Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in The Early Capital

Imagining Washington: Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital
Author(s): Rubil Morales-Vzquez

Source: Washington History, Vol. 12, No. 1, Coming into the City: Essays on Early Washington
D.C. Commemorating the Bicentennial of the Federal Government's Arrival in 1800 (Spring/
Summer, 2000), pp. 12-29
Published by: Historical Society of Washington, D.C.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073430
Accessed: 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 content
in 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.
Historical Society of Washington, D.C. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Washington
History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:14:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In this iconic painting by EdwardSavage (ca. 1796), GeorgeWashingtonis surroundedby 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-grandchildrenand the presenceof a personal slave (behindMartha)
denote prosperityin the present. Central to the painting, however,is thefuture, symbolizedby the
mapof WashingtonCity spreadout on the table. Thefirst presidentworkedtirelessly to ensure that
the Potomacwould becomethe permanentseat offederal government even as debateragedover the
nation'sfuture identity. Thechoicesmadeby thefoundersfor the extent and style of the city and its
memorialsservedas proxiesfor largerchoiceson thefundamental roleof the newfederalgovernment.
Courtesy,the National Gallery of Art, Washington;Andrew W. Mellon Collection.
12
Imagining Washington
and
Monuments
In
the
Early
Nation
Building
Capital
by Rubil Morales-Vazquez
man is born with a bag of folly
which attends him through life.
GeorgeWashingtonwas born with a
small
bag, which he kept to himself,
very
and never impartedany of it on the world
until the metropolis of the nation was
founded, when he emptied the whole of it
in this city.
Historianshave prettymuchagreedwith
this assessment as evidenced by the most
enduring study of the early capital, James
Sterling Young's The WashingtonCommunity.
Writing during the high tide of the Great

Society, Young stressed the fact that the
nation'scapitalhad not always been a "vital
center of government"or a "targetfor citizens' demands of every sort."Although he
pointed to various reasons for the slow
growth of the Potomac capital, the key factor in his view was Americans'attitude toward government.The generalauthority,as
he saw it, was simply "an institution of too
little significance to attractpopulation and
wealth to its residence."If anything,the City
of Washington was "an ever-present reminder of the low esteem in which power
was held."2
This assessment of the development of
early Washingtonstands in need of modification. To be sure, there is no question that
the fledglingcapitalwas not the institutional
force that it is today, or that contemporaries
ever felt its direct impact in their everyday
lives to the same degree.Butit was also more
thanjust a convenientfoil for the drollwit of
a Correaor Morris,and, if at a distance, it
was not always out of sight, as Young contends. In fact,the federalseat of government
Thisobservation,made in the earlyyears

of the nation'scapitalby the Portugueseminister to the United States, the Abbe Correa,
could perhaps be dismissed as the predictablereactionof a jadedEuropeanaristocrathad it not been echoed by many Americans
as well. GouverneurMorris,newly arrived
on the Potomac as senator from New York,
also had the opportunityto survey its Spartancomfortsand pronouncedit "thebest city
in the world to live in- in the future."Lacking major commercial or financial institutions, lagging far behind New York and
Philadelphia in social and cultural prominence, "enfeebled,"as yet another foreign
visitor put it, "bythe deadly weight of absolute slavery," Washington was indeed for
many contemporariesmerelya "cityof magnificent distances."1
Notes begin on page 156.
13
WashingtonHistory, Spring/Summer2000
New Jersey town between August 23 and

November9, occasionallyattendingcongressionalsessions and consultingprivatelywith
delegates from various states. Virginiadelegate JamesMadison alleged that the recall
to Princetonwas intended to relievethe generalof the tediumof camplife.4Buttherewas
much more at stake thanWashington'scomfort;his presence was also part of a project
for enhancing Congress's tarnishedreputation. Forthe badly malignedCongress,associationwith the man widely regardedas the
American Cincinnatuswas an opportunity
to bask in reflectedglory of the pre-eminent
symbol of national unity. GeneralWashington, of course,would not be aroundforever.
Thus, an additionalgesture was requiredto
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 Congressshall be established."
The monument was to be "executedby the
best Artist in Europe,under the superintendence of the Ministerof the United Statesat
the Court of Versailles."It would be supportedby a marblepedestalon which would
be represented,in "bassorelievo,"the "principal events of the War"in which Washington had played a prominentrole:"theevacuation of Boston, the captureof the Hessians
at Trenton,the Battle of Princeton,the Action at Monmouth, and the Surrender at
York."
The figure riding a horse had been considered a symbol of royal as well as military
power since ancient times, and Washington
was in a sense the symbolicsuccessorto the
Britishmonarchin America.But the Hero's
revolutionarycareerhadbeendedicatedto the
overthrow,not thepropagation,of aristocratic
authority.Thus in commissioningthe monument Congresschose to emphasize the connection between the AmericanCincinnatus
andhis classicalantecedents.Itinstructedthat
the generalbe "representedin Romandress
was of continuing interestand even anxiety

