Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital

7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital

1/19

Historical Society of Washington, D.C. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Washington

History.

http://www.jstor.org

Imagining Washington: Monuments and Nation Building in the Early CapitalAuthor(s): Rubil Morales-VzquezSource: Washington History, Vol. 12, No. 1, Coming into the City: Essays on Early WashingtonD.C. Commemorating the Bicentennial of the Federal Government's Arrival in 1800 (Spring/

Summer, 2000), pp. 12-29Published by: Historical Society of Washington, D.C.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073430Accessed: 19-08-2015 20:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:14:03 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hswdchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40073430http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40073430http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hswdchttp://www.jstor.org/


2/19

In this iconic

painting by

Edward

Savage

(ca.

1796),

GeorgeWashington

s surrounded

by symbols

of

the

past, present,

and

future.

The laid-aside sword reminds

of

a

glorious

past,

while the rich

clothing of

his

wife

and

step-grandchildren

nd the

presence

of

a

personal

slave

(behind Martha)

denote

prosperity

n the

present.

Central to the

painting,

however,

s the

future, symbolized

by

the

map of Washington

City

spread

out on the table. The

first president

worked

tirelessly

to ensure

that

the

Potomacwould become he

permanent

seat

of ederal government

even as debate

raged

over

the

nation's

future identity.

The

choices made

by

the

founders or

the extent

and

style of

the

city

and its

memorials ervedas

proxies

or larger

choices

on the

fundamental

role

of

the

new

federalgovernment.

Courtesy,

the National

Gallery of

Art,

Washington;

Andrew W. Mellon

Collection.

12

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

magining

Washington

Monuments

n d a t i o n

u i l d i n g

n

t h

a r l y

C a p i t a l

byRubilMorales-Vazquez

man is born

with a

bag

of

folly

which attends

him

through

life.

GeorgeWashington

was born

with a

very

small

bag,

which he

kept

to

himself,

and never

imparted

any

of it on the world

until the

metropolis

of the nation was

founded,

when he

emptied

the whole of

it

in

this

city.

Thisobservation,madeintheearlyyears

of the

nation's

capital

by

the

Portuguese

min-

ister

to the United

States,

the Abbe

Correa,

could

perhaps

be

dismissed as the

predict-

able

reactionof

a

jaded

European

ristocrat

had it not been

echoed

by

many

Americans

as well. Gouverneur

Morris,

newly

arrived

on

the Potomac as senator

from New

York,

also

had

the

opportunity

to

survey

its

Spar-

tan comforts

and

pronounced

t "thebest

city

in the world to

live

in in the future."Lack-

ing majorcommercialor financial institu-

tions,

lagging

far behind

New York

and

Philadelphia

in

social

and

cultural

promi-

nence,

"enfeebled,"

as

yet

another

foreign

visitor

put

it,

"by

the

deadly weight

of

abso-

lute

slavery,"

Washington

was indeed

for

many

contemporaries

merely

a

"city

of

mag-

nificent

distances."1

Historianshave

pretty

much

agreed

with

this assessment as evidenced

by

the most

enduring study

of the

early capital,

James

Sterling Young's

The

Washington

Community.

Writing during

the

high

tide of the Great

Society,

Young

stressed the fact that

the

nation's

capital

had

not

always

been a "vital

center of

government"

or a

"target

or citi-

zens' demands

of

every

sort."

Although

he

pointed

to various reasons for the slow

growth

of the Potomac

capital,

the

key

fac-

tor

in

his

view was

Americans'attitude to-

ward

government.

The

general

authority,

as

he saw

it,

was

simply

"an

institution of too

little

significance

to attract

population

and

wealth to its residence."

f

anything,

the

City

of

Washington

was

"an

ever-present

re-

minder of the low esteem

in

which

power

was held."2

This assessment of the

development

of

early Washington

stands

in

need of modifi-

cation. To be

sure,

there is no

question

that

the

fledgling capital

was not the institutional

force that it

is

today,

or that

contemporaries

ever felt its direct

impact

in

their

everyday

lives to the same

degree.

But t

was also more

than

just

a convenient foil for the droll wit of

a Correa or

Morris,

and,

if at a

distance,

it

was

not

always

out of

sight,

as

Young

con-

tends.

In

fact,

the federalseat of

government

otes

begin

on

page

156.

13



4/19

Washington

History, Spring/Summer

2000

was of

continuing

interest

and even

anxiety

for

political

eaders

and

opinion

makers rom

the

mid-1

780s to the

early

decades of the

nineteenthcentury.An investigation nto is-

sues

that at

first

glance may

seem

fleeting

or

even trivial such as those related to

im-

provements

and embellishments

at the seat

of

government

reveals not so much

a

dis-

dain for

metropolitan

authority,

as

a

deep

concern,

and even

obsession,

with

power.

Indeed,

the

continuing

debate over

the fate

of the new federalseat

during

the

years

1783-

1814was

part

of

a

wider discourse

over the

cementing

of

political egitimacy

and the

cre-

ationof a national dentity.The actualphysi-

cal

building

of the

capital figured

more

prominently

n

discussions of the creationof

political legitimacy

and national

identity

than is

normally supposed.

Its role can be

fruitfully analyzed by

a close

inspection

of

the

ways

in

which statesmen

and

opinion

makers

imagined

the

City

of

Washington,

specifically

in

this case

with

regard

to the

controversy

that

surrounded the

proposed

monument

to

George Washington.

In

late

June

1783 a

group

of

disgruntled

non-commissionedofficers ed a

contingent

of

a

few hundred Continental oldiers to the

StateHouse

in

Philadelphia

a

venue shared

by

both the

Congress

and the

Pennsylvania

Assembly)

demanding

back

pay.

The revolt

was more bluster

and

random intimidation

than

anything

else,

but

the lack of

interest

that the

delegates

received

from the muti-

neers

(who

targeted

the

Pennsylvania

As-

sembly

instead),

more than

any display

of

force,

was

seemingly enough

cause to set

a

rump group of centralist-mindedmembers

on the road to

Princeton,

New

Jersey,

n an

attempt

to reassert the

prestige

of the

gen-

eral

authority.3

With

ts

political legitimacy

n

question,

Congress

urned or

help

to the man

assigned

to

putting

down

the

Philadelphia Mutiny.

The members

summoned General

Washing-

ton to Princeton

n

summer 1783

officially

to

render

xpert

adviceon

pending military

and

diplomatic

issues. He

lingered

at

this small

New

Jersey

town

between

August

23

and

November

9,

occasionally

attending

congres-

sional

sessions

and

consultingprivately

with

delegates fromvarious states.Virginiadel-

egate

James

Madison

alleged

that the recall

to Princeton

was intended

to relieve

the

gen-

eralof

the tedium of

camp

ife.4

Butthere

was

much more

at stake

than

Washington's

om-

fort;

his

presence

was also

part

of

a

project

for

enhancing

Congress's

tarnished

reputa-

tion. For

the

badly

maligned

Congress,

asso-

ciation

with the man

widely

regarded

as

the

American

Cincinnatus

was

an

opportunity

to bask

in

reflected

glory

of the

pre-eminent

symbol of nationalunity.GeneralWashing-

ton,

of

course,

would not

be around

forever.

