Chapter 11 The Case of the Ingenious A: Tayloe’s House

 Table of Contents

 Chapter 11: The Case of the Ingenious A - Lovering Designs the Octagon

117. The Octagon in the 20th century, and below its floor plan

 

In a January 23, 1799, letter, the General notified John Tayloe 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. In their last exchange of letters in the summer of 1798, neither had mentioned their houses. Indeed, since he bought the lot 8 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.(1)

132. 18th century dragoon

Tayloe’s claim that he was anxious about raising money has not impressed historians. They 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 husbands? 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 for Robert Morris 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.(2)

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 7, 1799, when ground was broken. As an example of how Thornton may have gone about it, Ridout quotes Mrs. Thornton’s 1800 diary that on March 12 a boy delivered a note "from Mr. Carroll of Duddington, (living in the City an original and large proprietor) requesting Dr. T- as he had promised, to give him some ideas for the plan of two houses he and his brother are going to begin immediately on Sq. 686 on the Capitol Hill." Thornton spent the afternoon "drawing the plans for Mr. Carroll." The next day he “worked all the afternoon at Mr. Carroll’s plans.” The day after that, Carroll saw the plans and “was much pleased.” Two weeks later, the Thorntons walked up to Capitol with Thomas Law to see what work had been done on Carroll’s houses. Ridout observes, "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."(3)

However, Tayloe wasn’t in the city. Plus, there was something fishy in the way Carroll, and also Law, got plans from Thornton. Both may have had an ulterior motive to make the process very easy. Through her nephew William Cranch, who was then Law's lawyer, Carroll and Law learned that Mrs. Adams had doubts about moving into the President's house. She feared the building would be too green. Law wrote the letter already quoted that described the house and that wound up in the Adams family's papers. Cranch thought Carroll's country style mansion better suited and Carroll sent a letter to Cranch describing his house, and Cranch sent it to his aunt. If the First Family needed a house, having Commissioner Thornton on their side could do neither Law nor Carroll any harm. And asking him for designs was a timely form of flattery. Coincidentally, through Notley Young, another member of the Carroll clan, Bishop John Carroll asked Thornton to submit a design for a new cathedral in Baltimore. Then the First Lady decided to not come to the city at all. Both Law and Carroll continued to build houses in a vain effort to profit off their many building lots in the city. Other men, including Hoban, designed their houses. There is no evidence that they again asked Thornton for building plans. Latrobe designed the cathedral in Baltimore.(4) 

By training and inclination, Tayloe took the design process more seriously. While a student in England, a group of trustees, principally his brothers-in-law, controlled all Tayloe enterprises and then became Tayloe's advisors once he returned. That winter and early spring, Tayloe had no personal contact with Thornton. In late January, the Tayloes had their third child. Tayloe joined his wife during her confinement at Mount Airy. 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 Airy. After a quick visit to Mount Vernon on April 17, Tayloe signed the contract for his house, likely on the 18th because on the 19th, Thornton reported the news to the General: "Mr J. Tayloe of Virga has contracted to build a House in the City near the President’s Square of $13,000 value." The letter was principally about the General's houses. The Tayloe news was one of three items of gossip along with visitors headed for Mount Vernon and an untimely death. None the less, Thornton might have revealed with whom the contract was made, especially if he was to build a house Thornton designed.(5)

However, Tayloe did not sign a contract with a builder. In 1869, a newspaper's 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."(6) Dorsey was a Georgetown lawyer. Lawyers litigate and also mediate. Dorsey was 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 having a lawyer involved seems to shred Ridout's sentiments about the house design drawn on a quiet winter's evening and then forming catalyst for a life long friendship.

A letter Lovering wrote to Nicholson on March 9, 1799, solves the mystery of why Tayloe signed a building contract with a lawyer. Lovering informed Nicholson that  “I shall not be able to get any business at this place owing to being insolved. 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.”(7) 

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 in that regard. He would also be careful about security. The General insisted on a pledge of $4,000 in security, which Bladgen arranged for Hoban to offer. As it turned out, Lovering wound up as the superintending architect and, in effect, the building contractor overseeing contractors for carpentry and masonry. Tayloe needed a lawyer to mediate the arrangement. If Lovering had not designed the house, why go through the bother? Work on Laws' house with ovals did not begin until April 25. Lovering had no known experience in building oval rooms, but no one else in the city did either, least of all Thornton. So it was imperative that Lovering build his own design. 