forpoliticalleadersand opinionmakersfrom
the mid-1780s to the early decades of the
nineteenthcentury.An investigationinto issues that at firstglance may seem fleeting or
even trivial- such as those related to improvements and embellishmentsat the seat
of government- reveals not so much a disdain for metropolitan authority,as a deep
concern, and even obsession, with power.
Indeed, the continuing debate over the fate
of the new federalseat duringthe years 17831814was part of a wider discourse over the
cementingof politicallegitimacyand the creation of a nationalidentity.Theactualphysical building of the capital figured more
prominentlyin 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 GeorgeWashington.
In late June 1783a group of disgruntled
non-commissionedofficersled a contingent
of a few hundredContinentalsoldiers 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 mutineers (who targeted the Pennsylvania Assembly 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,in an
attempt to reassertthe prestige of the general authority.3
Withits political legitimacyin question,
Congressturnedforhelp to the man assigned
to putting down the Philadelphia Mutiny.
The memberssummoned GeneralWashington to Princetonin summer 1783officiallyto
renderexpertadviceon pendingmilitaryand
diplomatic issues. He lingered at this small
14
holding a truncheonin his righthand and his

head encircled with a laurel wreath." The
equestrian statue, as the President of Congress, Elias Boudinot,told Washington,was
"living evidence that public Gratitude, for
essential public Services, is not yet quite
driven from our political world."5But there
was moreto thistributethansimplygratitude.
The monument was an objectof virtue, the
figure of Washingtonan embodimentof the
republicanprinciples upon which the new
nationwas founded.Inhonoringthe Herothe
members were also drawing attention to
themselvesas disinterestedcitizensdirecting
the destinies of the fledgling republic. The
equestrianstatue,situatedat the seat of Congress, would in the long run help maintain
the symbolic ties between the nation's legislatorsand the Fatherof his Country.
As Washingtonrode his horse about the
Princetoncountryside, he may have struck
some observersas a de facto head of state, a
living version of the equestrianstatue commissionedby Congress.Thiswas justas well.
AlthoughCongressstill requireda morepermanentstage on which to enjoycompletejurisdiction,a space from which it could more
effectivelyassert its political legitimacy,the
memberscould not easily agree on the place
where they- and the statueof Washingtonwould ultimatelysit. Insummerand fall 1783,
regionaljealousiesassertedthemselves,resulting in a furious debate in Princetonover the
locationof the futureseat of government.All
of the membersunderstoodthatthe selection
of a permanent seat of government would
have importantrepercussionsfor their state
or region,not to mentionthe nation itself.
Geographicalcentralitygave the edge to
a place somewherein the middle states, and
by Octoberthe competitionhad narrowedto
two sites, one below the falls of the Potomac
Rivernear Georgetown,Maryland,and the
other at the falls of the Delaware Rivernear
Trenton,New Jersey.With tensions running
high, Congress at the instigation of
Massachusetts^ Elbridge Gerry and
Virginia'sArthur Lee concocted a compro-
This print, basedon "WashingtonReceiving

a Salute on the Field of Trenton/' by John
Faed (after Gilbert Stuart), is typical of the
heroic imagery that blanketedthe new
nation. In 1783, a much-malignedCongress
voted to erect an equestrianstatue of
Washingtonin thefuture federal seat as a
way to link itself with the nation's hero.
Courtesy,Libraryof Congress.
mise: the creation of two seats of government- one on the Potomacand the other on
the Delaware.In the meantime,Trentonand
Annapolis would serve as the temporary
venues until adequatepermanentaccommodationsforCongresscould be provided.This
arrangement,however, was not universally
applauded.6
Although work on the equestrianstatue
had yet to begin, in at least one instance the
monumentto Washingtonfound 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, "requestedto know in what
manner the house proposed to execute the
15
equestrianstatue under the present system
building during this period. The American

idea of nation that emerged in the 1780s,as
PeterOnufnotes,was framedwithin the context of "equalrepresentationof places."For
all of its impracticality,the dual residence
plan was a responseto long-held republican
concerns regarding the concentration of
wealth and power. Consequently,the designationof fourseats- two permanentand two
temporary- although obviously untenable
in the long run, nevertheless spoke to a
scheme of representation that guaranteed
neither a fixed center nor periphery.9Thus,
Hopkinson'ssatiricdescriptionof the equestrian statue of Washington dragged from
place to place like the Ark of the Covenant
was a fitting metaphor for what was a
of peregrinating instead of permanent resi-
dence." Congress, he archly observed, had

voted for the constructionof an equestrian
statue of Washingtonat the permanentseat
of government,but now had two seats. Why
not build a statue (patternedon the Trojan
Horse)largeenough to carrythe government
from seat to seat?7
The delegates, of course, did not need
disgruntledPhiladelphiansto tell them that
the dual residence approachwas flawedBoudinot thought it merely laid "a solid
foundationfor futuredivisions."But,flawed
though it was, at the time it played a significant role in easing tensions among the
states- a matterof extremeimportancegiven
[T]he debatesover the creationof a permanent

seat had mademembersall the moreconsciousof
theirdistinct interests.. . .
uniquelyAmericanapproachto nationhood.
It allowed Americans to imagine a general
seat of government,legitimatedby the symbolic presence of Washington,while refusing to accept the predominanceof a single
locus of nationalpower.
The equestrian statue of Washington
worked better as a metaphorthan as a practical reality in another sense as well. Although every member would have agreed
with Howell that no honor could be "too
great for Gen. Washington,"there was nevertheless a congressionalconcern about the
monument's eventual cost. In November
1785,AmericanSecretaryof ForeignAffairs
JohnJayintimated"thatthe devices in bassrelievo directedto be wrought on the pedestal 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 inscribed- 'Life of GeneralWashington,'and
underneath- strangerreadit. Citizenimitate
his example."10
Jay'scommentssuggested an
the centrifugalforcesthatplagued the Union