Thus,

an additional

gesture

was

required

o

strengthen

the

link

between

the Hero

and

Congress.

Just

prior

to

Washington's

arrival

at

Princeton,

Congress

unanimously passed

a

resolution

calling

for a bronze

equestrian

statue of the

general

"to be erected

at the

place

where

Congress

shall

be established."

The monument

was to be "executed

by

the

best Artist

in

Europe,

under

the

superinten-

dence of

the Ministerof the United Statesat

the Court of Versailles."

It would

be

sup-

ported

by

a marble

pedestal

on

which

would

be

represented,

n

"basso

relievo,"

he

"prin-

cipal

events

of the

War"

n

which

Washing-

ton

had

played

a

prominent

role:

"theevacu-

ation of

Boston,

the

capture

of

the Hessians

at

Trenton,

he

Battle of

Princeton,

the Ac-

tion

at

Monmouth,

and the Surrender

at

York."

The

figure riding

a

horse

had been con-

sidereda symbolof royalas well as military

power

since ancient

times,

and

Washington

was

in a

sense

the

symbolic

successor

to

the

British

monarch

n

America.

But the

Hero's

revolutionary

areer

adbeen dedicated

o the

overthrow,

ot the

propagation,

f aristocratic

authority.

Thus

in

commissioning

he monu-

ment

Congress

chose

to

emphasize

the con-

nection

between the

American Cincinnatus

and

his classical

antecedents.

t

nstructed

hat

the

general

be

"represented

n Roman dress

14



5/19

Imagining Washington

holding

a truncheon

n

his

right

hand and his

head encircled

with a laurel wreath."

The

equestrian

statue,

as the President

of Con-

gress,EliasBoudinot,told Washington,was

"living

evidence

that

public

Gratitude,

for

essential

public

Services,

is

not

yet quite

driven from our

political

world."5

But there

was more o thistribute

han

simplygratitude.

The monument was

an

object

of

virtue,

the

figure

of

Washington

an embodimentof

the

republicanprinciples upon

which

the new

nationwas founded.

In

honoring

he Herothe

members were also

drawing

attention to

themselves

as disinterested itizens

directing

the destinies of the fledgling republic.The

equestrian

tatue,

situated

at the seat of Con-

gress,

would

in

the

long

run

help

maintain

the

symbolic

ties between the

nation's

legis-

lators

and

the Fatherof his

Country.

As

Washington

ode his horse about

the

Princeton

countryside,

he

may

have struck

some observersas

a de facto head of

state,

a

living

version of the

equestrian

statue

com-

missioned

by Congress.

Thiswas

just

as well.

AlthoughCongress

still

required

a

more

per-

manent

stage

on which to

enjoycomplete u-

risdiction,

a

space

from

which it could more

effectively

assert its

political legitimacy,

he

memberscould not

easily agree

on the

place

where

they

and

the statue

of

Washington

would

ultimately

it.

In

summer

and fall

1783,

regional

ealousies

sserted

hemselves,

esult-

ing

in

a furious debate

in

Princetonover

the

locationof the futureseat of

government.

All

of the membersunderstood hatthe selection

of a

permanent

seat of

government

would

have

importantrepercussions

or their state

or

region,

not to mention the nation itself.

Geographical entralitygave

the

edge

to

a

place

somewhere

n

the middle

states,

and

by

October he

competition

had

narrowed o

two

sites,

one below the falls of

the Potomac

River near

Georgetown, Maryland,

and

the

other at

the falls of

the Delaware River near

Trenton,

New

Jersey.

With

tensions

running

high, Congress

at the

instigation

of

Massachusetts^

Elbridge Gerry

and

Virginia's

Arthur

Lee concocted

a

compro-

This

print,

basedon

"Washington

Receiving

a Salute

on the Field

of

Trenton/'

by

John

Faed

(after

Gilbert

Stuart),

is

typical

of

the

heroic

imagery

that blanketed

he new

nation. In

1783,

a

much-maligned

Congress

voted

to erect

an

equestrian

statue

of

Washington

n

the

future federal

seat as

a

way

to link

itself

with

the

nation's hero.

Courtesy, Libraryof

Congress.

mise: the creation

of

two seats

of

govern-

ment one

on the Potomac

and the other

on

the Delaware.

In

the

meantime,

Trenton

and

Annapolis

would serve

as

the

temporary

venues

until

adequatepermanent

accommo-

dationsfor

Congress

could be

provided.

This

arrangement,

however,

was not

universally

applauded.6

Although

work on

the

equestrian

statue

had

yet

to

begin,

in

at least one

instance

the

monument to

Washington

ound itself

in

the

midst of the debate

over the

merits

of the

so-called

dual residence

plan.

Francis

Hopkinson,

a

signer

of the

Declaration

of

Independence,

"requested

o

know

in

what

manner the

house

proposed

to execute

the

15



6/19

WashingtonHistory, Spring/Summer

2000

equestrian

statue under the

present system

of

peregrinating

instead of

permanent

resi-

dence."

Congress,

he

archly

observed,

had

voted for the constructionof an equestrian

statue of

Washington

at the

permanent

seat

of

government,

but

now

had

two seats.

Why

not build

a

statue

(patterned

on

the

Trojan

Horse)

argeenough

to

carry

he

government

from seat to seat?7

The

delegates,

of

course,

did

not

need

disgruntled

Philadelphians

o tell them

that

the

dual residence

approach

was flawed

Boudinot

thought

it

merely

laid "a solid

foundation

or

futuredivisions."

But,

flawed

thoughit was, at the time it played a signifi-

cant

role

in

easing

tensions

among

the

states

a matterof

extreme

mportance iven

building during

this

period.

The American

idea of nation that

emerged

in

the

1780s,

as

PeterOnuf

notes,

was framedwithin

the con-

text of "equalrepresentationof places."For

all

of its

impracticality,

he dual

residence

plan

was

a

response

to

long-held

republican

concerns

regarding

the concentration

of

wealth and

power.

Consequently,

he

desig-

nationof fourseats

two

permanent

nd

two

temporary

although obviously

untenable

in

the

long

run,

nevertheless

spoke

to

a

scheme of

representation

that

guaranteed

neither

a

fixed center nor

periphery.9

Thus,

Hopkinson's

satiric

description

of the

eques-

trian statue of Washington dragged from

place

to

place

like the

Ark

of the

Covenant

was a

fitting metaphor

for

what

was

a

[T]he

debatesover

the creation

of

a

permanent

seat

had made

members

all the moreconscious

of

their

distinct interests.

