# Consensus Document

**From**

**The President's House Roundtable**

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Introduction

On November 18, 2003, the National Park Service convened a roundtable of
scholars to discuss outstanding issues about the President's House site.
Located near the southeast corner of Sixth and Market Streets within the
boundaries of Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, the
site has been the focus of attention by scholars and various community
groups. The roundtable included members of the National Park Service
\[NPS\] and local historians with a longstanding interest in the site.
In order to gain fresh insights, NPS also invited scholars with
expertise in slavery, local and regional architecture, the presidency,
and Washington. The goals of the roundtable were to examine the relative
primary evidence about the site and to attempt to resolve questions
regarding the Washington occupation of the property.

The members of the roundtable were :

Joseph Becton, Interpretive Supervisor and African American History
scholar, Independence National Historical Park \[INDE\]

Charles Blockson, Historian and Curator of the Blockson Collection,
Temple University

Frances Delmar, Acting Chief of Interpretation, INDE

Doris Fanelli, Chief, Division of Cultural Resources Management, INDE

Bernard Herman, Professor, University of Delaware

Edward Lawler, Independent Scholar and representative of the
Independence Hall Association

Jed Levin, Archeologist, National Park Service

Randall Miller, Professor, St. Joseph's University

James Mueller, Chief Historian, INDE

Dennis Pogue, Associate Director, Mt. Vernon

William Seale, Independent Historian and scholar, the history of the
White House

Anna Coxe Toogood, Historian, INDE

Sherrill D. Wilson, Urban Anthropologist, New York City

Stephanie G. Wolf, Senior Fellow, McNeil Center for Early American
Studies

Following the meeting, the group maintained contact by electronic mail.
This document reflects the group's consensus. No straw votes were taken.
The conclusions are not necessarily the majority view but rather, they
reflect the sense of the group after careful reflection on all
viewpoints.

**What We Can/Can't Know**

Prior to the meeting members of the roundtable received a package of
reading materials (Appendix 1) so that all participants had the same
basic orientation to the problem. The group carefully examined the
primary evidence connected to the President's house site, which the park
compiled and distributed prior to the meeting. We considered collateral
evidence where appropriate. Members of the group also contributed their
own experiences in related areas to provide comparative support. The
bulk of our efforts at the meeting and in subsequent correspondence has
centered on the Washington occupancy. We are, however, committed to
producing a balanced interpretation of the site and to that end, the
final exhibit will also address the Adams occupancy as well as provide
background about occupants prior to Washington and the neighborhood
context during the life of the house.

The majority of the group's questions fell into two broad categories:
the location and use of outbuildings on the property; and the identities
of the occupants and their periods of residency. It is likely that we
will never discover satisfactory answers to all of our questions about
the use and layout of the site and about the activities of its
occupants. It is important, however, to review systematically all of the
relevant evidence. All interpretive decisions about the property must be
based upon solid research, to the extent possible.

The group agreed that resolving minor inconsistencies is less important
than formulating an informed, intellectually-defensible overall message
about the site. There are unfortunate gaps in the primary information.
More primary evidence expresses intentions for remodeling the site
during the Washington occupancy than confirms that those intentions were
actualized. After much discussion, the group agreed that we can
interpret these intentions and also note our uncertainty that the
conversions were completed.

The roundtable has reached the following conclusions regarding the
locations and uses of specific buildings on the property.[^1] In his 9
September 1790 letter to Robert Morris, George Washington directed the
"Cow House" be converted into additional stalls for horses. The
roundtable's consensus is that the small square marked within the stable
perimeter on the Burnt House Plan is the Cow House.[^2]

Considerably greater discussion centered on the smoke house. In his 5
September 1790 letter to Tobias Lear, George Washington expressed a
desire to convert a "smoke House" into accommodations for servants.
Washington stated, pragmatically, that he had a greater need for
"accommodation of Servants than for Smoking of meat." Dr. Herman, an
expert in Delaware Valley vernacular architecture, noted that this
reference to a smoke house in such an urban context is unique. Smoke
houses are more usually found in more town-like and rural settings.
While Washington's reference to the building's use is unambiguous, it is
possible that the term "smoking" was interchangeably used with "curing"
in the late eighteenth century. While there is no space labeled "Smoke
House" on the Burnt House Plan of the property made between 1780 and
1785, the correspondence indicates that such a building existed on the
property and alterations to it were planned. Anna Toogood advanced the
possibility that the smoke house dated prior to the Morris occupancy
when the area was less densely built and its name remained attached to
the structure long after its primary use was discontinued. The group
moved its discussion from the existence of the building to its probable
location on the property.