Thornton did not go to Mount Airy in the winter of 1798-99. Lovering could have. In a December 4 letter, Lovering 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. 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. He still planned to go to London in the spring where he could easily sell whatever they gave him. Evidently, soon after he wrote that letter, he learned of Tayloe's project, likely from Dorsey. He 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. That Dorsey drew up a contract to be signed by himself and Tayloe was likely their way of relieving Lovering, who had 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." 

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.

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." 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. 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. That Mrs. Thornton’s diary entries about the General’s, Law’s and Tayloe’s houses are misconstrued is understandable. Her diary became available to researchers a decade after Glenn Brown credited Thornton for designing and superintending the General’s and Tayloe’s houses. Using her diary to hobble her husband’s fame seems unfair. After all, she didn’t credit anyone else and did described his interest in the houses. Why shouldn’t she assume that future readers of her diary would already know that she had designed them? However, only in one entry 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." Perhaps because her husband didn’t tell her, she didn’t note that the letter also shared the president’s anger at the Commissioners White’s and Thornton’s assurance that if needed he could live temporarily in Law’s, Carroll’s or Tayloe’s house. The president had jumped to the conclusion drawn from White’s private letter to him, that the commissioners wanted him to move into the General’s houses.

Commissioner Scott got Thornton to join him in sending a letter denying that the board had any intention of putting the president in a private house. 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.

illustration in 1896 Glenn Brown article

In November, Mrs. Thornton noted that he husband went to the house 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." Dorsey and Lovering likely noticed him.

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."

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 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. 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. Lot 17’s proximity to the President’s house can explain the house’s large and curious portico. It would face the semi-circular South Portico of the President’s house, and resemble the West Portico of the Capitol. Someone looking down from the President’s house would see a miniature of Thornton’s Capitol. Two days before he replied to a personal letter from Navy secretary Benjamin Stoddert. He challenged him to get the President’s house ready for the president: "A private gentleman preparing a residence for a friend would have done more than has been done." Stoddert wanted a stable, carriage house and garden house. The latter should be in a garden that would be "an agreeable place to walk in even this summer." In his reply, Thornton blamed his colleages. They were "afraid of encouraging any expense not absolutely necessary, and seem not to think these things necessary that you and I deem indispensable." Thornton had to add to the tone of the president’s neighorhood.

But why didn't his wife say more about such a consequential design? She noted that he spent the day designing his house "to build one day or another." She stated the obvious which meant the opposite. This was not a project that might be done in the future, and couldn't be done at that time. W. B. Bryan offered an interpretation for her lack of enthusiasm. She knew the house could not be built "owing, no doubt, to a lack of funds, which was a common experience in the life of a man who moved in a large orb, but one not within in the range of either the making or the saving money." There is something to that, but whenever Thornton sold his Lancaster property, he expected to make $40,000. The death of his mother in October 1799 might have led to some reckoning of the Tortola estate with money coming to Thornton.

His wife didn't allude to a lack of funds. Money was always a factor but in this case Thornton's preposterous design for a house uncongenial to anyone who had to live in it made its realization equally unlikely no matter the day. A house designed for a rectangular lot would, even if done by Thornton, likely accommodate a live-in mother-in-law and frequent house guests, and not stick out like a sore thumb. Mrs. Thornton had grown up in Philadelphia, an orderly brick city on a grid.  

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. 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.