. .

the

centrifugal

orces

hat

plagued

the Union

in

its

infancy.Indeed,

the

debates over

the

creation

of a

permanent

eat

had made

mem-

bers

all

the more

conscious

of

their distinct

interests,

including

their

differing concep-

tions

of

republicanism.

New

Englanders,

such

as

Rhode

Islander

David

Howell,

saw

the establishment

of

a northern

ite

as a

way

of

preserving

the

independence

and

repub-

lican

purity

of

the

national

authorityagainst

the

aristocratic

some

might

even

say

monar-

chical)

one

of southern

politics.

On the

other

hand,

for

a

Virginian

like

James

Madison,

republican

purity

couldbe best

preserved

by

situating

the seat

of

government

at a more

southerly

site

on

the Potomac

River,

ar from

the

influence

of the

moneyed

interests

that

dominated

politics

in the

"overgrown

ities"

of

the

north

and

east.8

By

settling

on

a seat

"on

wheels"

the

delegates

managed

to mute

these

ideological

differences

at

least for

the

moment.

Ironically,

in a

way

it

may

also

have

helped

push

forward

the

process

of

nation

uniquely

American

approach

o nationhood.

It allowed Americans

to

imagine

a

general

seat

of

government,

egitimated

by

the

sym-

bolic

presence

of

Washington,

while refus-

ing

to

accept

the

predominance

of a

single

locus of

national

power.

The

equestrian

statue of

Washington

worked

better as

a

metaphor

than as a

prac-

tical

reality

in

another

sense as well.

Al-

though

every

member would

have

agreed

with Howell

that no honor could

be "too

great

for

Gen.

Washington,"

here was

nev-

ertheless

a

congressional

concern

about the

monument's eventual cost. In November

1785,

American

Secretary

of

Foreign

Affairs

John

Jay

ntimated

"that he devices

in bass-

relievo

directed

o be

wrought

on the

pedes-

tal

will

exceedingly

enhance the

expense."

He

asked,

"Would

it not be more

laconic,

equally

nervous,

and less

expensive,

to

put

in

the

place

of these

devices,

only

a book

in-

scribed

'Life of General

Washington,'

and

underneath

stranger

ead

t. Citizen

mitate

his

example."10

ay's

comments

suggested

an

16



7/19

Imagining

Washington

essential

dilemma

that

confronted

the

nation's ounders.

By dictating

hatthe statue

be

executed

by

the best artist

n

Europe

Ben-

jaminFranklinwas promotingthe French-

man

Jean

Antoine Houdon who

had

recently

rendered

a

bust of

Washington),

Americans

were

demonstrating

a

need

to

be

recognized

by

the civilized

(i.e.,

European)

world. On the

other

hand,

the

possibly prohibitive

cost of

the

statue,

as with the dual residence

cheme,

exposed

the

delegates

to

accusations

of ex-

cessive

spending,

thus

promoting

behavior

at

odds with

republican principles.

Faced

with

this

quandary,

Congress

chose to defer

action on the matter to a later time. There

were,

to be

sure,

more immediate and con-

crete

issues

that

demanded attention.

But

Americans,

as David Waldstreicherhas ob-

served,

tended to

sidestep

the

thorny prob-

lem of

creating

a

more unified

republic by

celebrating

he future rather

than

confront-

ing

a

"less

than

perfectpresent."11

herefore,

the

idea

of

erecting

a

monument to Wash-

ington

"atthe

place

where

Congress

shall be

established" would continue to

promote

a

sense of national

purpose

as

Americans,

George Washington

ncluded,

maneuvered

to

bring

the

permanent

seat of

government

to

their localities.

December1784

Congress

determined

o

settle down

at

New York

City

and aban-

don the

dual

residence

plan

in

favor of

a

single,yet-to-be-determined

ite

near

Trenton,

New

Jersey.

The retiredGeneral

Washington,

although hagrined,

was not

overly

distressed

at

this news. Forone

thing

southerners,

with

his activebehind-the-scenes

ncouragement,

were

prepared

o block the

necessary

appro-

priations. Washington

continued to believe

that a federal seat on the Potomac

River,

y-

ing

at the

(then)

geographic

center of the re-

public

and

in

proximity

o the

growing

Ohio

Valley,

would be of

greaterutility

n

strength-

ening

the bonds of nationhood.12

Washington

and

other like-minded cen-

tralists took

a

step

closer toward establish-

ing

a

permanent

eat

with

the Constitutional

Seven

years before

he Potomac River site

was chosen

for

the

federal city

in

1790,

Congress

concocted

a

compromise:

wo

sites,

one

in the North and one

in

the South.

Philadelphian

Francis

Hopkinson

ridiculed

the idea,suggesting putting wheels on a

Trojan

Horse-sized

equestrian

statue

of

Washington

to

transport

the

government

from

one site to the other.

Courtesy,

LC.

Convention

of 1787.As

part

of

their effort

to

bolster

the

powers

of the

general

authority,

the

delegates

crafted

a

federal

district

a

"ten

miles

square,"

s

it

was

called)

endowed

with

exclusive

jurisdiction

n

all matters

within its

boundaries,

and

with

"like

authority

..

for

the erection of forts,

magazines,

arsenals,

dockyards,

and other needful

buildings."13

Three

years

later,

as

part

of

a historic com-

promise,

the

ten miles

square

would

be lo-

cated on

the banks of the Potomac

River

and

soon thereafter

named the

City

of

Washing-

ton.

But the

prospects

of

a

single

site of met-

ropolitan

authority,

even one

with such a

hallowed

name,

would

continue to be con-

tested.

Often at the centerof this

contest was

the

question

of

funding

improvements.

The

17



8/19

This detail

of

Pierre

(Peter)

L'Enfant'splan

for

Washington City

shows the

site

(marked

A)

proposed or

"the

equestrian igure of

George Washington"

as voted

by

the

Congress.

Courtesy,

LC.

Washington History, Spring/Summer

2000

After Foreign

Affairs Secretary

ohn

Jay

suggested

that

the

expense

and

grandeurof

the

proposed questrian

tatue

of

Washington

werea potential inancial burdenon the

young

nation,

Congress

postponed

any

further

action on the memorial.

Courtesy,

LC.

matter of "needful

buildings"

-

which

in

time would include

facing up

to the task of

erecting

a

monument to

Washington

pro-

voked

a

debate about

balancing liberty

and

power

in

the

young republic.

In

1787 the future

City

of

Washington

was much more an

imagined

than an actual

place.