Although George Washington proposed housing people above the stable, in
his 17 October 1790 letter to the President, Tobias Lear informed him
that the room was a hayloft, unsuitable for occupancy for reasons of
fire safety. Instead, Lear suggested that for reasons of convenience and
safety, Washington's people "may be conveniently lodged in the smoke
house."

Unfortunately, the only references to a smoke house are in the
Washington-Lear correspondence that dates before the president moved to
the house on 27 November 1790. The structure is not mentioned in any
other primary document that has come to light so far. Dennis Pogue
mentioned that Virginia insurance surveys did not list any properties
valued at less than \$100. Further research is required to determine
what conventional insurance practices in Philadelphia were. The primary
correspondence prior to the president's arrival is clear about Lear's
intentions to convert the building to living quarters.

Tobias Lear, in his 31 October 1790 letter to George Washington, notes
that the "Smoke-house will be extended to the end of the stable, and two
good rooms made in it for the accommodation of the Stable People." From
this statement, we infer that the smoke house might have been the
rectangular space attached to the Wash House as it is drawn and labeled
on the Burnt House Plan. Given the placement of the Wash House and the
Stable, also labeled on the Burnt House Plan, the unlabelled rectangles
between the two structures are likely locations for the smoke house and
the area of its enlargement. The probability of the smoke house's
location is somewhat strengthened by three solid lines between the Wash
House and the Stable. Given the conventions of the drawing, the solid
lines are probably walls, defining the perimeter of the smoke house. It
is possible that the dashed lines indicate a roof of an open shed that
was enclosed and combined with the smoke house to produce the desired
quarters. However, the use of dashed lines throughout the drawing does
not consistently refer to roof lines. Nevertheless, if the smoke house
were enlarged to encompass the area south of it, this arrangement would
quarter the stable workers near their place of occupation. Anna Toogood
theorizes that the prime organizational structure for the staff at 190
High Street was function. Washington brought a general's precision to
his personal affairs; his interest in efficiency and effectiveness
caused him to quarter his staff near the work they performed. We may
never know whether the plans to enlarge and adapt the smoke house were
actualized. If the addition wasn't completed, the four stable workers
could have been quartered in the smoke house, a smaller space, 8 1/2
feet square or some permutation thereof. There is also the possibility
that the stable workers slept in the second floor of the stable and
coach house (Mutual Policy 895 for Andrew Kennedy 19 June 1798).

One reason for the intense interest in precisely locating this space is
that for a period during Washington's occupancy it may have housed some
of his slaves and servants. We know that George Washington brought eight
enslaved Africans to work in the President's House in November 1790.
Three of these slaves were Washington's stable hands, Austin, Giles and
Paris joined a white servant, Arthur Dunn. In 1791, Giles and Paris were
returned to Mount Vernon and eventually replaced by local labor. Austin
worked in the President's house until his death in December, 1794. We
know that slaves were also domiciled in other locations in the
President's house such as in the fourth floor garret of the main house
and over the kitchen. A more extended discussion of Washington's slaves
in Philadelphia and their housing arrangements is given below.

The roundtable also examined the Servants Hall, an addition built by
Washington next to the Kitchen marked on the Burnt House Plan. We know
that the Servants Hall at Mount Vernon was used primarily to lodge the
servants of houseguests.[^3] The Servants Hall in Philadelphia seems to
have been used primarily as a dining hall for Washington's servants,
those workers distinguished from the secretaries who dined with the
family. It was also probably used as a work area. In his 5 September
1790 letter to Tobias Lear, George Washington stated "the intention of
the addition to the Back building is to provide a Servants Hall, and one
or two (as it will afford) lodging rooms for the Servants, especially
those who are coupled." On 17 October 1790, Lear wrote to Washington
that "the Masons...will run up the Servant's hall on the back part of
the Kitchen, and extend it far enough to make two rooms for the Servants
at the end of the Hall. These, with the accommodations to be made in the
Smokehouse and the four Garrets will provide for all the people." The
work was not immediately completed, however, for on 31 October 1790,
Lear informs his employer that "there will be a sufficient number of
sleeping rooms without the addition proposed in the \[Servants\] Hall;
for the two largest garrets have been divided, and by that means four
very good & comfortable lodging rooms are made; beside the two smaller
garrets (which are really handsome apartments) for Mr. Hyde and William.
The four \[divided\] Garrets (each of which will conveniently hold 3
beds if necessary) will then furnish lodgings for the women
Servants---the white men Servants---the Black Servants---and for Mrs.
Lear's maid. None of the men will have their wives in the family." In
his 7 November 1790 reply to Lear, Washington assents to his secretary's
judgment.