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. On March 12, the day her husband got the note about Daniel Carroll's houses, she could put more portentous news in her diary: "a boy came from the farm with a 3 yr old Sorrel filly which Dr. T- has exchanged with Mr. Tayloe - He then wrote a note to Mr. O'Reilly to know when he can have his boy to go with Driver to Mr. Tayloe's." On March 13, she wrote:

Joe set off early this morning to accompany Randall Mr. O'Reilly's boy (whom Dr. T. engaged, letting Mr. O'R- have another during his absence) to stay at Mr. Tayloe's Mount Airy, Virginia, to train Driver. He also took the Sorrel filly; is to go as far as Neabsco near Dumfries and return to morrow. He rode one of the carriage mares. He took a letter from Mr. Tayloe to the manager of his iron works at Neabsco directing him to send a man with Randall to his seat. Took with them corn, bread and meat to save tavern expenses. After breakfast Dr. T went to the [commissioners'] office, I worked on my screen, mama quilting. Dr. T wrote a letter to Mr. Lewis, to request to him to purchase some provisions on account for the two asses he bought at Mt. Vernon because he could not make it convenient to send for them immediately.... Dr. T worked all day on Mr. Carroll's plans - I read-

Joe and Randall were slaves. The letter Joe carried from Tayloe was a better guarantee of passage through Virginia than the usual pass written by Thornton. Then one of Tayloe's slaves would escort Randall to Mount Airy. Randall was a jockey. Tayloe favored slaves as jockeys, which was congenial to Thornton. White jockeys who won races demanded more money. The Sorrel filly was going to Tayloe as part of a trade, but horse for horse, not horse for house design.

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."

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."

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. It is possible that in August 1800, he took the next step toward building a house to rival Tayloe’s. On Thursday August 21, Mrs. Thornton wrote that she “returned at two o’clock found Dr. T. waiting with Mr. Lovering to get into the parlor of which I had the key.” Perhaps he wanted Lovering to estimate the cost of building the house. There is no other mention of Lovering or the never built house in her diary. His rivalry with Tayloe centered on horses. 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.

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.

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. 

Tayloe did more than organize the Washington Jockey Club. He bought a 205 acre farm two miles north of the Capitol that he named Petworth after the Earl of Egremont's seat in West Sussex, England. When Thornton advertised Driver as a stud, he noted that "the dam of Driver was purchased by my relation Isaac Pickering, esq., of Foxlease, Hampshire, England, who sent her to the Earl of Egremont's by one of his own grooms." Tayloe knew the Earl and offered stud services at Petworth. Like many other breeders, Thornton finally bought a horse bred by Tayloe in hopes of eclipsing Tayloe. The 1827 US Supreme Court decision in Thornton v. Wynn explained that Rattler was touted by Colonel Wynn as "capable of beating any horse in the United States" and capable of a match with Eclipse. Wynn trained horses and in this case bought Rattler from Tayloe. He then sold the horse to Thornon for $3,000. In 1821, Eclipse's victory in New York over a Virginia horse also bred by Tayloe and bought by another Virginian, made him the most talked about horse in the nation's history. If Rattler won the featured Washington Jockey Club race, a match race with Eclipse would have been in order. Rattler pulled a tendon and lost. Then while the district court adjudicated if Thornton still had to pay for a horse that he claimed was damaged when he bought it, he offered him as a stud. In an 1822 broadside, Thornton proved that Rattler was a better stud than Tayloe’s famous Sir Archy. He explained that not only was Rattler gotten by Sir Archy but Rattler's dam Robin Red-Breast traced her pedigree back to old Highflyer just as Sir Archy did. Ergo, Rattler's pedigree was better than Sir Archy's because of a "double cross... Rattler is doubly descended from old Highflyer."(XX) All that said, owning race horses doesn't preclude one from being an architect and wanting to beat the horses of the gentleman for whom one designed a notable house, but, given the competitive edge to their relationship, it would be strange if the architect never acknowledge that he designed the gentleman's house.

The plaque outside the Octagon list three claims to fame. It was designed by Dr. William Thornton, the Madisons lived there after the British burned the White House. The day after the conflagration Thornton persuaded British officers not to burn down the Patent Office, for which he is justly famous. However, he did more with British officers which at least among contemporaries tarnished his reputation. 