The Convention

delegates

had

not

specified

the exact location of the ten miles

square,

instead

leaving

the

politically

dan-

gerous

decision to the new federal

congress.

It was a

prudent

stance o

take,

or

opponents

of

the new

Constitution,

he

Anti-federalists,

had

grave

reservationsabout what

they

con-

sidered to be the

prospects

of an aristocratic

enclave

in

the heart of the American

repub-

lic.

During

the ratificationdebates

that fol-

lowed

the

convention,

one

critic,

New York's

Gilbert

Livingston,predicted

that "the Fed-

eral Town"would become

unresponsive

to

thepeople,hidden behind"an mpenetrable

wall of

...

gold."

Although Livingston

and

the other writers

did not raise the issue

of

improvements

at the ten miles

square

di-

rectly,

t

is safe to assume

what

their

attitude

would have been.

The residenceof

Congress,

as

well as monumentssuch as

the

equestrian

statue of

Washington,

were

in

their

view not

so much

objects

of virtue as

conspicuous

dis-

plays

of

wealth

in

a new

metropolis

con-

trolled

by

men

who

they

believed

would

possessa languageand mannersalien to that

of

ordinary

Americans.14

James

Madison tried to

deflect the

spec-

ter of an

unresponsive

capital

n TheFederal-

ist,

number43. He reasoned

hatthe

hundred

square

mile

"extent"of the district

would

be

"too

great

a

pledge"

for

any

one state to

as-

sume;

therefore

"the

gradual

accumulation

of

public mprovements

t the

stationary

esi-

dence of

government"

would

require

he con-

tinued attention

of the Union

as a whole.

Rather than

creating

alienation from

the

nation's

metropolis, attending

to

the build-

ing

of the federal

seat and its monuments

would

actually help

increase the

bonds of

attachment

among

the several states.

Some

of this

potentialpatriotic

pirit

was

captured

in

the

parade

in

Philadelphia

in

July

1788

commemorating

he ratification

f the United

States Constitution

by

the state

of

Pennsyl-

vania.

Bricklayers

arried

a

large

flag

show-

ing

the "federal

city rising

out of

the

forest,

workmen

building

it,

and the sun

illuminat-

ing

it."15

Interestingly,

ne of those

who believed

that

he federal

apital

would

promote

a sense

of national

purpose

was the

man whom Presi-

18



9/19


dent

Washington

hose

as its

designer,

Major

Pierre

Peter)

UEnfant.One of the

main

fea-

turesof the UEnfantPlanwas a

system

of

"di-

vergentavenues,"whichcrisscrossed hegrid

streetsand formed

multiple quares.

Fifteenof

these

squares,

he

believed,

could "be divided

among

he several tatesof the

Union,

oreach

of them to

improve,

or subscribe

a

sum

addi-

tional o the value of the

land."

Moreover,

he

"center f each

Square"

would "admitof Stat-

ues,Columns,Obelisks,

r

any

otherornament

such as the different States

may

choose

to

erect."

Thus,

by inviting

the

individualstates

to make their

imprint

on the federal

city,

UEnfanthopedtospursettlementaround he

squares

and,

at the same

time,

help

erase the

linesof

demarcation etween

he southern

nd

northern

tates.Also

figuringprominently

n

his

design

was the

long postponedequestrian

figure

of

Washington,

which he

placed

at

the

intersection

f the

Capitol-Executive

Mansion

axes.

Unfortunately, y

the summer

of

1791,

when

UEnfant

ubmitted

his

plan

of

the

city

to PresidentWashington, rospects orbuild-

ing

the federal

city

as

a

cooperative

venture

among

the states

were not

propitious.16

The

Compromise

of

1790,

which

placed

the federal seat

on the

Potomac,

provided

that

Congress

first meet

in

Philadelphia

for

ten

years.

In

effect,

Congress,

as

with the

ear-

lier

dual

residence

approach,

had

dealt

with

the

problem

of

creating

a more

unified re-

public

by promoting

multiple

centers

of

power.

Philadelphia

would be

the actual

lo-

cus of federalauthority,but only on a tem-

porary

basis.The

City

of

Washington,

espite

being

endowed

with a hallowed

name,

would

remain more of

an

imaginary

than

actual

place

for

another decade.

The result

was a continuation

of

regional

rivalries

that



10/19

Pennsylvanians

built a

"President's

House"

hoping

to

prevent

the

federal government

from

moving rom

its

temporary

quarters

n

Philadelphia

o

its

permanent

ocation

in

Washington.

President

Washington

pointedly

refused

to

live in it.

Courtesy,

LC.

Washington History,

Spring/Summer

2000

precluded

the

kind of

cooperation

envi-

sioned

by

L'Enf nt

or

by

Madison

n The

Fed-

eralist.

Retreating

rom his

earlier

position,

Madison told the presidentshortlyafter the

compromise

was struck

that

in

light

of

the

circumstances,

monies

from

Congress

or

any

improvements

at the

new federal

city

were

"not

prudent

to count on."17

Pennsylvania

was

investing

considerable

sums

of

money

in the

improvement

of fed-

eral

buildings

at the

temporary

capital

in

order

to

induce

Congress

o remain

n Phila-

delphia

permanently.

As

a further

induce-

ment

a

handsome

"President's

House"

was

also eventually erected,which Washington

studiously

refused

o

occupy.18

he stubborn-

ness

of

Americans

in

accepting

any

single

locus

of

power

as

supreme

was

inevitably

"great repository"

beneath to house the

Hero's remains.As

in

Princeton

n

1783,

the

Hero

willingly

lent himself to

a

project

n-

tended to enhance the legitimacyof thegen-

eral

authority.

If

Thornton's

plan

were car-

ried

out,

the nation's

capital

would

in

the

future become the

City

of

Washington

in

more

than

just

name.20

primary

concernwas

Washington's

not

personalaggrandizement,

ut

rather o establish

the

primacy

of

the

Potomac over the

pretensions

of

Phila-

delphia.

This

required

immediate

progress

on the improvements n the federalcity.The

President

hoped

to

fund the

public

buildings

through

private

means,

but

in

the

end,

he was

forced

to do

what he had

always

dreaded

Washington's

primary

concern

was

not

personal

aggrandizement,

but

rather

o establish

the

primacy

of

the

Potomac

over

the

pretensions

of

Philadelphia.

reflected

n

Congress's

stance

toward

fund-

ing

the monument

to

Washington.

Although

L'Enfant's

Plan

had

included

an

equestrian

statue

of

Washington,

Congress

did

not

get

around

to

this

matter

until

December

1791

when

a

joint

committee

was set

up

to

address

the

question

of

"the

most

eligible

manner or

carrying

nto effect

the resolution

of

August

7,

1783."