in its infancy.Indeed, the debates over the
creationof a permanentseat had made members all the more conscious of their distinct
interests, including their differing conceptions of republicanism. New Englanders,
such as Rhode IslanderDavid Howell, saw
the establishmentof a northernsite as a way
of preservingthe independence and republicanpurity of the nationalauthorityagainst
the aristocratic(some might even say monarchical)tone of southernpolitics.On the other
hand, for a Virginian like James Madison,
republicanpuritycould be best preservedby
situating the seat of government at a more
southerlysite on the PotomacRiver,farfrom
the influence of the moneyed interests that
dominatedpolitics in the "overgrowncities"
of the north and east.8By settling on a seat
"onwheels" the delegates managed to mute
these ideologicaldifferences- at least for the
moment.
Ironically, in a way it may also have
helped push forward the process of nation
16
essential dilemma that confronted the

nation'sfounders.By dictatingthatthe statue
be executedby the best artistin Europe(Benjamin Franklinwas promoting the FrenchmanJeanAntoineHoudon who had recently
rendereda bust of Washington),Americans
were demonstratinga 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 residencescheme,
exposed the delegates to accusations of excessive spending, thus promoting behavior
at odds with republican principles. Faced
with this quandary,Congresschose to defer
action on the matter to a later time. There
were, to be sure, more immediate and concrete issues that demanded attention. But
Americans,as David Waldstreicherhas observed, tended to sidestep the thorny problem of creating a more unified republic by
celebratingthe future ratherthan confrontTherefore,
ing a "lessthanperfectpresent."11
the idea of erecting a monument to Washington "atthe place where Congressshall be
established" would continue to promote a
sense of national purpose- as Americans,
George Washingtonincluded, maneuvered
to bring the permanentseat of government
to their localities.
Seven years beforethe PotomacRiver site

was chosenfor thefederal city in 1790,
Congress concocteda compromise:two sites,
one in the North and one in the South.
PhiladelphianFrancis Hopkinson ridiculed
the idea, suggesting putting wheels on a
TrojanHorse-sizedequestrianstatue of
Washington to transportthe government
from one site to the other.Courtesy,LC.
December1784Congressdeterminedto
settle down at New YorkCity and abandon the dual residenceplan in favor of a
sitenearTrenton,
single,yet-to-be-determined
New Jersey.The retiredGeneralWashington,
althoughchagrined,was not overlydistressed
at this news. Forone thing southerners,with
his activebehind-the-scenesencouragement,
were preparedto block the necessaryappropriations.Washingtoncontinued to believe
that a federalseat on the PotomacRiver,lying at the (then) geographiccenterof the republicand in proximityto the growing Ohio
Valley,would be of greaterutilityin strengthening the bonds of nationhood.12
Washingtonand other like-mindedcentralists took a step closer toward establishing a permanentseat with the Constitutional
Conventionof 1787.As part of theireffortto

bolster the powers of the general authority,
the delegates crafteda federaldistrict(a "ten
miles square,"as it was called)endowed with
exclusivejurisdictionin all matterswithin 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 compromise, the ten miles square would be located on the banks of the PotomacRiverand
soon thereafternamed the City of Washington. But the prospectsof a single site of metropolitan authority, even one with such a
hallowed name, would continue to be contested. Often at the centerof this contest was
the question of funding improvements.The
17
Washington History, Spring/Summer 2000
lowed the convention,one critic,New York's

GilbertLivingston,predicted that "the Federal Town"would become unresponsive to
the people, hidden behind "animpenetrable
wall of ... gold." Although Livingston and
the other writers did not raise the issue of
improvements at the ten miles square directly,it is safe to assume what theirattitude
would have been. Theresidenceof Congress,
as well as monumentssuch as the equestrian
statue of Washington,were in theirview not
so much objectsof virtue as conspicuousdisplays of wealth in a new metropolis controlled by men who they believed would
possess a languageand mannersalien to that
of ordinaryAmericans.14
JamesMadison tried to deflect the specter of an unresponsivecapitalin TheFederalist,number43. He reasonedthatthe hundred
squaremile "extent"of the districtwould be
"too great a pledge" for any one state to assume; therefore"the gradual accumulation
of publicimprovementsat the stationaryresidenceof government"would requirethe continued attention of the Union as a whole.
Rather than creating alienation from the
nation's metropolis, attending to the building of the federal seat and its monuments
would actually help increase the bonds of
attachmentamong the several states. Some
of this potentialpatrioticspiritwas captured
in the parade in Philadelphia in July 1788
commemoratingthe ratificationof the United
States Constitutionby the state of Pennsylvania. Bricklayerscarrieda large flag showing the "federalcity rising out of the forest,
workmenbuilding it, and the sun illuminating it."15
Interestingly,one of those who believed
thatthe federalcapitalwould promotea sense
of nationalpurposewas the manwhom Presi-
After ForeignAffairsSecretaryJohnJay
suggestedthat the expenseand grandeurof
the proposedequestrianstatue of Washington
werea potentialfinancial burdenon the
young nation, Congresspostponedany
furtheraction 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- provoked 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 dangerous decision to the new federalcongress.
Itwas a prudentstanceto take,foropponents
of the new Constitution,the Anti-federalists,
had grave reservationsaboutwhat they considered to be the prospectsof an aristocratic
enclave in the heart of the Americanrepublic. During the ratificationdebates that fol-
This detail of Pierre (Peter) L'Enfant'splan

for WashingtonCity shows the site (marked
A) proposedfor "theequestrianfigure of
GeorgeWashington"as voted by the
Congress. Courtesy, LC.
18
dent Washingtonchose as its designer,Major

