Post on 19-Feb-2018
transcript
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 support@jstor.org.
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/7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
9/19
Imagining Washington
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
11/19
Imagining Washington
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
13/19
Imagining Washington
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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.
Washington History, Spring/Summer
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
15/19
Imagining Washington
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
16/19
Washington History, Spring/Summer
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
17/19
Imagining Washington
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
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