While the completion of the Servants Hall is confirmed by the 1798
insurance policies, there is no documentation that the two proposed
rooms for married servants were ever built and occupied. According to
the household accounts, Hyde and Kitt did bring their wives to
Philadelphia and both women were salaried staff. The above references
provide a glimpse at the complex job of sorting out just who lived and
worked in the President's House during the federal period. To improve
our knowledge of this era, Anna Toogood and James Mueller have begun
creating databases for the group's further use.

# Slave Quarters

Members of the roundtable have spent considerable time wrestling with
the terminology that best describes the various working and lodging
spaces on the property. The problem is complicated because Washington's
staff was not a closed set of people. The staff was composed of slaves,
indentured, free and day's workers. The same people were not on staff
during the entire Washington occupancy. Members of the roundtable have
begun to analyze the available primary evidence so that we will have as
accurate a picture as possible of the household members. Moreover, we
know that the term "slave quarters" as used by many today, generally
connotes remote housing on a large plantation. It is problematic how
lodging for slaves was viewed and referenced during the historical
period under study. In all of the 1780-1830 probate inventories for
Charleston, South Carolina, for instance, there is no listing for a
slave quarters or its contents, although there are many references to
kitchens and washhouses. We have found no primary evidence that the term
"slave quarters" was ever used to denote spaces at the President's house
site.

The President's House offers a unique opportunity to portray slavery in
a northern, urban setting during the federal era. At 190 High Street,
slaves and non-slaves lived and worked in the same general areas. At
least some of the black men seem to have been housed separately from the
white men. Slaves had relatively free use of the property. In addition,
some slaves went into the larger community during the performance of
their daily work.[^4] The manner in which slaves mingled with other
slaves, servants and free Africans in this densely populated area is an
important part of the story. It replaces the simplistic notion that
people were either enslaved or free, black or white with the complex
reality of slavery and race in the 1790s. As a major port in the
Atlantic world, the portrayal of the complexities of Philadelphia's past
localizes the cultures of race, display and mercantilism, while also
connecting to the social, political, and economic currents of the
Revolutionary Atlantic world.

Because of the highly complex web of personal and social identities as
well as the shifting nature of the occupants in the President's house,
the roundtable suggests using the term "servant/slave spaces" to
describe the actual circumstances of the residents. While slaves and
servants often slept in tiny spaces, they lived throughout the property.
Power as expressed in social rank and convention determined how much
access to various spaces each resident of the property had. We can teach
the social hierarchy of the site by presenting it within the spatial
hierarchy of the buildings and their rooms.

# Power of Place and Marking the Site

The superintendent tasked the roundtable with responding to the major
questions regarding the existence and location of outbuildings and the
naming of locations where slaves lived and worked at the President's
House site. The roundtable thinks that several other topics require
consideration during the subsequent development of the commemorative
design for the site. The first topic, power of place considers ways to
enlist the landscape in the description of the past.

Consensus is that we cannot overstress the importance of having visitors
connect to this site and be receptive to its teaching power. Visitors to
this site have made themselves available to learning and we must
capitalize on that opportunity. In addition to acknowledging the
presence of slaves throughout the site, we can take advantage of the
power of this place by marking one spot that is most powerful. The
roundtable supports marking the spot where the stables and smoke house
were that is now near the entrance to the Liberty Bell Center as a
juxtaposition of slavery and liberty. This location is intended to be a
reminder, not a substitute for interpreting the presence of slavery
throughout the site.

The group recommends outlining the perimeter of the stable and the other
buildings in the ground as much as practicable. We also favor the
inclusion of the interior plan of the main floors of the buildings in
the on-the-ground representation. Bernard Herman stated, "the details of
the architectural experience are central to meaningful and compelling
interpretations of the site." Providing as much information as possible
about the buildings will permit better first-person interpretation. We
favor exploring a wide range of media techniques that will permit the
portrayal of the interior spaces of the remaining levels of the
buildings from cellars to garrets.

In addition to marking the buildings on the ground at the Liberty Bell
Center entrance, a graphic would emphasize the contrast between slavery
and freedom. The graphic should be visible from within and without the
park complex. Although we considered a depiction of the chained slave
with the words, "Am I not a man and a brother?," from Josiah Wedgewood's
medallion, Charles Blockson dissuaded the group from this image because
it carries negative notions of oppression and bondage in the African
American community. Another possible image, Samuel Jennings' painting,
*Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences* was also discounted because
of its interpretation by the African American community as a portrayal
of an idealized scene of freedom according to white terms in which
Africans lacked agency. It is extremely important that the graphics
chosen, whether period or newly-created, carry images that are read
positively in terms of the cognition of both the white and African
American communities. Mr. Blockson stressed the necessity that the
graphics portray African agency and the roundtable encourages the
designers to be mindful of this sensitive cultural issue. Joseph Becton
pointed out that we should abandon the use of the Presidential seal
within the outline of the main house as suggested in the Olin/Ciulla
design. His subsequent research has concluded that the Presidential seal
was not used until the late nineteenth century. The Great Seal of the
United States or the Chain of States might be appropriate substitutes.

In addition to using the ground as a canvas for outlining the former
buildings and interpreting the occupants of the property, the roundtable
encourages the employment of a full range of label copy, graphics on
piers and free-standing signage to convey the complex stories at this
site. The group understands that portions of the footprint for the main
house would extend onto the present sidewalk. The Olin/Ciulla design
plan did not take the concept to a fully-developed interpretation; it
should be noted, however, that plan did press the boundary of the site
by depicting the northern perimeter of the main house as it would have
interrupted the present sidewalk. This feature would engage all
pedestrians, not only park visitors, with the site. There must be a
determined effort to make the visitor feel there was a house and a
series of support buildings on this site. This calls for very creative
design solutions that convey ideas of space and place while adhering to
National Park Service standards for scholarship and interpretation of
the past. As representative of the Independence Hall Association Edward
Lawler stated that organization recommended a bronze doll-house-sized
model of the house be incorporated into the design. In the absence of a
valid, primary representation of the house that could serve as a source
document, NPS policy precludes such a solution.

# Context

The roundtable strongly recommends the presentation of the President's
House within its temporal and spatial contexts. Washington wasn't unique
as a slaveholder in Philadelphia. Many of the heads of household at 190
High Street owned slaves, with John Adams being one notable exception. A
good discussion of slavery and freedom in both practical as well as
philosophical terms during the federal era is needed to provide
grounding for Washington's actions. Offer an approximation of the number
of slaveholders in Philadelphia during this decade as far as it is
available through tax and census records.

Anna Toogood's Historic Resource Study as well as John Milner
Associates' \[JMA\] subsequent archeological work provides excellent
grounding for describing the neighborhood and residents of this block as
well as the other two large blocks of Independence Mall. Graphics would
be useful for describing the proximity of residents to government,
businesses and services such as markets. While we can expand the
detailed description of the development and occupation of late
eighteenth century neighborhoods, we must be careful to stress the
practical limits that transportation, civil amenities, and wealth
imposed upon the average citizen, constricting their daily paths of
travel. As another way of bringing the neighborhood to life, the
roundtable recommends amending the Lives of Market Street pavers to
include the numbers of free and enslaved residents where possible and
adding similar information to the south side of the street.

As an additional way of providing historical context, the interpretive
methods should tell the stories of the African community, free and
enslaved. Be as specific as possible. During the decade between 1787 and
1797, Africans established important social institutions that ultimately
contributed to their betterment. Organizational meetings for St. Thomas'
African Episcopal Church were held at James Dexter's home, a site now
within INDE's boundaries. Some of the men who founded that church were
also founding members of the Free African Society. Mother Bethel African
Episcopal Church is a few blocks south of the President's House site.
Both of these religious institutions have renewed their ties to the park
and they remain strong constituents.