Pierre(Peter)UEnfant.One of the main featuresof the UEnfantPlanwas a systemof "divergentavenues,"which crisscrossedthe grid
streetsandformedmultiplesquares.Fifteenof
these squares,he believed,could "bedivided
amongthe severalstatesof theUnion,foreach
of them to improve,or subscribea sum additionalto the value of the land."Moreover,the
"centerof eachSquare"would "admitof Statues,Columns,Obelisks,oranyotherornament
such as the different States may choose to
erect."Thus,by invitingthe individualstates
to make their imprint on the federal city,
UEnfanthoped to spur settlementaroundthe
squaresand, at the same time, help erase the
linesof demarcationbetweenthesouthernand
northernstates.Also figuringprominentlyin
his designwas the long postponedequestrian
figureof Washington,which he placed at the
Mansion
intersectionof the Capitol-Executive
axes. Unfortunately,by the summer of 1791,
when UEnfantsubmittedhis plan of the city
to PresidentWashington,prospectsforbuilding the federalcity as a cooperativeventure
among the stateswere not propitious.16
The Compromiseof 1790,which placed
the federal seat on the Potomac, provided
that Congress first meet in Philadelphiafor
ten years.In effect,Congress,as with the earlier dual residenceapproach,had dealt with
the problem of creating a more unified republic by promoting multiple centers of
power. Philadelphiawould be the actual locus of federal authority,but only on a temporarybasis.TheCityof Washington,despite
being endowed with a hallowed name,
would remain more of an imaginary than
actual place for another decade. The result
was a continuationof regional rivalriesthat
precluded the kind of cooperation envisioned by L'Enfant or by Madisonin TheFederalist.Retreatingfrom his earlier position,
Madison told the presidentshortly afterthe
compromise was struck that in light of the
circumstances,moniesfromCongressforany
improvementsat the new federal city were
"notprudent to count on."17
Pennsylvaniawas investingconsiderable
sums of money in the improvementof federal buildings at the temporary capital in
orderto induce Congressto remainin Philadelphia permanently.As a further inducement a handsome "President'sHouse" was
also eventually erected, which Washington
Thestubbornstudiouslyrefusedto occupy.18
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 Princetonin 1783,the
Hero willingly lent himself to a projectintended to enhancethe legitimacyof the general authority.If Thornton'splan were carried out, the nation's capital would in the
future become the City of Washington in
more thanjust name.20
primaryconcernwas
not personalaggrandizement,but
ratherto establishthe primacyof
Washington's
the Potomac over the pretensions of Philadelphia. This required immediate progress
on the improvementsin the federalcity.The
Presidenthoped to fund the publicbuildings
throughprivatemeans,but in the end, he was
forced to do what he had always dreaded-
Washington'sprimaryconcernwas not personal

aggrandizement,but ratherto establishthe
primacyof the Potomacover the pretensionsof Philadelphia.
reflectedin Congress'sstance toward funding the monumentto Washington.Although
L'Enfant'sPlan had included an equestrian
statue of Washington,Congress did not get
around to this matter until December 1791
when a jointcommitteewas set up to address
the questionof "themost eligible mannerfor
carryinginto effect the resolutionof August
7, 1783."But the initiative was tabled and
would not be formally discussed again in
Congressuntil Washington'sdeath in 1799.19
Meanwhile Washingtontried to injecta
sense of national mission into the building
of the federalcity.At Jefferson'ssuggestion,
he instructedthe city commissionersto begin a nationwidecompetitionin orderto find
the best design for the Capitol and the
President'sHouse. Withregardto the Capitol, Washington turned to Dr. William
Thornton,a native of Tortolain the British
West Indies. Included in Thornton'sdesign
was a white marble equestrian statue of
Washingtonin the Capitol rotunda with a
request congressional funding for completion of the Capitoland President'sHouse. In

January1796 the House of Representatives
entertaineda requestfrom the city commissioners (submittedvia RepresentativeMadison) authorizingthem to borrow money for
the completion of the public buildings, with
the federal government guaranteeing the
loan. The result was an acrimoniousdebate
in the House over what many congressmen
saw as the waste and extravagance manifested in the building of the federalcity.One
member,JohnWilliamsof New York,warned
that "the public buildings have been begun
upon ... a plan much too magnificent . . .
Pennsylvanians built a "President'sHouse"

hoping to prevent thefederal government
from movingfrom its temporaryquartersin
Philadelphiato its permanentlocation in
Washington.President Washington
pointedly refusedto live in it. Courtesy,LC.
20
more so than any palace in Europe; they

