then put to the test by racing one of Tayloe’s better horses. Of course, Thornton did not want to mention that Driver had come up lame. So while the ad didn't blame Tayloe for sending Driver home in "bad plight," later in the ad, Thornton quoted Charles Duvall as saying: "if I had trained him at four years old, I think he would have made the best horse on the continent.…" Which is to say that if Thornton had first sent Driver to Duvall, then the four year could have easily beaten Yaricot and commenced the profitable pursuit of fame on the turf.27

Tayloe was new to the city and disposed to make friends with all local rivals on the turf. For years, he had offered to improve blood lines in America and train and race horses ultimately for every sportsman's benefit. He founded the Washington Jockey Club. Thornton's advertisement undermined all that. That he held fire until Tayloe moved into the Octagon proves that Thornton did not have anything to do with the Octagon. He aimed to embarrass Tayloe. Their friendship had ended on June 18, 1800.

Tayloe made amends in 1803. In 1803-4 and 1807-1815, Mrs. Thornton kept track of expenses, income, and briefly noted visits and visitors. On March 7, 1803, she noted that their slave Joe Key “returned in the evening with a horse called Wild Medley." Then an ad offering the services of Wild Medley ran in the Washington Federalist, but it was not written by Thornton. It noted that the horse was bought in Virginia by "W. Thornton." The ad included a testimony signed by Tayloe certifying the wonders of a filly got by Wild Medley that handily beat Tayloe's horse. Tayloe's brother-in-law attested that Tayloe bought two foals got by Wild Medley for $1200. Another gentleman lamented that its greatest horse had left Gloucester County which is nestled along the Virginia shore at the wide mouth of the Potomac River. Likely, Tayloe bought the horse and gave it to Thornton. Unlike Clifden and Driver, Wild Medley had a chance to win a race.28

Judging from Mrs. Thornton's notebooks, the friendship between the Thorntons and Tayloes blossomed, thanks to Thornton's obsession with horses. Despite being in frequent contact, there is no evidence that Tayloe sought architectural advice from Thornton. In 1810, when the Octagon’s roof had to be replaced and redesigned, Tayloe hired Hadfield. In 1816, when he decided to develop lots on Pennsylvania Avenue NW, he again hired Hadfield.