But

the

initiative

was

tabled

and

would

not

be

formally

discussed

again

in

Congress

until

Washington's

death

in 1799.19

Meanwhile

Washington

ried

to

inject

a

sense of nationalmission into the

building

of

the

federal

city.

At

Jefferson's

uggestion,

he

instructed

the

city

commissioners

to

be-

gin

a

nationwide

competition

n

order

o

find

the

best

design

for

the

Capitol

and

the

President's

House.

With

regard

to

the

Capi-

tol,

Washington

turned

to

Dr. William

Thornton,

a

native

of

Tortola

n the

British

West

Indies.

Included

in

Thornton's

design

was

a

white

marble

equestrian

statue

of

Washington

n the

Capitol

rotunda

with a

request congressionalfunding

for

comple-

tion of

the

Capitol

and

President'sHouse.In

January

1796

the House

of

Representatives

entertained

a

request

from

the

city

commis-

sioners

(submitted

via

Representative

Madi-

son)

authorizing

them to borrow

money

for

the

completion

of

the

public

buildings,

with

the federal

government

guaranteeing

the

loan.

The result

was

an acrimonious

debate

in the House

over

what

many

congressmen

saw

as

the waste

and

extravagance

mani-

fested

in the

building

of the federal

city.

One

member, ohnWilliamsof New York,warned

that "the

public

buildings

have been

begun

upon

... a

plan

much

too

magnificent

. . .

20



11/19


more so than

any palace

in

Europe; they

would cost a

million dollars more than cal-

culated."As a

cost-cutting

measure,

Henry

Dearbornof Massachusettsproposed turn-

ing

the

President's House into the

Capitol

Building

where the

chief

magistrate'squar-

terswould be he did not

say.

In

the

end,

Con-

gress approved

a

$300,000

oan. Butas

Wash-

ington

had

long

feared,

this occurredat the

cost of

arming opponents

of the federal

city.

A

year

before his retirement a

Charleston,

South

Carolina,

newspaper

launched this

criticismof the new

city:

O

ye

who sit at helmof

state

Your astdesignsyoubroach oo late

Leave he

ship

of

stateon

rocky round

And

foolsto

pay

forFederalTowns!21

Thus,

rather

than

spurring

a national

con-

sciousness,

by

the late 1790s

the

question

of

improvements

now

appeared

o realize

many

Americans'worst fears

about the

fate of the

republic: consolidation by a predatory

metropolis.22

The

question

of

improvements

t the fed-

eral

city, including

the idea of

erecting

a

monument

to

Washington

at the seat of

gov-

ernment,

did not

go

away;

instead

it became

part

of the so-called

Republican

Revolution

that

brought

the

Jeffersonians

o

power

in

1800.23

uring

the

campaign

the Democratic

Republicans

anned

the flames of

public

in-

dignation against

the

administration

of

Washington'successor, ohnAdams,bycon-

necting

the federal

city

with

the

rising

cost

of

government.24

braham

Bishop,

n

an ora-

tion delivered

at New

Haven,

Connecticut,

in

September

1800

on the eve of

that state's



12/19

Benjamin

Latrobe

proposed

his

design

in

1800 as

Congress

debatedwhether

to build

a

grand

mausoleum

for

Washington's

remains.

Courtesy,

LC.

Washington istory,Spring/Summer

000

This

map,

printed

on a

handkerchief,

was

copied

from

Andrew

Ellicott's

1792 version

of

L

Enfant'

plan.

It was

widely

distributed

n

hopes of

sparking

popular

national

interest

in the

new

federal

city.

Courtesy,

LC.

local

and

national

elections,

included the is-

sue

among

the sins of

extravaganceperpe-

trated

by

the

Federalists.Asked

Bishop,

"Do

you

like the

funding system,

federal

city,

or-

eign

intercourse,

tamp

act,

army,navy?"

As

the

presidential

elections

drew to

a

close,

the

poet

laureateof the

Jeffersonian

Party,Philip

Freneau,

summed

up

the

feelings

of the

Democratic

Republican opposition

to

the

City

of

Washington:

An

infant

itygrows

apace,

Intendedora

royal

race,

Here

apitols

f

an awful

height,

Already

oast

upon

he

site,

And

palaces

or

embryo ings,

Display

heir ruits

and

spread

heir

wings.25

It

is

difficult to assess the

impact

of

the fed-

eral

city

on the

Republican

victory,

but

per-

haps

one measure

of its effectiveness

as a

pro-

paganda

tool

was its continued

use

in

the

subsequent

state

and local elections.

This

time,

criticism

would focus

most

strongly

on

the Federalist

proposal

o build

a mausoleum

for the

recently

deceased

Washington.

December

18, 1799,

shortly

after

learning

of

Washington's

death,

the

Sixth

Congress petitioned

Martha

Washington

to

relinquish

her husband's

body

to

the nation. His

remains

were to

be

moved

from Mount

Vernon

and reinterred

22



13/19


in

the federal

city.26

his unusual

request

was

a reflectionof the sense of

"nationalcalam-

ity"

with which the death of

Washington

was

received.In the late 1790s,with both Feder-

alists

and Democratic

Republicans

plying

their

separate

visions of American

identity

against

a

background

of domestic

tension

and

foreign intrigue,

there was

ample

rea-

son

for leaders of either

party

to

despair

at

the

passing

of the

man

who,

as the

congres-

sional

resolution

phrased

it,

had

given

birth

to "a

wide-spreading

empire"

and be-

queathed

"the Western

World its

indepen-

dence

and its freedom."

The resolution

to

bring Washington'sbody to the new federal

city passed

unanimously

in

both

houses of

Congress.

As

with

the

1783 resolution call-

ing

for the

equestrian

statue of

Washington,

the nation's

legislators

were

drawing

atten-

tion to their own

standing

as national lead-

ers

showing

their "love

and

gratitude"

in

honoring

his

memory27

But

if

there was

unanimity

about

bring-

ing

his remains

o

the

capital,

here

was

none

with

respect

to the

national

monument

to

Washington,

s the

members

argued

over

the

properrepublicanribute o thelate Hero.On

May

8, 1800,

Federalist

congressman

Henry

Lee of

Virginia

recommended

hat a

marble

monument

be erected

n the rotunda

over

the

remains

nd that

an

equestrian

tatue

of Wash-

ington

be

placed

in

the

front of

the

Capitol.

But another

Federalist

member

of

Congress,

Robert

Goodloe

Harper

of South

Carolina,

argued

thatthis

tribute

did not

go

far

enough

and

called

instead

for

the

building

of

an out-

door

mausoleum

n

pyramidal

orm

to house

his remains.Harper'sresolutionpassed the

House

but not the

Senate,

and the

question

of

a

suitable

ribute

o

Washington

ontinued

o

be debated

when the second

session

of

Con-

gress

convened

at its

new

venue on

the

Potomac

n

November

1800.