would cost a million dollars more than calculated."As a cost-cutting measure, Henry
Dearbornof Massachusettsproposed turning the President's House into the Capitol
Building- where the chiefmagistrate'squarterswould be he did not say.In the end, Congressapproveda $300,000loan. Butas Washington had long feared, this occurredat the
cost of armingopponents of the federal city.
A year before his retirementa Charleston,
South Carolina, newspaper launched this
criticismof the new city:
O ye who sit at helmof state
Yourvastdesignsyoubroachtoo late
Leavetheshipof stateon rockyground
Andfoolsto payforFederalTowns!21
Thus, rather than spurring a national con-
sciousness, by the late 1790s the question of

improvementsnow appearedto realizemany
Americans'worst fears about the fate of the
republic: consolidation by a predatory
metropolis.22
Thequestionof improvementsat the federal city, including the idea of erecting a
monument to Washingtonat the seat of government,did not go away; instead it became
part of the so-called RepublicanRevolution
that brought the Jeffersoniansto power in
1800.23
During the campaignthe Democratic
Republicansfanned the flames of public indignation against the administration of
Washington'ssuccessor,JohnAdams,by connecting the federal city with the rising cost
AbrahamBishop,in an oraof government.24
tion delivered at New Haven, Connecticut,
in September1800 on the eve of that state's
2000
Washington
History,Spring/Summer
This map,
printed on a
handkerchief,
was copied
from Andrew
Ellicott's
1792 version
of L Enfant's
plan. It was
widely
distributedin
hopes of
sparking
popular
national
interest in the
newfederal
city.
Courtesy,LC.
haps one measureof its effectivenessas a propaganda tool was its continued use in the
subsequent state and local elections. This
time, criticismwould focus most stronglyon
the Federalistproposalto build a mausoleum
for the recentlydeceased Washington.
local and nationalelections, included the issue among the sins of extravaganceperpetratedby the Federalists.Asked Bishop,"Do
you like the funding system, federalcity,foreign intercourse,stamp act, army,navy?"As
the presidentialelectionsdrew to a close, the
poet laureateof the JeffersonianParty,Philip
Freneau, summed up the feelings of the
Democratic Republican opposition to the
City of Washington:
December 18, 1799, shortly after

learningof Washington'sdeath,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
An infantcitygrowsapace,
Intendedfora royalrace,
Herecapitolsof an awfulheight,
Alreadyboastuponthesite,
Andpalacesforembryokings,
Displaytheirfruitsandspreadtheir
wings.25
BenjaminLatrobeproposedthis design in
1800 as Congressdebatedwhetherto build a
grand mausoleumfor Washington'sremains.
Courtesy,LC.
It is difficult to assess the impact of the federal city on the Republicanvictory,but per-
22
ing his remainsto the capital,therewas none

with respect to the national monument to
Washington,as the membersarguedover the
properrepublicantributeto the lateHero.On
May 8, 1800,FederalistcongressmanHenry
Lee of Virginiarecommendedthat a marble
monumentbe erectedin the rotundaover the
remainsandthatan equestrianstatueof Washington be placed in the front of the Capitol.
But anotherFederalistmemberof Congress,
RobertGoodloe Harper of South Carolina,
arguedthatthis tributedid not go farenough
and called instead for the building of an outdoor mausoleumin pyramidalformto house
his remains.Harper'sresolutionpassed the
House but not the Senate,and the questionof
a suitabletributeto Washingtoncontinuedto
be debatedwhen the second session of Congress convened at its new venue on the
Potomacin November 1800.Lee, as chair of
theHousecommitteechargedwith theproject,
introduceda new resolutionfor the construction of a mausoleum 150feet high.28
in the federalcity.26
Thisunusual requestwas
a reflectionof the sense of "nationalcalamity"with which the deathof Washingtonwas
received. In the late 1790s,with both Federalists and Democratic Republicans plying
their separate visions of American identity
against a background of domestic tension
and foreign intrigue, there was ample reason for leaders of either party to despair at
the passing of the man who, as the congressional resolutionphrased it, had given birth
to "a wide-spreading empire" and bequeathed "the WesternWorld its independence 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 calling for the equestrianstatue of Washington,
the nation's legislators were drawing attention to their own standing as national leaders showing their "love and gratitude" in
honoring his memory27
But if therewas unanimityabout bring-
23