Exercised his authority as the sole official in the city, one of the 12 justices of the peace, he somewhat took over and tried to arrange patrols of British soldiers to prevent looting. They had been left behind to the protect the wounded. In a word, he collaborated with the enemy. Thornton was also one the first people at the president’s side when he returned to the singed city. The president, secretary of state Monroe and attorney general Richard Rush rode to the Navy Yard to see if forces there could respond to an expected British incursion on ships then in Alexandria. Thornton followed them. In a letter he wrote to his son-in-law on September 7, Monroe recalled: "...we were followed by Dr. Thornton who stated to the president that the people of the city were disposed to capitulate. The President forbade it. He pressed the idea as a right in the people, notwithstanding the presence of the govt. I turnd to him, and declard, that, having the military command, if I saw any of them, proceeding to the enemy, I would bayonet them. This put an end to the project. The doctor retird, and afterwards changd his tone." Thornton took Monroe's threat very seriously. In her diary, Mrs. Thornton wrote that to defend the city, her husband "distressed us more than ever by taking his sword and going out to call the people.…" Nonetheless, he had amazed and alienated the president and his likely successor.

Thornton tried to explain his actions in a long letter to the National Intelligencer which only elicited more accusations of collaboration. Mrs. Madison had a fit before Mrs. Thornton. On September 8, the Madisons moved into the Octagon house to serve as a temporary office and residence. In January 1815, the Treat of Ghent was signed in the oval sitting room now called the Treaty Room. It would have been just the time for the designer of the house to take a bow, especially if he was in bad repute. Of course, Thornton couldn't because he didn't design the home. Indeed, he made fun of charges of collaboration.

When congressmen returned to the city after the conflagration they met in the Patent Office. Northern politicians who wanted to move the federal government out of the city could not point to the lack of a meeting room. Because those wanting move out of city were stymied, Thornton claimed credit for saving the city by preserving the Patent Office. When he briefly ruled the city in August 1814, he befriended the wounded British warrior whose brigade had spearheaded the charge at the Battle of Bladensburg. The colonel's name was William Thornton. Dr. T came up with a bon mot, a witticism, that, he claimed, swept the city. Since he had saved the Patent Office, it could be fairly said that "One William Thornton took the city and another preserved it by that single act." The president was not amused, and Thornton noticed. When Madison left office, Thornton wrote to him about the shock Mrs. Thornton felt at not getting a farewell visit from Mrs. Madison. As for himself "I have long had to lament a marked distance and coldness towards me, for which I cannot account."

When Thornton defended his August 1814 exploits in the National Intelligencer, he bragged that he managed the crisis better than the mayor. The mayor then defended his actions and cast more aspersions on Thornton who then ridiculed Mayor Blake by rhyming his name with "snake." That invited a rejoinder and Mayor Blake made a telling remark. "Doctor T has been living upon the Public Treasury for near twenty years, and I dare say he cannot point to a single service that entitles him to the patronage of the government." Indeed, by 1814, many had forgotten Thornton's association with the Capitol.  

 

 

Go to Chapter 12 

 1. Adams to GW  22 June 1798; GW to McHenry 22 July 1798; GW to Tayloe  21 July 1798, GW to Tayloe, 23 January 1799, for GW's interest in asses see 23 January 1799 to Robert Lewis.; Tayloe to GW, 10 February 1799, and footnotes; GW to Tayloe 12 February 1799;

2. Ridout p. 47; Manasseh Cutler Life and Letters, vol. 2, p. 143;

3. Ridout, pp. 62-5

4. A. Adams to Cranch, 4 February 1800 footnote 3, Founders online; Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams Papers: Cranch to A. Adams, 24 April 1800; see also Abigail Adams to Anna Greenleaf Cranch, 17 April 1800, Adams Family Papers.

5. Tayloe to GW 26 March 1799; WT to GW 19 April 1799 

6. The National Republican 2 December 1869 p. 4 

7. Lovering to Nicholson 9 March 1799, Nicholson papers.

 

xx. The Supreme Court returned the case to the lower court because the judge had told the jury not to consider the condition of the horse. Thornton scored a victory for consumers, and, in his own mind at least, a victory over Tayloe.