Lee,

as chair

of

the House

committee

harged

with the

project,

introduced

a new resolution

or

the construc-

tion of

a mausoleum

150 feet

high.28

23



14/19

William R. Birch's

zoatercolor

hows the

partially

built

Capitol

that

greeted

Congress

upon

its arrival in

1800. The

largely

unfinished

condition

of WashingtonCity

prompted

Congress

to

toy

with

abandoning

the

location

for

a

moreestablished

one.

Courtesy,

LC.


2000

ConnecticutFederalist

Roger

Griswold

explained

the mausoleum's

significance

in

shaping

a

collective

consciousness

by saying,

"Thegrandeurof thepilewill impressa sub-

lime awe on

all who behold

it. It will

survive

the

present generation

It will

receive

the

homage

of our children

and our children's

children;

and

they

will

learn

that the truest

way

to

gain

honor amidst

a

free

people

is to

be

...

virtuous."

The Democratic

Republi-

cans

n

Congress,

however,

opposed

the reso-

lution.

Although

he

supported

the idea of

"bringing

[Washington's]

ashes from

the

place

that

they

now

lie,"

John

Nicholas of

Virginiapreferreda less ostentatious and

costly

receptacle.

n

place

of a

large

tomb,

he

envisioned

a

"plain

tablet" on

which each

man

could

"inscribe

what his heart

dictated."

But some

Federalists

regarded

Nicholas's

suggestion

as

an insufficient

tribute to

Washington's

memory.

Lee,

for

instance,

complained

that

the British

aristocracy

built

larger

dwellings

for

their

mistresses

han the

mausoleum

contemplated

for

the

Fatherof

his

Country.

This

ill-considered

remark

elic-

ited a vigorous

rebuttal

rom

Nathaniel

Ma-

con,

a

Republican

of

North

Carolina,

who

retorted

that

the

monument

"might

indeed

adorn

this

city,"

but

at

the

price

of emulat-

ing

a

country

ike

Egypt.

"Now is

the

time,"

he

declared,

"to

make

a stand

against

this

monument

mania."

Macon's

protests

not-

withstanding,

n

January

1801

Congress

ap-

propriated

$200,000

for

the

building

of

a

mausoleum

by

the close

margin

of 45-37.29

The storm

over

"monument

mania"

hat

began

at

the

tail end

of the

Adams

presidency

soonextended

beyond

thehalls of

Congress.

Republican

publicist

James

Thomson

Cal-

lender,

n

the

second

edition

of his

incendiary

pamphlet,

The

Prospect

efore

s,

ridiculed

he

"plan

of

a

mausoleum

to the

memory

of

the

chief

magistrate."

Although

the

Federalists

had estimated

he cost

at

$170,000,

Callender

claimed,

"All

such

estimates

all

greatly

hort

of

the

ultimate

expenditure."

He

added,

"America

would

be

fortunate

f

she

escaped

for

a

final

balance

of

five

hundred

thousand

dollars more for the

expense

of

collecting

them." Callender claimed

that

the

money

would

be better

spent

on shirtsand breeches

for "the urvivors

of the old continental

rmy"

who "the

paper jobbers

of the first

[federal]

congresshad strippedto the skin."30

Local

political

races

in

the north

played

on the issue of

extravagance

at

the nation's

center.

n

New

Jersey,

state

contested

by

Re-

publicans

and

Federalists,

the Reverend

Obijah

Davis delivered

an oration

in

which

he

deplored

the mausoleum

as

"heaps

..

of

cold

ungrateful

stone."

In

another

Connecti-

cut

oration,

Abraham

Bishop

ashedout

at the

Federalist

embellishments.

He

asked,

"Who

voted

200,000

dollars or

a mausoleum?"

His

answer:

the

representatives

of the

northern

"friends

of order."

n

the

New York

guberna-

torial

race,

supporters

of the

Republican

an-

didate

George

Clinton

included

the mauso-

leum,

along

with the

Bankof the United

States

and the United

States

Mint,

among

the accu-

mulated evils

of Federalism.

Responding

to

these

attacks,

Alexander

Hamilton

noted

that

the federal

city

had indeed

been

"a favorite

of

the illustrious

Washington."

ut

t

was

"no

less

certain

hat

t was

warmly

patronized

by

Mr.

Jefferson,

Mr.Madison

and the

great

ma-

jority

of the members,who at the timecom-

posed

the

opposition

n

Congress."31

"Mr.

efferson"

nd

"Mr.

Madison"

must

have looked

on

these

attacks on the

federal

city

with mixed

emotions.

As

Hamilton

nti-

mated,

both men

had worked

with

Washing-

ton

in a

decade-long

struggle

to

establish

he

Potomac

as

the seat

of the federal

govern-

ment;

the construction

of the

public

build-

ings,

althoughby

no

means

completed

at the

time

Jefferson

ook

office,

was

largely

under-

24



15/19


taken

through

their efforts.

By

the same

to-

ken,

both men

had been fearful

of what

they

felt was

Hamilton's lirtation

with monarchi-

cal

government,

and

Jefferson,

finding

the

idea of

a monumental tomb

to

Washington

in

the

Capitol

antithetical

o

republican

prin-

ciples,

tried to circumvent

Thornton's

ro-

tunda

design.32

Yet

despite

having

attained

the reins of

federal

power

at the head

of

a

political

party

that embodied the Anti-fed-

eralist

fears

regarding

the

predatory

me-

tropolis,

as

president

Jefferson

would

con-

tinue the

work of

completing

he

Capitol

and

thus

anchor

Congress

o the Potomac.

He was

not, however,

able to

escape

criticism

over

monument-building

at

the seat

of

govern-

ment

mostly by

the

Federalists,

but some

of

it

by Republicans

as

well. Out of

this con-

cern

over the costs of

monuments

n the fed-

eral

city

would come

a

rethinking

of

the role

of

the

City

of

Washington,

ne

more

compat-

ible

with the tenets

of the

Republican

Revo-

lution,

but also

one

that did not

abandon

the

effort to

assert

the

presence

of

the federal

authority

on

the Potomac.

keeping

with the

Republican

Revolu-

tion

that

brought

him into

office,

Jefferson

as

president

was determined

to create

new standardsof

protocol.

On New Year's

Day

1802,

as

New

England

Federalist

ManassehCutler

recalled,

a "number

of

the

Federalists

were determined

to

keep up

the

old

custom,

though

contrary

o

what was

in-

tended

[by

Jefferson],

f

waiting

on the

Presi-

dent,

with the

compliments

of

the season."

The

delegation

was

"tolerably

eceived"

and

ushered

n to view the

Republicans'

most con-

spicuous,

f transient

ymbol

the

"mammoth

cheese."33

Weighing

well over

a thousand

25



16/19


2000

President

Thomas

Jefferson ncouraged

he

completion

of

the

major ederal buildings

to

help

ensure

Washington's

urvival.