# 

# 

# Nomenclature

The roundtable had a lengthy discussion of whether the site's
interpretation should employ contemporary terms or terms used by the
historical group. While the former will be easier for visitors'
apprehension, the latter adds another layer of complexity to the
stories. Sherrill Wilson shared an example from her work at New York
City's African Burial Ground. Their historical research revealed
seventeen different terms for Africans. Mr. Blockson added that the term
African American is perhaps the most offensive one because Africans at
the time did not enjoy all the rights of Americans and, in many
instances, had not freely emigrated to the colonies. Dennis Pogue
pointed out that at Mt. Vernon alone, terms such as "Negro quarters,"
"quarters for family," and "outlying quarters," were variously employed
to describe living spaces.[^5] The terms reveal a lot about the groups
under study. While using historical terms will demand concentration and
adjustment on the visitor's part, the usage will ultimately enrich the
visitor experience. Randall Miller has suggested using the historical
terms and including modern explanations in parentheses where necessary.
Other members of the roundtable agreed with this solution.

# Recognition

The site must offer recognition of the individuals commemorated as well
as make their world recognizable to the visitor. Mr. Blockson emphasized
and the roundtable concurred that the stories should stress
self-empowerment, not dwell on victimhood. The narratives should offer
more than enslavement; they must acknowledge agency and
self-determination. The messages at this site are stimulating; they show
the inherent contradictions in the promise of freedom.

The President's House site must offer cultural representation to
visitors of color. The African presence is throughout the site and may
be reflected in material practices as diverse as foodways and the
interior paint schemes of lodging rooms. The archeology of eighteenth
century Annapolis and Charleston has been particularly effective in
documenting the African presence through material culture. Virginia and
Philadelphia examples must be found as well. Humanize the big stories.
As Bernard Herman stated, "people care about people."

There are important, intermediate steps to take before the permanent
design for the site is implemented. This is a closely-watched piece of
real estate and to maintain the confidence of the community in our
intentions we need to act immediately. The park has installed three
large signs on the site that describe our intention to commemorate the
President's House and the story of slavery there. The signs will
contribute to our interim interpretation of the place. Frances Delmar
pledged that a PowerPoint presentation about the site will be ready for
our visitors when the NAACP national convention meets in Philadelphia
this summer. The park will also be prepared to conduct special tours
that recognize the site. In addition to special recognition of this
site, the park will resume offering the Underground Railroad tours that
we began last summer. We will also offer the tour in Power-Point format
on days of inclement weather.

# Buildings

We can all agree that were the President's house not demolished so long
ago, this site would have received more recognition as one important
location of the executive branch of the federal government before
Washington, D. C. became the national capital. Stories about the past
adhere to sites and structures. Reintroducing the footprint is
important; but also the people who populated the site and events that
occurred there are the exclamation points for the structures. We can
explore many important topics using the buildings to explain the social
systems at work and the important events that occurred there. William
Seale pointed out that this is the site where Washington invented many
of the precedents that the presidency continues to follow. The
President's House in Philadelphia was a major "experiment" with
establishing the executive department under the Constitution. Everyone
in the household, without exception, was part of the community that made
the presidency work. The lessons Washington learned at 190 High Street
informed the White House. Bernard Herman felt that our Franklin Court
site offers an excellent example of how we can convey this information.

Randall Miller reminded the group of some ideas that we want visitors to
know about the buildings. The theories and concepts of the presidency
were developed here. Standards of ceremony and appearance were set.
There were Native American guests here. Precedents for operating the
Executive Branch were developed here.

Bernard Herman contributed the idea that the site must interpret the
importance of secular and sacred power. Ultimately, as Stephanie Wolf
reminded us, this was a working space. Jed Levin concurred that it is
the physical house and its outbuildings that will tie the stories
together and make the site alive.

The President's House site offers INDE the opportunity to interpret one
of the three major branches of American government, thereby fulfilling
our obligation to discuss our main themes. Some of the important events
that occurred at 190 High Street demonstrate how the president's
attitude and contemporary values permitted the persistence of slavery
and racism in America. Washington signed the Fugitive Slave Act in this
house in 1793. The following year, when Philadelphia experienced a wave
of immigration from the Haitian revolution, he signed a Naturalization
Act that limited citizenship to "free white persons," thereby denying
citizenship to black refugees from Santo Domingue.[^6] But Washington's
attitudes towards slavery were not unwavering; his views changed over
time ending in his will (probated after his death in December, 1799),
which freed all of the slaves he owned. Moreover, by his will he
provided a stipend for William, his former body servant, and included
caretaking provisions for the old and young among his slaves.

Finally, while this report has alluded to the Adams occupancy and
presidency, much more work is needed to provide balance to the overall
interpretation at the site. Adams, never a slaveowner, employed vastly
different ways to manage his presidential and personal responsibilities
within the same spaces. He offers a fascinating contrast to Washington.

**Future Actions**

The roundtable recognizes that this cannot be the last, definitive word
on this site. We identified a list of issues that require resolution and
additional actions to take. The first of these is to continue compiling
as much information as possible about all of the residents of the house.
Samuel Fraunces, for instance, is one important resident who deserves
fuller treatment. In an effort to determine who all of the residents
were as well as their terms of residency, James Mueller has compiled a
database of their identities based upon primary sources. Anna Coxe
Toogood has contributed a narrative list of household members. The
resultant distribution table should assist the park in discerning any
preferences of Washington in types of labor employed at the house by
revealing patterns.

The group also called for more information about the residents' daily
lives. Examination of published and unpublished account books for
purchases might yield more information about possible African influences
on family menus, for example. Such details can illuminate the reciprocal
nature of the relationships among the Washingtons and their slaves.
Comparison and contrast to the lifestyle at Mt. Vernon might also be
important for understanding what was unique about the urban situation.

The roundtable encouraged the park to recomb the evidence once more. A
close review of the Burnt House Plan in light of the group's conclusions
is necessary.

The roundtable agreed upon the need for a master summary of primary and
secondary sources checked and to be examined. Everyone should contribute
to this work as it will form the basis for future directions. Randall
Miller stressed the importance of creating an inventory of known sources
for this study. James Mueller has created a synopsis of the Washington
and Adams presidencies in order to provide clues to practices at the
site. In 2001, Anna Toogood created a bibliography on the site. That now
requires expansion.

It is obvious from the foregoing recommendations that all of this
information cannot be presented to the public in its entirety at the
President's House site. Rather, it will form a body of scholarship that
will serve park interpreters and resource managers. We must also share
it with our colleagues in neighboring institutions and ask them to carry
their fair share of this information to the public. This document serves
as a summary of where we stand on several important issues; it also
serves as a call to neighboring sites to take up the work that we have
begun at the President's House Site. The National Park Service is
pleased to continue its work of telling a more diverse history and
introducing more questions at the national level; but it is important
that variations of these stories are told at other sites. In that way,
visitors can experience a seamless history.

Doris Devine Fanelli, Ph.D., Chief

Division of Cultural Resources Management

Independence National Historical Park

[^1]: Primary sources referenced in this section are found in Appendix
    1.

[^2]: The best physical descriptions of the site are contained in three
    key documents: the 1773 insurance survey, the undated Burnt House
    Plan made between 1780 and 1785, and the 1798 insurance policy. The
    dimensional variations in these documents might best be ascribed to
    the contemporary lack of uniform standards of drafting and building
    measurement and also the practices of the various authors. The 1773
    survey records a 54 x 18 foot backbuilding; the Burnt House Plan
    records a 55 x 20 foot space labeled, "Kitchen"and "Wash House"; and
    the 1798 insurance policies note a 52 x 18 foot kitchen. These
    references all describe the same kitchen ell.

[^3]: Dennis J. Pogue, "The Domestic Architecture of Slavery at George
    Washington's Mount Vernon," *Winterthur Portfolio* (37: I, 2002) :
    3-22.

[^4]: Conversation with Anna Coxe Toogood regarding documentation in the
    household accounts. We know that Oney Judge and Hercules moved about
    Philadelphia. Some years ago, in the course of my work on
    Jefferson's residence in Philadelphia during the second Continental
    Congress, I discovered that his slave, Bob Hemmings, freely moved
    about the city performing errands.

[^5]: See also the section on slave quarters above.

[^6]: I am grateful to Randall Miller for supplying the details of this
    reference.