William R. Birch'szoatercolorshows the
partially built Capitol that greeted Congress
upon its arrival in 1800. The largely
unfinished condition of WashingtonCity
promptedCongress to toy with abandoning
the locationfor a moreestablishedone.
Courtesy,LC.
ConnecticutFederalistRoger Griswold
explained the mausoleum's significance in
shapinga collectiveconsciousnessby saying,
"Thegrandeurof the pile will impressa sublime awe on all who behold it. It will survive
the presentgeneration 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 DemocraticRepublicansin Congress,however,opposed the resolution. Although he supported the idea of
"bringing [Washington's] ashes from the
place that they now lie," John Nicholas of
Virginia preferred a less ostentatious and
costly receptacle.In place of a largetomb,he
envisioned a "plain tablet" on which each
mancould "inscribewhat his heartdictated."
But some Federalists regarded Nicholas's
suggestion as an insufficient tribute to
Washington's memory. Lee, for instance,
complainedthat the Britisharistocracybuilt
largerdwellings for theirmistressesthanthe
mausoleum contemplatedfor the Fatherof
his Country.This ill-consideredremarkelicited a vigorous rebuttalfrom NathanielMacon, a Republicanof North Carolina,who
retortedthat the monument "might indeed
adorn this city,"but at the price of emulating a countrylike Egypt. "Now is the time,"
he declared, "to make a stand against this
monument mania." Macon's protests notwithstanding,in January1801Congressappropriated $200,000 for the building of a
mausoleumby the close marginof 45-37.29
The stormover "monumentmania"that
beganat the tailend of theAdamspresidency
soon extendedbeyond the halls of Congress.
Republican publicist James Thomson Callender,in the secondeditionof his incendiary
BeforeUs,ridiculedthe
pamphlet,TheProspect
to the memory of the
mausoleum
a
of
"plan
chief magistrate."Although the Federalists
had estimatedthe cost at $170,000,Callender
claimed,"Allsuch estimatesfall greatlyshort
of the ultimate expenditure." He added,
"Americawould be fortunateif she escaped
for a final balanceof five hundredthousand
dollars more for the expense of collecting

them." Callender claimed that the money
would be betterspent on shirtsand breeches
for"thesurvivorsof the old continentalarmy"
who "the paper jobbersof the first [federal]
congresshad strippedto the skin."30
Localpolitical races in the north played
on the issue of extravaganceat the nation's
center.In New Jersey,a statecontestedby Republicans and Federalists, the Reverend
ObijahDavis delivered an oration in which
he deploredthe mausoleumas "heaps... of
cold ungratefulstone."In anotherConnecticut oration,AbrahamBishoplashedout at the
Federalistembellishments.He asked, "Who
voted 200,000dollarsfor a mausoleum?"His
answer: the representativesof the northern
"friendsof order."In the New Yorkgubernatorialrace,supportersof the Republicancandidate George Clinton included the mausoleum,alongwith the Bankof theUnitedStates
and the United StatesMint,among the accumulated evils of Federalism.Respondingto
these attacks,AlexanderHamiltonnoted that
the federal city had indeed been "a favorite
of the illustriousWashington."Butit was "no
less certainthatit was warmlypatronizedby
Mr.Jefferson,Mr.Madisonand the greatmajorityof the members,who at the time composed the oppositionin Congress."31
"Mr.Jefferson"and "Mr.Madison"must
have looked on these attackson the federal
city with mixed emotions.As Hamiltonintimated,both men had workedwith Washington in a decade-longstruggleto establishthe
Potomac as the seat of the federal government; the constructionof the public buildings, althoughby no means completedat the
timeJeffersontook office,was largelyunder-
24
of the City of Washington,one morecompatible with the tenets of the RepublicanRevolution, but also one that did not abandonthe
effort to assert the presence of the federal
authorityon the Potomac.
taken through their efforts. By the same token,both men had been fearfulof what they
felt was Hamilton'sflirtationwith monarchical government, and Jefferson,finding the
idea of a monumental tomb to Washington
in the Capitolantitheticalto republicanprinciples, tried to circumvent Thornton's rotunda design.32Yet despite having attained
the reins of federal power at the head of a
political party that embodied the Anti-federalist fears regarding the predatory metropolis, as president Jeffersonwould continue the work of completingthe Capitoland
thusanchorCongressto the Potomac.He was
not, however, able to escape criticism over
monument-building at the seat of government- mostly by the Federalists,but some
of it by Republicansas well. Out of this concernover the costs of monumentsin the federalcity would come a rethinkingof the role
keeping with the RepublicanRevolutionthatbroughthim intooffice,Jefferson

as president was determined to create
new standards of protocol. On New Year's
Day 1802, as New England Federalist
ManassehCutlerrecalled,a "numberof the
Federalistswere determinedto keep up the
old custom, though contraryto what was intended [byJefferson],of waiting on the President, with the compliments of the season."
The delegationwas "tolerablyreceived"and
usheredin to view the Republicans'mostconspicuous,if transientsymbol- the "mammoth
cheese."33Weighing well over a thousand
25
Themammothcheese and the mammoth

loafwerefittingemblemsfortheCityof Washington. Both were more impressivefor their
size and the hopes thatthey engenderedthan
fortheirstateof permanence.Theslow growth
of the federal city was acknowledged by
Jeffersonwhen, upon taking office, he extended the suspension of President
Washington's 1795 edict banning wooden
houses. The ban on wood was "foundto impede the settlementin the city of mechanics
and otherswhose circumstancesdid not admit of erecting[brickand or stone] houses."
AlthoughJeffersonacknowledgedthatfuture
developmentultimatelydependedon attracting wealth to the federal city, he remained
defiant. As he told former Secretaryof the
Navy BenjaminStoddert, "Men of money,
have not shown a disposition to move to
Washingtonwith theirmoney;nor is it probablethatthey will, untilthey see thatthe capitalcanbe had withoutthem."36
Goingit alone,
President ThomasJeffersonencouragedthe
however,meantdependingon the largesseof
completionof the majorfederal buildings to
Congress,many of whose membershad only
help ensure Washington'ssurvival. At the
recently lambasted the Federalistsfor their
same time he guarded against the appearance
alleged extravagances.The Federalistswho
of extravagance,urgingfunding of public
had enthusiasticallysupportedthe Washingworksprojectsaround the country to help
bind it together.Portrait by Rembrandt
ton Mausoleumnow stood by in sullen opPeale, WhiteHouse Collection, courtesy,
position.Recognizingtheserealities,Jefferson
WhiteHouse Historical Association.
found it prudentto focus on what he considered the "most importantobjectsfor ensuring the destinies of the city,"the completion
the
was
made
of the publicbuildings.37
cheese
(estimates
pounds
vary),
in Cheshire,Massachusetts,and transported
Jefferson,likeWashington,hastenedwork
the
ox-drawn
to
for
on
public buildings because he believed
by
sledge WashingtonCity
that nothing hampered the development of
the New Year'sgala. An outragedCutlerlathe city more than the uncertainty over
beledit a "monumentof humanweaknessand
or not Congress would remain. In
at
whether
The
mammoth
cheese
folly."34
spawned
least one other "monument":in March1804, fact, in spring 1804 disgruntled Federalists
the Navy bakertook a barrelof flour,put it in
introduceda Senateresolutioncallingfor the
an oven, and emergedwith a giganticloaf. It temporaryremoval of the federal seat from
was set on a bier, covered with white linen, Washingtonto Baltimore.Jefferson'ssupportandcarriedto the Capitolwhereit was placed ers immediately sensed the danger that
in a committeeroom;"attwelve o'clockthat "Philadelphiaor New Yorkmay completely
outbid Baltimoreand carrythe prize,"and in
day, the Chamber was crowded with all
the end the president used his considerable
classes and colors from the Presidentof the
influencein Congressto defuse the proposal.
United States to the vilest Virginiaslave"all thereto partakeof the "mammothloaf."35 But the criticismwas not confined solely to
26
the oppositionparty.Indeed,in February1808

an erstwhileJeffersoniansupporter,Representative JamesSloan of New Jersey,had questioned the president's own devotion to
economy while calling for the removalof the
seat of governmentto Philadelphia.38
Althoughpracticalpoliticsdictateda quick
conclusionto the raisingof public buildings,
Jeffersonalso wanted to erectmonumentsin
the federalcity thatwould endureand win the
approbationof the civilized world. Thiscommitmentwas underlinedby his appointment
of BenjaminHenryLatrobeas the surveyorof
public buildings. But the presidentalso saw
that in a nation sensitive to vice and corruption at the highestcouncilsof government,refinementand frugalityhad to be carefullycalibrated,lest it seem as if the federalauthority
was assertingtoo much "energy"in governing anddrainingtheperiphery,as theAnti-federalistshad feared,of money and resources.
Latrobe, disturbed by what he considered
half-heartedmeasures,believedthat
Jefferson's
creatingmonuments requireda total public
commitment,one seriouslylackingin the citizenry.Whilehe reveredthe AmericanRepublic as the best of all possible governments,
Latrobebelieved thatthe very opennessof the
societyand the opportunitiesforadvancement
it affordedweakened "theties thatbind individuals to each other."Forhim, therewas no
betterexampleof this than the promisemade
to MarthaWashingtonin 1799 regardingthe
dispositionof her husband'sremains.Despite
the sacredpledge made by Congressto inter
thepresidentin theCapitol,"thebody of Washington rests upon a trussel, crowded into a
A more podamp vault"at Mount Vernon.39
liticallyastutemanthanLatrobe,Jeffersonhad
already begun to adjust to these social and
politicalchanges.
Jefferson,like Washingtonand Madison,
wished to see American national development guided from the Potomac rather than
the "overgrowncities" of the North, whose
commercial interests offered a path to national progress that differed radically from
Jefferson'sagrarianvision. Thus, he worked
Jefferson'sTreasurySecretaryAlbert 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 authorityto the Potomac.
Yethe also took pains to ensure that it would
not appear as if the City of Washingtonwas
the sole beneficiary of federal largesse. Announcing "anaccumulationof monies in the
Treasurybeyond the installments of public
debt," Jefferson recommended in his sixth
annual message in December 1806 that the
anticipated surplus be applied to subsidizing "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 operations new channels of communication will
be opened between the States, the line of
separationwill disappear,theirinterestswill
be identified, and their union cemented by
new and indissoluble ties."
Subsequentlyin April 1808 Secretaryof
the TreasuryAlbertGallatinissued a "Report
on Roads and Canals."It called for $20 million in spending on internalimprovements,
with $2 million to be appropriatedannually
27
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.
to the states over a ten-yearperiod. The federalcity would surelyhave benefitedas well;
Jeffersonwas eager to improve not just public buildings but the roads in the District of
Columbiain order to ensure the "destinies"
of the Potomac capital. But federal funds
would not be limited to the ten miles square
and contributeto a capitalhidden by an "impenetrablewall of gold" as the Anti-federalists had feared.Instead,under Jeffersonand
Gallatin'splan,the monies thatstreamedinto
the City of Washingtonwould flow backoutward to all statesand territoriesof the United
States.40It would be the distribution of the
proceeds of the general treasury- not a
monumentto Washington- thatwould help
bind the nation together.
Before Gallatin's plan could be implemented, however, the weight of foreign affairs, beginning with the EmbargoAct and
culminating in the War of 1812, wiped out
the federal surplus. Worstof all, in August
1814Britishtroops burned most of the public buildings in the federal city. In the aftermathof the conflagration,therewould be one
last attemptbefore the Civil Warto remove
the federal seat to a site in the North, an initiative that originated with a Republican,
RepresentativeJonathanFisk of New York,
and which requiredthe spur of party unity
to quell.41
Throughout the ensuing debate, Madison 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 committee assessed the damage at $1.2 million
and accepted a loan of $500,000from a consortium of Washingtonbanks for the repair
of the publicbuildings.Localobserverscame
to see the burningas something of a blessing
in disguise. In October1814the Georgetown
FederalRepublicanannounced, "The public
edifices, if executive influence is effective,
will be rebuilt on a plan of improved magnificence,and the city will rise againin splendor, and become the pride and boast of a
The City of
great and increasing empire."42
would
not
be a privihowever,
Washington,
the
center.
The
of
capital
price keeping
leged
on the Potomacwas acceptingits role as one
of many localities contesting for federal
money.But competitionwith other localities
would result just as often in the neglect toward improvementsin the federalcity.Such
was the case with the national monument to
Washington.
At the onset of the federal republic, the
suggestion was made that "every succeeding President should be honored with the
title of 'Washington.'"Thus,in a way his successorswould embody the spiritof Washington. Congress had actually done something
similar in requesting that his remainsbe interredin the Capitolrotunda.Foryears after
his death the expectationcontinued to exist,
at least in some quarters, that his remains
would one day rest in a tomb constructed
underneaththe finished rotunda.But it was
not to be. On the anniversaryof Washington's
100th birthday in February 1832, the 22nd
Congress made a last attempt to inter his
body in the federal city. But conflicting loyalties that this action provoked - did
Washington'sbody belong to Virginiaor to
the nation?Whatdebtswere 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 acquiesced to the requestof Washington'sheirsnot
to remove him fromhis grave. As it had half
a centuryearlierwith the dual residencyapproach, Congress split the difference.
Washington'sbody would remainat Mount
28
near the site that UEnfanthad designated in

his plan for the equestrianstatue.Lackof nationalpurpose delayed the completionof the
555-footmonumentuntil 1885.44
ForWashington,who since 1783had consented to the use of his body as a way of cementing a national identity and establishing
the legitimacy of the general authority,the
neglect of improvements in the federal city
would have seemedastonishing.Butalthough
it was not the capital that Washingtonmay
have wanted, given the traditionalfears of a
predatory metropolis it was ultimately the
capitalthatAmericansneeded. E
Vernonand an equestrianstatue in his honor

would be constructedin the now-completed
Capitol rotunda.43
Theequestrianstatueof Washingtonthat
the Confederationhad decreedin 1783never
materialized, although one was commissioned much later by Congress in 1853 and
unveiled in 1860in WashingtonCircle,N.W.
A statue of the Hero in Roman dress by
HoratioGreenoughstood brieflyin the Capitol rotunda,but the figure of the first president in ancientgarbwas universallydisliked
and it was eventually removed not just from
the rotunda,but fromthe Capitolgrounds itself. InsteadRobertMills,the Surveyorof the
PublicBuildings,was commissionedto build
a differentkind of monument,one thatwould
not depend on the figure of Washington.The
obeliskwas inauguratedin July1848at a spot
Rubil Morales-Vazquez is a lecturer in American history at Rutgers University-Newark. He

is currently at work on a history of early Washington, D.C.
29

Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in The Early Capital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imagining Washington Monuments and Nation Building in The Early Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imagining Washington: Monuments and Nation Building in the Early Capital

Author(s): Rubil Morales-Vzquez

In this iconic painting by EdwardSavage (ca. 1796), GeorgeWashingtonis surroundedby symbols

Writing during the high tide of the Great

Thisobservation,made in the earlyyears

New Jersey town between August 23 and

was of continuing interestand even anxiety

holding a truncheonin his righthand and his

This print, basedon "WashingtonReceiving

equestrianstatue under the present system

building during this period. The American

of peregrinating instead of permanent resi-

dence." Congress, he archly observed, had

[T]he debatesover the creationof a permanent

the centrifugalforcesthatplagued the Union

essential dilemma that confronted the

Seven years beforethe PotomacRiver site

Conventionof 1787.As part of theireffortto

Washington History, Spring/Summer 2000

lowed the convention,one critic,New York's

matter of "needful buildings"- which in

This detail of Pierre (Peter) L'Enfant'splan

dent Washingtonchose as its designer,Major

Washington History, Spring/Summer 2000

"great repository" beneath to house the

Washington'sprimaryconcernwas not personal

request congressional funding for completion of the Capitoland President'sHouse. In

Pennsylvanians built a "President'sHouse"

more so than any palace in Europe; they

sciousness, by the late 1790s the question of

December 18, 1799, shortly after

ing his remainsto the capital,therewas none

Washington History, Spring/Summer 2000

dollars more for the expense of collecting

keeping with the RepublicanRevolutionthatbroughthim intooffice,Jefferson

Washington History, Spring/Summer 2000

Themammothcheese and the mammoth

the oppositionparty.Indeed,in February1808

hard to complete the public buildings and

near the site that UEnfanthad designated in

Vernonand an equestrianstatue in his honor

Rubil Morales-Vazquez is a lecturer in American history at Rutgers University-Newark. He

You might also like