At

the

same time he

guarded against

the

appearance

of extravagance,urgingfunding of public

works

projects

around the

country

to

help

bind

it

together.

Portrait

by

Rembrandt

Peale,

White House

Collection,

courtesy,

White

House

Historical Association.

pounds

(estimates

ary),

he

cheese

was made

in

Cheshire,Massachusetts,

nd

transported

by

ox-drawn

sledge

to

WashingtonCity

for

the New Year's

gala.

An

outraged

Cutler

a-

beled t a "monument f humanweakness

and

folly."34

he mammoth cheese

spawned

at

least one other "monument":

n

March

1804,

the

Navy

baker ook

a barrelof

flour,

put

it

in

an

oven,

and

emerged

with a

gigantic

oaf.

It

was

set on a

bier,

covered with white

linen,

and

carried o

the

Capitol

where t was

placed

in a

committee

room;

"at

twelve o'clock

that

day,

the Chamber was crowded

with all

classes

and

colors

from the Presidentof the

United States to the

vilest

Virginia

slave"

all

thereto

partake

of the

"mammoth oaf."35

The mammoth

cheese

and

the

mammoth

loafwere

fitting

emblems

orthe

City

of

Wash-

ington.

Both were

more

impressive

for

their

sizeand thehopesthatthey engendered han

fortheir tateof

permanence.

he

slow

growth

of the federal

city

was

acknowledged by

Jefferson

when,

upon

taking

office,

he

ex-

tended the

suspension

of President

Washington's

1795 edict

banning

wooden

houses.

The ban on

wood was "found

to

im-

pede

the settlement

n

the

city

of mechanics

and others whose circumstances

did not

ad-

mit

of

erecting

[brick

and or

stone]

houses."

Although

Jefferson

cknowledged

hat uture

developmentultimatelydependedonattract-

ing

wealth to the

federal

city,

he remained

defiant.

As he told former

Secretary

of the

Navy Benjamin

Stoddert,

"Men

of

money,

have not shown

a

disposition

to

move

to

Washington

with their

money;

nor is

it

prob-

able

that

they

will,

until

they

see

thatthe

capi-

tal canbe

had withoutthem."36

oing

t

alone,

however,

meant

depending

on the

largesse

of

Congress,

many

of whose members

had

only

recently

lambasted

the Federalists

for

their

alleged extravagances.

The Federalists

who

had

enthusiastically upported

the

Washing-

ton Mausoleum

now stood

by

in

sullen

op-

position.

Recognizing

hese

realities,

efferson

found

it

prudent

to focus on

what he consid-

ered

the "most

important

objects

for ensur-

ing

the destinies

of the

city,"

he

completion

of

the

public

buildings.37

Jefferson,

ike

Washington,

astened

work

on

the

public

buildings

because he

believed

that

nothing

hampered

the

development

of

the

city

more

than the

uncertainty

over

whether or not

Congress

would remain.In

fact,

in

spring

1804

disgruntled

Federalists

introduced

a Senateresolution

calling

for the

temporary

removal of

the federal seat

from

Washington

o

Baltimore.

efferson's

upport-

ers

immediately

sensed

the

danger

that

"Philadelphia

r New York

may

completely

outbid Baltimore

nd

carry

he

prize,"

and

in

the

end the

president

used his considerable

influence

n

Congress

o defuse

the

proposal.

But

the

criticismwas not

confined

solely

to

26



17/19


the

oppositionparty.

ndeed,

n

February

808

an

erstwhile

Jeffersonian

upporter,Represen-

tative

James

Sloan of New

Jersey,

had

ques-

tioned the president's own devotion to

economy

while

calling

for the removalof

the

seat of

government

to

Philadelphia.38

Althoughpractical olitics

dictated

quick

conclusionto the

raising

of

public buildings,

Jefferson

lso wanted

to erect monuments

n

the federal

ity

that

would endure

and win

the

approbation

f the civilized world. This com-

mitment

was underlined

by

his

appointment

of

BenjaminHenry

Latrobe s the

surveyor

of

public

buildings.

But

the

president

also saw

thatin a nation sensitive to vice and corrup-

tion

at

the

highest

councilsof

government,

e-

finementand

frugality

had

to be

carefully

ali-

brated,

est it

seem as

if

the federal

authority

was

asserting

oo much

"energy"

n

govern-

ing

and

draining

he

periphery,

s theAnti-fed-

eralists

had

feared,

of

money

and resources.

Latrobe,

disturbed

by

what

he

considered

Jefferson's

alf-hearted

measures,

elieved

hat

creating

monuments

required

a total

public

commitment,

ne

seriously acking

n

the citi-

zenry.

Whilehe

revered he American

Repub-

lic

as the best of

all

possible governments,

Latrobe elieved

that

the

very openness

of the

society

and

the

opportunities

oradvancement

it

affordedweakened "theties thatbind

indi-

viduals to each other."For

him,

therewas no

better

example

of this

than

the

promise

made

to Martha

Washington

n

1799

regarding

he

disposition

of

her husband'sremains.

Despite

the sacred

pledge

made

by Congress

to inter

the

president

n

the

Capitol,

"the

body

of

Wash-

ington

rests

upon

a

trussel,

crowded

into a

damp

vault" at Mount Vernon.39 more

po-

litically

astute

manthan

Latrobe,

efferson

ad

already begun

to

adjust

to these social and

political

changes.

Jefferson,

ike

Washington

and

Madison,

wished to see American

national

develop-

ment

guided

from the Potomac rather

than

the

"overgrown

cities" of the

North,

whose

commercial interests offered a

path

to na-

tional

progress

that

differed

radically

from

Jefferson's

grarian

vision.

Thus,

he worked

Jefferson'sTreasury

Secretary

Albert Gallatin

urged

the

spending

offederalfunds

on roads

and

canals

in the various states

and

territories.

Courtesy,

LC.

hard to

complete

the

public

buildings

and

secure the

general

authority

to

the Potomac.

Yethe also took

pains

to

ensure

that it would

not

appear

as

if

the

City

of

Washington

was

the sole

beneficiary

of federal

largesse.

An-

nouncing

"anaccumulation

of monies

in the

Treasury

beyond

the installments

of

public

debt,"

Jefferson

recommended

in

his sixth

annual

message

in

December 1806

that the

anticipated surplus

be

applied

to subsidiz-

ing

"roads, rivers,

canals,

and such other

objects

of

public improvement

as it

may

be

thought proper

to

add to the constitutional

enumeration of Federal

powers."

It was

in

the

public

interestto do so: "Bythese opera-

tions

new channels of communication

will

be

opened

between

the

States,

the

line of

separation

will

disappear,

heir nterests

will

be

identified,

and

their

union cemented

by

new and indissoluble

ties."

Subsequently

n

April

1808

Secretary

of

the

Treasury

AlbertGallatin ssued

a

"Report

on Roads and Canals."

It called for

$20

mil-

lion

in

spending

on internal

mprovements,

with

$2

million

to be

appropriated

annually

27



18/19

WashingtonHistory, Spring/Summer

2000

to the states over

a

ten-yearperiod.

The fed-

eral

city

would

surely

have benefited as

well;

Jefferson

was

eager

to

improve

not

just pub-

lic buildings but the roads in the Districtof

Columbia

n

order

to ensure the "destinies"

of the Potomac

capital.

But federal funds

would not be

limited to the ten

miles

square

and contribute

o

a

capital

hidden

by

an

"im-

penetrable

wall of

gold"

as the

Anti-federal-

ists

had feared.

Instead,

under

Jefferson

and

Gallatin's

plan,

the monies

that

streamed

nto

the

City

of

Washington

would flow

back out-

ward

to

all states

and

territories

f

the United

States.40

t would

be the distribution

of the

proceeds of the general treasury not a

monument

to

Washington

that would

help

bind

the nation

together.

Before Gallatin's

plan

could

be

imple-

mented,

however,

the

weight

of

foreign

af-

fairs,

beginning

with the

Embargo

Act and

culminating

in the War of

1812,

wiped

out

the federal

surplus.

Worst of

all,

in

August

1814

British

roops

burned

most of

the

pub-

lic

buildings

in the federal

city.

In

the

after-

math

of the

conflagration,

here

would be

one

last attemptbeforethe Civil

Warto remove

the

federal

seat

to

a

site

in the

North,

an

ini-

tiative

that

originated

with

a

Republican,

Representative

Jonathan

Fisk

of New

York,

and

which

required

the

spur

of

party

unity

to

quell.41

Throughout

the

ensuing

debate,

Madi-

son

was

determined

to

maintain

the

capital

on the

Potomac.

Two

months

later,

with the

outcome

still

uncertain,

the

president

and

Congress

responded

quickly

to

restore

the

capital.

A

congressional

investigating

com-

mittee assessed the

damage

at $1.2 million

and

accepted

a loan

of

$500,000

rom

a con-

sortium

of

Washington

banks

for

the

repair

of

the

public

buildings.

Local

observers

came

to see

the

burning

as

something

of

a

blessing

in

disguise.

In October

1814

the

Georgetown

Federal

Republican

nnounced,

"The

public

edifices,

if

executive

influence

is

effective,

will be rebuilt

on

a

plan

of

improved

mag-

nificence,

and

the

city

will

rise

again

n

splen-

dor,

and become

the

pride

and boast

of

a

This classical revival statue

of George

Washington by

Horatio

Greenough

was

commissioned

by

Congress

in

1832,

the

last time

Congress

attempted

to move

Washington's

remains

from

Mount Vernon

to a tomb

in

the

Capitol.

The

half-nude

statue

dismayed

the

public

and was

briefly

displayed

in the

rotunda.

Today

it

can be

seen

in

the National Museum

of

American

History. Courtesy,

LC.

great

and

increasing empire."42

he

City

of

Washington,

however,

would not be a

privi-

leged

center.The

price

of

keeping

the

capital

on the Potomacwas accepting ts roleas one

of

many

localities

contesting

for

federal

money.

But

competition

with other localities

would result

just

as often

in

the

neglect

to-

ward

improvements

n

the

federal

city.

Such

was the

case

with

the

national monument

to

Washington.

At the onset

of the federal

republic,

the

suggestion

was made

that

"every

succeed-

ing

President

should

be honored

with

the

title of

'Washington.'"

hus,

n

a

way

his suc-

cessors

would

embody

the

spirit

of

Washing-

ton.

Congress

had

actually

done

something

similar

in

requesting

that his remains

be

in-

terred

n the

Capitol

rotunda.

For

years

after

his death

the

expectation

continued

to

exist,

at least

in

some

quarters,

that his remains

would

one

day

rest

in a tomb constructed

underneath

the

finished

rotunda.

But it was

not to

be. On

the

anniversary

f

Washington's

100th

birthday

in

February

1832,

the

22nd

Congress

made

a last

attempt

to inter

his

body

in

the federal

city.

But

conflicting loy-

alties that this action

provoked

- did

Washington's

body

belong

to

Virginia

or

to

the

nation?

Whatdebts

were owed

to his

wife

and

family?

made

it well

nigh

impossible

to achieve

a

consensus,

and

it was

probably

with

a

sense

of relief

that

Congress

acqui-

esced

to the

request

of

Washington's

eirsnot

to remove

him

from

his

grave.

As

it had half

a

century

earlier

with the dual

residency ap-

proach,

Congress

split

the difference.

Washington's

body

would

remain

at

Mount

28



19/19

Imagining

Washington

Vernon

and an

equestrian

statue

in

his honor

would be constructed

n

the

now-completed

Capitol

rotunda.43

The

equestrian

tatue of

Washington

hat

the

Confederation

had decreed

n

1783never

materialized,

although

one was commis-

sioned much later

by

Congress

in

1853

and

unveiled

in

1860

n

Washington

Circle,

N.W.

A statue of the Hero in Roman dress

by

Horatio

Greenough

tood

briefly

n

the

Capi-

tol

rotunda,

but the

figure

of the first

presi-

dent

in

ancient

garb

was

universally

disliked

and it was

eventually

removed not

just

from

the

rotunda,

but from the

Capitolgrounds

it-

self. InsteadRobert

Mills,

the

Surveyor

of the

Public

Buildings,

was commissioned o

build

a

different

kind

of

monument,

one

thatwould

not

depend

on the

figure

of

Washington.

The

obeliskwas

inaugurated

n

July

1848at

a

spot

near the site

that

UEnfanthad

designated

in

his

plan

for the

equestrian

tatue.

Lack

of

na-

tional

purpose

delayed

the

completion

of the

555-foot

monument

until 1885.44

For

Washington,

who since 1783

had con-

sented to

the use of his

body

as

a

way

of ce-

menting

a national

identity

and

establishing

the

legitimacy

of

the

general

authority,

the

neglect

of

improvements

in the federal

city

would have seemed

astonishing.

But

although

it was not

the

capital

that

Washington

may

have

wanted,

given

the

traditional ears

of

a

predatory

metropolis

it was

ultimately

the

capital

that

Americansneeded.

E

Rubil

Morales-Vazquez

is a lecturer

in Ameri-

can

history

at

Rutgers

University-Newark.

He

is

currently

at

work

on a

history

of early

Wash-

ington,

D.C.

29

Documents

Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital