AN UNSETTLED TIME,

1830–1850

169

Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, the

Capitol’s architectural evolution was

virtually dormant. Small things were

done to keep the building up-to-date, but most

people considered it finished. Charles Bulfinch’s

departure left the Capitol under the care of the

commissioner of public buildings; except for

Bulfinch and James Hoban, all the architects in its

past were dead: Benjamin Henry Latrobe died in

1820, Stephen Hallet in 1823, George Hadfield in

1826, and William Thornton in 1828. If the services

of an architect were needed, the commissioner

hired local men on a case-by-case basis. The most

frequently consulted architect was Robert Mills, a

native of South Carolina who studied architecture

under Latrobe and Thomas Jefferson. While Mills

was often called upon for architectural advice during the 1830s and 1840s, the jobs were generally

small and his suggestions, while numerous, were

not often implemented. A master carpenter named

Pringle Slight, who came to the Capitol in 1825,

served as the general superintendent and took care

of the building’s everyday needs. Until enlargements were begun in 1851, the Capitol was maintained essentially as Bulfinch left it.

The Capitol’s exterior belied its convoluted

construction history: although oddities abounded

inside due to the alterations that had occurred

over the years, the outside appeared remarkably

unified. The building was surrounded by welltended grounds that only improved with age. Visitors from around the country and abroad came to

see Congress in action and explore the Capitol’s

vast (by American standards) interior. Few left

without forming an opinion about the artistic merits of the building and its contents. For those

unable to make the trip, enterprising engravers

and lithographers sold views of the Capitol. Household items such as sheet music, candle sticks, and

dinner plates carried the image of the Capitol into

the everyday lives of countless Americans. Despite

the wide variety of artistic skill evident in these

images, the building always appeared noble and

serene, giving no hint of the political battles waged

inside. Sectional turmoil during the period, pitting

north against south, slave state against free, was

an ominous sign of things to come. Fights over tariff issues divided protectionists in the north from

southerners, who generally backed free trade. The

Bank of the United States, nullification, state’s

rights, and other issues were hotly argued in Congress and throughout the nation, filling the Capitol,

political meetings, and newspapers with inflammatory rhetoric. Legislative debates were rarely

depicted, however, and views of the Capitol’s

peaceful exterior were both popular and profitable.

CHAPTER FIVE

The Capitol (Detail)

by Christopher P. Cranch, 1841
170 History of the United States Capitol

HONORING

WASHINGTON’S

MEMORY

On the day after Christmas in 1829, Robert

Brown gave the commissioner an estimate for building a tomb for George

Washington under the lower rotunda and paving

the passages leading to it.1 Brown, who had succeeded to the head of the stone department upon

George Blagden’s death, figured that $1,300 would

be needed to prepare the tomb with plastered

brick, stone paving, steps, and an iron gate secured

by a strong lock. A little over two years remained

until the centennial of Washington’s birth, and,

according to a congressional resolution passed

thirty years earlier, it was hoped that his remains

would be interred at the Capitol.

Soon after Washington’s death on December

14, 1799, the House of Representatives had

appointed John Marshall of Virginia chairman of a

committee to report on a suitable way to honor his

memory. The committee recommended that Congress ask the Washington family’s permission to

remove his body to a tomb in the Capitol once the

building was finished. A monument would be

erected over the tomb to commemorate the events

of his military and political life.2 Martha Washington agreed to the request, asking only that her

remains in due course lie next to her husband’s.

Marshall received a letter from Dr. Thornton asking permission to include Washington’s widow in

the Capitol mausoleum scheme:

The body of her beloved friend and companion

is now requested and she does not refuse the

national wish—but if an intimation could be

given that she should partake merely of the

same place of deposit it would restore to her

mind a calm and repose that this acquiescence

in the national wish has in high degree affected.3

Thornton was delighted at the prospect of

Washington’s body being interred at the Capitol

because he saw it as an incentive to complete and

sanctify the building. Earlier, upon learning of

Washington’s final illness, he had gone to Mount

Vernon to offer medical advice but he was too late.

Washington died the day before he arrived.

Undaunted, Thornton proposed reviving the corpse

with a tracheotomy and a transfusion of lamb’s

blood, but this preposterous idea was squelched

immediately. As Washington’s reputation took on

an almost divine dimension after his death, Thornton maneuvered himself as close as possible to the

hero’s legend. He rarely lost an opportunity to

invoke Washington’s name when defending his

design of the Capitol and claimed Washington was

the “best friend I had on Earth.” 4

In 1783 Congress voted to erect an equestrian

statue of Washington in the capital city once its

location was settled. L’Enfant sited the statue on

the Mall at the intersection of the Capitol’s west

axis and the south axis of the President’s House.

Thornton wanted it placed in the Capitol’s rotunda,

but nothing came of the statue proposal. The

absence of a memorial to Washington in the city he

founded embarrassed some in Congress, who saw

the centennial of his birth as a perfect time to correct the situation. A member of the House from

The Capitol, Looking Southwest 

attributed to George Strickland, ca. 1830

The artist of this perspective view avoided showing the Capitol’s roof line, 

with its low domes, chimneys, and lanterns. Instead, the drawing focused on the rich

wall treatment, portico, and dome.

CH.05

01 A
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 171

Maine, Leonard Jarvis, deplored congressional

inaction in a short speech delivered on February

15, 1832, one week before the 100th anniversary

of Washington’s birth:

At the close of the revolutionary war, the Congress of the United States, ten states being present by their representatives, had unanimously

voted a statue of General Washington, as a testimony of their esteem for his virtues, and the

service he had rendered to his country. A resolution had passed unanimously in 1799, for a

monument instead of a statue. In 1800, the

monument was exchanged for a mausoleum.

This last resolution had, in effect, proved as

fruitful as those which had preceded it. Several

of the States had, in the meanwhile, showed

their sense of Washington’s virtues and service,

by erecting statues to his memory. The United

States had done nothing but pass resolutions.

When we look around for the statue, the monument, the mausoleum they had ordered, it is

not to be seen. These things existed nowhere

but in the journals of Congress.5

Robert Mills described his idea for a monument to Washington in a letter to the Committee

on Public Buildings. He wanted to unplug the

opening in the floor of the rotunda and cut a new

opening in the floor of the crypt to allow light to

fall on sarcophagi containing the bodies of George

and Martha Washington.6 An alternative plan suggested placing a cenotaph in the center of the

rotunda. In either case, Washington’s remains

would be deposited in the tomb below the crypt.

Mills predicted the interment would have a conciliatory effect on otherwise contentious politicians.

He thought that

a consciousness of the presence of even the

lifeless remains of Washington within the walls

of the Capitol would awe the most depraved,

and check the emulations of passion, & political party . . . his sage advice would reoccur to

our minds, to heal all our political bickering,

and make us like a band of brothers, united in

love, and determined to preserve the interests

of the Union.7

A joint committee was appointed on February

13, 1832, to arrange the congressional commemoration of Washington’s birth. Letters were sent to

Washington’s heirs requesting permission to inter

his remains and those of his wife in the Capitol as

specified in the 1799 resolution. George Washington Parke Custis, writing from his home, “Arlington,” across the Potomac from the federal city,

quickly approved: “I give my most hearty consent

to the removal of the remains, after the manner

requested, and congratulate the government upon

the approaching consummation of a great act of

national gratitude.” 8 But the proprietor of Mount

Vernon, John A. Washington, refused the request.

He did not wish to circumvent the burial arrangement that Washington himself specified in his will,

nor did he wish the family plot to be disturbed. The

bodies of Washington and his wife were interred in

a handsome new tomb and “repose in perfect tranquility surrounded by those of other endeared

members of the family. I hope Congress will do justice to the motives which seem to me to require

that I should not consent to their separation.” 9

Thus, in these few words, the plan to remove Washington’s body to the Capitol came to an end. Instead

of a place of patriotic pilgrimage, the tomb under

the crypt became a storeroom. At mid-century such

items as tools, pieces of gas pipe, thirty lamps, and

a broken chandelier were stored there.10

MARBLE MEMORIAL

C ongress devised other ways to commemorate the centennial of Washington’s birth. The House Committee on

Public Buildings reported a resolution on February

16, 1832, instructing President Jackson to commission Horatio Greenough to sculpt a marble statue

of Washington for the Capitol’s rotunda. The statue

would be full length, pedestrian rather than equestrian, and would copy the head of Jean-Antoine

Houdon’s famous statue of Washington, which was

placed in the state capitol at Richmond in 1796.

For better or worse, the resolution left the “accessories” to the judgment of the artist.11 Discussion of

the resolution’s merits was brief. Only Elisha Whittlesey of Ohio spoke against it, saying he was

opposed “to every proposition for a statue, monument, or mausoleum,” but did not mention the reasons for his hardline position. James K. Polk of

Tennessee, future Speaker of the House and president of the United States, wanted to know more

about the artist named in the resolution. The chairman of the committee, Henry Dearborn of Massachusetts, replied that Greenough was not well

known in America but was famous in Europe,

where he worked. The sculptor was at the top of
172 History of the United States Capitol

A. East Elevation 

B. Foundations 

and Basements

East Elevation 

and Floor Plans 

of the Capitol 

by Alexander Jackson

Davis, ca. 1832–1834 

Library of Congress

Hoping to issue a

portfolio of Capitol

views, Davis made measured drawings of the

building and sketched

important interior rooms

as well as an appealing

view of the east front.

Because of his fidelity to

the subject and attention

to minute detail, Davis

left the most reliable

record of the Capitol as

completed by Latrobe

and Bulfinch.

VAULTS UNDER TERRACE

PRIVIES

TOMB

BASEMENT COMMITTEE ROOMS
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 173

C. First, or 

Ground Floor

D. Second, or 

Principal Floor

CRYPT, OR LOWER ROTUNDA

LAW LIBRARY

SUPREME COURT

VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

SENATE CHAMBER

SPEAKER’S OFFICE

HOUSE CHAMBER

COMMITTEE ROOMS

ROTUNDA

STAIRS TO HOUSE GALLERY

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
174 History of the United States Capitol

his art, recommended by connoisseurs both here

and abroad. “No other American sculptor,” Dearborn explained, “had yet appeared who was fit to

be entrusted with the execution of Washington’s

statue.” The fact that Greenough was an American

was emphasized again and again, implying that no

foreign artist should be given such an important

commission. With these matters explained, the

House passed the resolution by a wide margin.

The Senate took up the resolution, as amended

by its Committee on the Library.12 (Works of art

usually fell under the jurisdiction of this committee

because the Library of Congress was an art gallery

as well as a repository of books and manuscripts.)

It inserted an appropriation of $5,000, which was

opposed by John Forsyth of Georgia: while in favor

of the resolution’s intent, he thought the sum mentioned would be insufficient to accomplish the

object. The chairman of the Library Committee,

George Poindexter of Mississippi, explained that

$5,000 would enable the president to begin contract negotiations and that an additional appropriation would be needed in the future. Stephen Miller

of South Carolina objected to “yearly and indefinite

grants” without knowing where they might end.

Henry Clay of Kentucky followed with an eloquent

speech in favor of the resolution, declaring that of

all places for a statue of Washington, the capital

city, “the center of the Union—the offspring, the

creation of his mind of his labors” was not only

appropriate but long overdue. Clay reminded his

colleagues of the objection of the proprietor of

Mount Vernon that thwarted the scheme to bring

Washington’s remains to the Capitol. There was no

use in attempting to revive the interment plan

because the proprietor himself had just died and

the fate of Mount Vernon was now uncertain. Washington’s home and tomb could fall into the hands of

either “a friend or stranger,” but Congress should

not wait to commission an enduring likeness. After

Clay took his seat, the Senate voted thirty to ten in

favor of the resolution.

In the fall of 1841, more than nine years after

the resolution passed, Greenough’s heroic sculpture was unloaded at the Navy Yard and hauled to

the Capitol. William Easby, a local stone contractor

and rigger, charged $2,500 to move the twenty-ton

cargo and place it on a pedestal in the center of

the rotunda. The pedestal had been made under

Mills’ direction in accordance with a design sent by

Greenough. A year before, Mills constructed a

sturdy pier in the crypt to support the statue’s

weight, which would bear down on the rotunda’s

weakest spot—the former opening in the floor.

At 10 o’clock in the morning on December 1,

1841, President John Tyler entered the rotunda

with the secretary of the navy (who had overseen

the statue’s journey from Italy) to witness the final

installation. About twenty minutes later, the heavy

marble portrait was hoisted above its pedestal, but

the ropes became twisted, the weight shifted, and

one leg of the derrick nearly broke. Disaster was

averted when additional pulleys and guy ropes

brought the statue back into position. At one

o’clock, three hearty cheers greeted the placement of Greenough’s Washington on its pedestal in

the center of the rotunda.13

After the cheers subsided the American public

took a closer look at the statue of Washington,

which Greenough chose to portray with the body

of the Roman god Zeus wearing only a toga and

sandals. The sculptor had rejected the idea of portraying Washington in period costume on the

grounds that eighteenth-century clothing would

be an unnecessary distraction that diminished the

timelessness of the subject. One eyewitness said

that Greenough’s Washington was the most “Godlike” thing he had ever seen, and noted that dauntless Daniel Webster did not approach it readily.14

But Washington’s bare chest was a blasphemy few

Americans were prepared to accept without comment. A wiseacre said the first president looked as

if he had jumped out of bed, managing to grab only

a sheet. Many, including Charles Bulfinch, thought

it showed Washington preparing for a bath. While

he appreciated the sculpture as art, Bulfinch knew

that the majority of his countrymen would take

the portrait too literally. He warned his son:

I fear that it will cause much disappointment—

it may be an exquisite piece of work, but our

people will hardly be satisfied with looking on

well developed muscles, when they wish to see

the great man as their imagination has painted

him . . . [I] am not convinced the sculpture is

suited for modern subjects; the dress presents

insuperable difficulties.... And now I fear that

this with you will only give the idea of entering

or leaving a bath.15

What was perhaps Greenough’s most famous

work was a failure with the public. The artist

thought it suffered from being badly lighted from
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 175

the oculus directly above and asked that it be

moved halfway between the center of the rotunda

and the west door leading to the Library of Congress. Even after this repositioning, critics were

not satisfied. The statue was moved out of the

rotunda in 1843 and placed in a wooden shed in

the east garden. Within a few years, the shed was

employed only during the winter months.

CANVAS MEMORIALS

On July 5, 1832, the Senate paid Rembrandt Peale $2,000 for an original portrait of George Washington, which he

had painted in 1824. Peale began sketching the

subject in 1795 while his father, Charles Willson

Peale, was painting his last portrait of Washington. The younger Peale considered his likeness

superior and hoped it would become the “standard likeness.” A few weeks before the painting

was finished, Peale wrote Bushrod Washington, a

nephew of the first president:

Never was there a portrait painted under any

circumstance in which the whole soul of the

artist was more engaged than mine is in this of

Washington. It has been my study for years,

and tho’ its final completion has been deferred

to this period, it will, I trust, be found the more

mature and worthy of the approbation of the

nation. There is a time for all things, and this is

the moment for me, before the opportunity

should have passed away forever, now that my

command over the materials of my art is better

matured to accomplish so difficult and important an undertaking as this National Portrait.16

After the painting was completed, it was hung

in the vice president’s office (modern day S–231),

where many who knew Washington firsthand came

to see it. Their testimonials were eagerly sought

by the artist, who published them in newspapers

in order to attract customers to his exhibition hall.

Bushrod Washington’s assessment appeared in a

Philadelphia newspaper, Poulson’s American

Daily Advertiser, on May 26, 1824:

I have examined with attention and pleasure

the portrait you have drawn of General Washington, and I feel no hesitation in pronouncing

it, according to my best judgment, the most

Statue of George Washington 

by Horatio Greenough, 1841

When the controversial statue of Washington was

moved out of the rotunda to the east garden, it was

positioned on a granite base designed by Boston 

architect Isaiah Rogers. Behind the statue is East 

Capitol Street, stretching through the residential 

neighborhood of Capitol Hill before fading into farmland less than a mile away. In 1908 the statue was 

transferred to the Smithsonian Institution and its base

was laid as the cornerstone of the Capitol Power Plant.

(ca. 1860 photograph.)
176 History of the United States Capitol

exact representation of the original that I have

ever seen. The features, as well as the character of his countenance, are happily depicted.17

On July 5, 1832, Pringle Slight hung Peale’s

portrait of Washington in the north corner of the

Senate gallery (five years later he moved it to the

center of the east wall, where it could be seen more

easily).18 In 1834 he installed another portrait of the

first president, this one commissioned from John

Vanderlyn by the House of Representatives for its

chamber. The resolution authorizing the portrait,

passed on February 17, 1832, instructed the artist

to copy the head of Gilbert Stuart’s Washington but

otherwise to use his best judgment in working out

the composition. The painting was to be full length

and of the same dimensions as the portrait of the

Marquis de Lafayette already hanging in the chamber. (That painting had been a gift of the French

artist Ary Scheffer on the occasion of Lafayette’s

visit to the Capitol in 1824.) One thousand dollars

was initially appropriated for Vanderlyn’s companion portrait, but eleven years later, on June 27,

1843, the House allowed an additional $1,500.19

The only discussion in the House concerned

the artist selected for the commission. To some,

Vanderlyn was given an unfair advantage over other

artists, such as Henry Inman or Thomas Sully, who

were both noted for their exquisite portraiture. But

these grumbles were silenced by testimony noting

Vanderlyn’s special talent for copying, and the

House wanted the head copied from Stuart’s famous

likeness. The commission was not to be an original

portrait, but part imitation, part imagination. Once

the canvas was delivered Vanderlyn’s success in

carrying out his commission was considered satisfactory but unspectacular. The painting is little

noticed in the artist’s oeuvre and remains less

famous than Peale’s Washington hanging in the Senate chamber.

Vanderlyn was also among four artists tapped

in 1837 to produce history paintings for the vacant

panels in the rotunda opposite Trumbull’s Revolutionary War scenes. In addition to Vanderlyn, a

committee of the House contacted Robert Weir,

Henry Inman, and John Chapman and commissioned them each for a painting at $10,000 apiece.

The subjects were to be selected by the artists

themselves from general topics regarding the discovery and settlement of America, the Revolution,

and the Constitution.20 Chapman selected a topic

from the early history of the Jamestown settlement

in Virginia, which well suited the romantic inclinations of the day, and his Baptism of Pocahontas

was received in 1840. It was followed three years

later by the second canvas, Weir’s Embarkation of

the Pilgrims. One writer considered Weir’s painting the best of the series, not for its historical accuracy or composition, but for the “specimens of

manly and female beauty” it displayed:

New England still retains a few women who are

blessed with the loveliness which makes Rose

Standish so attractive to the gazer, and seems to

have been given what is left to us of such men as

those whom Weir has chosen for his heroes. This

type of masculine beauty is found chiefly in Connecticut.21

Vanderlyn’s Landing of Columbus was placed

in the rotunda in January 1847. The fourth panel

remained vacant until Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto was installed in 1855. It was

painted by William R. Powell, who was asked to fill

the final panel after Henry Inman died and efforts

by friends of Samuel F. B. Morse failed to have him

named Inman’s successor.

FIRE AND WATER

Fire had always been one of the greatest threats to buildings in the federal

city. The Capitol was no exception,

and the library fire of 1826 pointed to the value of

a plentiful and reliable supply of water. By the time

Bulfinch left the Capitol in 1829, there were only

two pumps on the grounds and one in a courtyard

supplying firefighting or watering needs. These did

not provide potable water, so another pump 400

yards from the Capitol was tapped for drinking and

cooking. In 1832, while memorials to Washington

were being discussed in Congress, the chairman of

the House Committee on the District of Columbia,

George Corbin Washington of Maryland (a grandnephew of the first president), asked the commissioner of public buildings to investigate the cost of

bringing a reliable supply of water to the Capitol by

means of a private aqueduct. Commissioner Elgar,

in turn, called on J. A. Dumeste of the Army Corps

of Engineers to survey nearby water and to estimate the cost of cast-iron pipes, reservoirs, and

hydrants needed for the aqueduct. Two springs on
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 177

John A. Smith’s farm not quite three miles north of

the Capitol, another known as Dunlap’s Spring,

and a fourth spring were examined. They were all

at higher elevations than the Capitol and could

supply water by the power of gravity alone. The

largest spring, one of the two on Smith’s farm, was

capable of providing fifteen and a half gallons per

minute; three gallons a minute trickled from the

smallest source. Bringing water to the Capitol from

any of the four sources cost about the same—three

were estimated at $31,000 apiece, while the largest

spring could be tapped for $1,000 more.22

Robert Mills condemned the idea of taking

water from springs instead of “large streams” such

as Rock Creek or the Potomac River. These waters

were, in his opinion, “softer, more wholesome, and

better adapted for culinary purposes.” 23 But the

committee favored tapping Smith’s large spring

and authorized the commissioner to purchase it,

to build a holding reservoir, and to run pipes to

the Capitol, where receiving reservoirs would be

constructed on the east and west grounds. The

east reservoir could store 111,241 gallons of water,

while its counterpart at the foot of the western

terrace held 78,827 gallons.24 Once the reservoirs

were filled, excess water was piped into the Capitol for cooking and drinking, with the surplus

drained into the canal at the foot of Capitol Hill.

During the summer of 1834 it was discovered that

the discharge of water was sluggish and the pipes

were clogged with debris. Another of Smith’s

springs was diverted into the Capitol aqueduct,

bringing the rate of discharge to about forty gallons per minute. While Smith did not object to the

government’s use of the second spring, he did wish

to be compensated.25

The Ascent 

to the Capitol,

Washington

Robert Wallis after

William Bartlett, 1840

When approaching

the Capitol from the west,

it was necessary to

ascend a long flight of

stairs to overcome the hill

on which it was built. At

the head of the stair was

the monument to naval

officers killed during the

Tripoli War. The monument was first erected at

the Navy Yard in 1808,

relocated to the Capitol

in 1831, and removed to

the Naval Academy at

Annapolis in 1860. 
178 History of the United States Capitol

Drinking and cooking water was piped into the

Capitol’s restaurant, which was located in two

rooms in the basement adjacent to one of the courtyards in the center building (modern day SB–17

and SB–18). There legislators could feast on oysters (raw, roasted, stewed, or fried), beef, veal,

venison, mutton, pork, or green turtle soup, washed

down with coffee, tea, wine, beer, or water.26 In

1834 water was also conveyed to a public drinking

fountain situated between the staircases leading to

the upper terrace on the west front. Robert Mills

designed the fountain with columns modeled after

the Tower of the Winds supporting a plain entablature and capped by a graceful urn. The water

spilled from a bronze faucet into a vase and then

into a marble basin. It was, according to one critic

who decried its location, “entirely too handsome to

be hidden away.” 27 While the fountain was under

construction, the commissioner undertook a welcome improvement to nearby privies serving the

House of Representatives. He had a cistern built to

collect rain water, which was conducted to china

basins in the privies through lead pipes. Opening or

closing stall doors activated valves that flushed the

basins with water.28

CRUTCHETT’S LANTERN

If the 1830s was the decade of running

water, the 1840s was the decade of gas

lighting. In 1847 James Crutchett conducted experiments converting cotton seed oil into

gas in a temporary laboratory on the Capitol

grounds, and success led him to propose lighting

the Capitol with that fuel.29 Mills, too, advocated

the introduction of gas lighting, citing economy

and safety as its principal advantages.30 Members

of the House were eager to bring gas to the Capitol

after the cut glass chandelier in their chamber fell

The Capitol

by Christopher P.

Cranch, 1841

Writers during the

antebellum period often

described the Capitol

standing “high and alone”

on the heights of Jenkins

Hill. Looking southwest, 

Cranch’s view conveys an

authentic sense of rural 

isolation but exaggerates

the rugged condition of 

the Capitol’s grounds.
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 179

on December 18, 1840. Although no one was

injured in the accident, several desks were “broken

to atoms.” 31 That lighting fixture had seventy-eight

oil lamps arranged in two tiers and weighed 3,408

pounds. Including the balance that allowed it to be

lowered for lighting, the whole apparatus weighed

an astonishing 7,111 pounds.32 The lamps burned

whale oil, a fuel that added to the dangerous weight

looming over congressional heads. Converting lighting fixtures to gas or buying new ones would not

only remove the heavy weight of oil, but the

cleaner-burning gas produced a brighter light.

Crutchett seems to have been as much showman as businessman. On his own initiative and at

his own expense (but with congressional permission), he constructed a mast above the Capitol’s

dome to hold a gas-burning beacon capable of being

seen from miles away. The lantern was not only an

exciting addition to the spectacle of the Capitol at

night—it was also a conspicuous advertisement for

Crutchett’s gas business. The mast was ninety-two

feet high, while the glass and gilded iron lantern

was twenty feet tall and six feet in diameter.

Crutchett devised a clever scheme of reflectors to

throw light into the rotunda at night. Together the

mast and lantern weighed about two tons. Before

Crutchett had been permitted to begin, the clerk of

the House and the secretary of the Senate had

asked Mills to evaluate the safety of the fixture,

and he concluded that it posed no danger during

lightning or high winds. The mast would be supported by an extensive web of guy wires that Mills

claimed would actually strengthen the structure of

the outer dome.33 Crutchett was granted permission to install the Capitol’s most unusual lighting

fixture in the summer of 1847.

Some members of the House were concerned

about the safety and cost of operating the lantern

and asked the commissioner of public buildings to

investigate. On April 12, 1848, Commissioner

Charles Douglas (whom President Polk had

appointed in 1847) wrote the Speaker about the

lantern and his concerns about the introduction of

gas into the Capitol generally.34 Cutting the walls

and boring through arches to run gas lines caused

structural damage to the building, but Douglas did

not indicate the extent of the injury nor did he propose a remedy. He observed cracks in the outside

walls, particularly on the west front that he

ascribed to inadequate foundations, settling, and

weakness caused by cutting away walls for gas

pipes. He was particularly fearful of the lantern,

which vibrated in light breezes and acted like a

“great lever” in high winds. He declared that vibrations rattling the dome would eventually cause

structural damage. It also consumed a considerable

quantity of gas and was dangerous to light. Each

night, a nimble workman climbed a ladder eight

Capitol, South 

West View

unidentified artist 

ca. 1847

This view was made

at the time James 

Crutchett mounted his

unusual lantern above 

the Capitol dome. 
180 History of the United States Capitol

inches wide in order to light the lamp. Douglas’

report predicted dire consequences unless the

mast and lantern were taken down. On June 28,

1848, after less than a year in place, work began to

remove Crutchett’s lantern.35 Riggers from the

Navy Yard took down the fixture that many considered expensive, unsightly, and dangerous.

SPACE AND SOUND:

CAPITOL DEFECTS

As the Capitol kept abreast with

advances in science and sanitation,

there were other problems that

needed attention. The dreadful acoustics in the

hall of the House had caused many grumbles since

the room was first occupied in 1819. The smooth,

rounded ceiling was the cause of the problem, but

no one was willing to alter it to improve acoustics.

When proposals were made to suspend a glass or

plaster ceiling over the hall, they were defeated by

those who defended the room’s architectural splendor. In 1832 Mills attempted to solve the problem

by placing the Speaker’s chair in front of the principal entrance (which was closed temporarily),

turning the members’ desks and chairs around,

and raising the floor. At the same time Mills added

a visitor’s gallery behind the south colonnade and

opened five windows at the third story for light

and ventilation. (Why Latrobe had designed these

blind windows was not understood by Mills, nor

can their purpose be explained today.) A thin,

wooden partition was constructed behind the main

gallery following the curve of the colonnade. The

rearrangement failed to improve acoustics, however, and the room was returned to its original

configuration in 1838. A Washington newspaper

carried a report of other improvements made to

the House chamber at the time the seats were

moved back, and was particularly pleased by the

new Speaker’s rostrum:

On the immense floor of this superb Hall, a new

handsome Brussels carpet has been laid, which

of course adds much to the neatness and

beauty of its present appearance. 

We notice with pleasure that the gaudy trappings which were hung above and around the

Speaker’s chair last winter have been judiciously removed for more simple, chaste, and

appropriate drapery.... The curtain is composed of rich crimson silk damask, lined with

silk, and trimmed with rich crimson silk fringe

of a foot in depth, with tassels to correspond.

The ornamental part consists of a massive

shield, blazoned in dead and burnished gilt,

the outer margin of which is bronzed to give

relief. The carving, which appears to be excellent, is executed by Mr. Thomas Millard, Jr. of

New York; the gilding by Messrs. Kreps &

Smith, of the same city. The upholstery and

design are by Mr. Burke, of New York. . . . The

curtain occupies a space of 23 feet in height by

12 feet in width. The chair is of highly polished

mahogany, covered with crimson silk velvet; it

is heavy and massive.... From the floor, about

two feet in front, is an excellent imitation of

marble, painted by Mr. Sengstack of this city.36

Complaints persisted, however, about the

acoustics in the chamber. Some thought the chamber should be abandoned altogether and a new

one built in a new wing. Others wanted to convert

the library into a legislative chamber as first suggested in 1821. Zadock Pratt of New York, the

chairman of the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds during the 28th Congress, prepared two reports on the problem. In the first,

issued on May 24, 1844, he discussed the idea of

converting the library into a House chamber. His

committee had called upon the Army Bureau of

Topographical Engineers to study the feasibility of

the scheme and it, in turn, had consulted with

Philadelphia architect William Strickland. All

agreed that the library could not be easily or economically adapted because of space and structural

constraints. Instead, they recommended adding a

new wing to the south end of the Capitol that

would contain a new chamber and additional committee rooms. In 1843 Strickland and the topographical engineers had prepared drawings for

such a wing and estimated its cost at $300,000. It

was presumed that a similar wing would be added

to the north end to preserve the building’s symmetry, but it could be delayed until the Senate ran

out of space.37 Strickland’s recommendation, made

in agreement with the topographical engineers,

acknowledged that no place in the Capitol could

be converted into a good speaking room for the

House, and only a new chamber in a new addition

could solve the problem.

Pratt’s committee issued a second report in

1845 dealing with the state of the “National Edifices

At Washington.” 38 Going beyond the problems of

the House chamber, the report lamented the
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 181

cramped conditions found throughout the Capitol,

noting that the House and Senate had a total of

fifty-seven standing committees while only forty

rooms were available for their use. No provisions

whatever were made for select committees. “This

deficiency of rooms,” Pratt’s committee observed,

“is a great drawback to the convenient transaction

of the public business, as members attending committees have often experienced.” The Library of

Congress needed more space and the Supreme

Court would benefit from a “better position.” Evidence of the space problem was seen throughout

the building: storage closets spilled out into corridors, courtyards were filled in, and rooms formerly

high and airy were crowded with mezzanines. And

while the Capitol was undeniably a spacious building—containing more than 60,000 square feet—

Pratt’s committee concluded that “it does not

furnish the accommodation for the public business

which so large an area would warrant us to expect.”

It recommended asking the president to have plans

drawn for the enlargement of the Capitol. It also

suggested that the present hall be converted into a

library and that the former library room be

rearranged for the Supreme Court. Congressional

preoccupation with the annexation of Texas, however, prevented action on Pratt’s resolution.

A QUICK WAR, 

A TROUBLED PEACE

S oon after the United States annexed

Texas on March 1, 1845, Mexico severed diplomatic ties with Washington. President Polk deployed troops under General

Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande, well below the

Nueces River, which had been the southern boundary of Texas since Spanish colonial days. While the

Mexican government considered its response, Polk

dispatched an envoy to negotiate the boundary

question, as well as the purchase of California and

New Mexico. Most citizens considered westward

expansion America’s “Manifest Destiny,” its

inevitable and irreversible path to the Pacific Ocean.

Mexico, however, saw Taylor’s troops as trespassers

on its soil, and the prospect of losing its northern

provinces to land-hungry Americans was neither

preordained nor particularly fair. To check what it

considered unwarranted imperialism on the part of

Section Through the Hall of

Representatives in front of 

the Speaker’s Chair, Looking North

by William Strickland, 1843

Manuscript drawing CONS 55 [Architectural Records]; 

Civil Works Map File; Records of the Chief of Engineers,

Record Group 77; National Archives at College Park, 

College Park, Maryland.

Beginning in 1820, various schemes were devised to

muffle echoes in the House chamber. In 1843 the Army

Corps of Engineers and consulting architect William 

Strickland suggested building an addition to the south

end of the Capitol housing an entirely new chamber. A

nearly flat ceiling and a room without curving walls

were their solutions to babbling voices and reverberating echoes. Also seen here is an early suggestion for a

metal roof structure. 
182 History of the United States Capitol

its northern neighbor, Mexican soldiers crossed the

Rio Grande in April 1846, engaging Taylor’s troops

in a skirmish that left sixteen Americans dead. On

May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on

Mexico. In less than a year, the American army

occupied New Mexico and California, annexing

them to the United States. A series of victories over

the large but ill-equipped Mexican army at Monterrey, Buena Vista, and Cerro Gordo presaged the fall

of Mexico City on September 14, 1847. At the end

of the war, the United States acquired 500,000

square miles of land from Mexico.

Interest in improving and enlarging the Capitol

eased off during the quick war, but it was soon

revived at the end of hostilities. During this time,

Mills was in the forefront with ideas about enlarging the building. It was apparent that there was

more than one way to add to the Capitol. Before

the outbreak of war, Mills had proposed building an

addition on the east front that would be the same

size as the west-central building.39 He continued to

press the plan after war’s end. A new chamber for

the House would be built in the new wing, the Senate would move to the room occupied by the

Library of Congress, the old House chamber would

be refitted as a library, and the Supreme Court

would occupy the former Senate chamber. This

version of “musical chairs” would result in a modest enlargement to the building. It would also, coincidentally, solve an architectural problem that some

found bothersome. Building an addition to the east

front would place the dome in the center of the

Capitol when viewed from the north and south. As

it stood, the dome was very much shifted to the

east side of the building. Mills’ proposal was published in Robert Dale Owen’s Hints on Public

Architecture in 1849 and was the first enlargement scheme to appear in printed form.

While architectural ideas and plans circulated

around the Capitol, California and New Mexico

United States

Senate Chamber

Thomas Doney after

James Whitehorn, 1846

Crowded with the

nation’s leaders and

Washington’s social elite,

the Senate chamber was

one of the most popular

theaters in America. 

Dolley Madison, the

widow of the fourth president, is among those

depicted in the gallery.
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 183

were left under military rule. Neither place was

organized into a territory with a civilian government because Congress was too deeply divided on

the subject of slavery to allow it. But after gold was

discovered on the American River in California, and

its population swelled with fortune-hunting “49ers,”

a civil government was needed immediately to

restore order in that rowdy, far away place. Soon

after Zachary Taylor succeeded Polk to the presidency in 1849, California applied for admission to

The Capitol 

Daguerreotype by John Plumbe, Jr., 1846 

The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

Plumbe’s daguerreotypes are thought to be the earliest

photographic images of the Capitol. Taken from the southeast, this view shows the tall stone and iron fence that

enclosed the grounds until 1873.
184 History of the United States Capitol

the Union as a free state, setting off an explosive

battle in Congress that threatened to divide the

nation more deeply along sectional lines. Southerners saw the balance in the Senate tipping in

favor of northern opponents to the expansion of

slavery. They feared that New Mexico might also

want to exclude slavery, further strengthening the

northern hand. It seemed that talk of enlarging the

Capitol might prove premature, or worse.

At the end of January 1850, Henry Clay proposed a series of laws that together became known

as the Compromise of 1850. It was his final

attempt to appease both sides of the slavery question, ease sectional conflict, and avert civil war. In

addition to California statehood, other issues

included the treatment of slavery in the rest of

the territories won in the war with Mexico, the

definition of the border between Texas and New

Mexico, the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the enforcement of the fugitive slave act,

a law meant to return runaway slaves in the north

to their owners in the south. Anti-slavery forces

in the north opposed extension of slavery into the

territories, considered slavery in the nation’s 

capital a national disgrace, and wanted the

despised fugitive slave act repealed or unenforced.

Southerners supported a man’s right to move his

property, including slaves, into territories, and

insisted upon a more vigilant enforcement of the

fugitive slave act.

Debate on Clay’s compromise measures lasted

from January through September, taking up most

of the first session of the 31st Congress. Clay himself delivered seventy speeches during this period.

The very existence of the Union was at stake, and

there was little doubt that the nation’s destiny,

whether it be as one country or two, hung in the

balance. Mills offered one of the few diversions

taking minds off the weighty business at hand.

With plans under his arm, he met with members of

the House and Senate Committees on Public Buildings, finding the Senate particularly receptive to

the idea of enlarging the building by adding a pair

of wings. The House seemed to prefer adding a

single wing to the east front. Robert M. T. Hunter

of Virginia chaired the Senate committee, with Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and John H. Clarke of

Rhode Island filling the two other seats. Davis was

particularly interested in the issue and on April 3,

1850, asked Mills to prepare plans, sections, and

estimates for an extension of the Capitol by north

and south wings. Mills responded with a design for

wings 100 feet wide and 200 feet long, projecting

sixty feet beyond the east and west fronts of the

old building and separated from it by courtyards.

A new Senate chamber, capable of seating 100

members, and thirty-two rooms for committees

and officers would be accommodated in the north

wing; the opposite wing would contain a hall large

enough for 300 congressmen and another thirtytwo rooms. The entire west-central building would

be devoted to the Library of Congress, with enough

space to shelve 250,000 books. Works of art would

be removed from the library and displayed in the

old hall of the House, where sightseers would not

disturb the studious quiet of the reading room.

The Supreme Court would occupy the former Senate chamber and its room on the first floor would

be converted into a law library. Mills believed that

second-floor accommodations for the Court would

be healthier for the justices; in fact, he claimed

that some of the most talented former members of

the Court had died because of their chamber’s

Henry Clay

Addressing the

Senate, 1850

by Peter Rothermel

1855

This scene was drawn

five years after Clay’s

compromise was enacted

and three years after 

his death.
An Unsettled Time, 1830–1850 185

unwholesome ground-level location, and providing

them with a lighter, better-ventilated space would

be no more than common courtesy.40 Elevations of

the outside showed the effect of the new wings on

the Capitol’s appearance. In one drawing, Mills

proposed removing the wooden dome and adding

a new one similar to those at St. Paul’s in London

and Les Invalides in Paris. It would rise 210 feet

above the ground, seventy feet more than

Bulfinch’s dome.

Although Hunter’s committee reported favorably on the extension plan, which it said was “originally suggested by the topographical bureau, but

altered by Mr. Robert Mills,” it wanted to join with

its counterpart in the House to evaluate the interior arrangements before making a final recommendation.41 But the House Committee on Public

Buildings, chaired by Richard H. Stanton of Kentucky, was in no mood to accept the Senate’s recommendation, especially since it preferred to

enlarge the Capitol eastward and not with north

and south wings. Stanton’s committee considered

an eastward expansion more economical because

the east plaza and garden offered an ample, level,

and firm site on which to build. Wings, on the other

hand, would have to be constructed on the sloping

ground west of the building and would encroach

upon nearby streets.

Debate on Clay’s compromise continued

throughout the summer of 1850. Little by little,

moderates on both sides of the slavery question

gained strength as the country longed for a peaceful resolution. The threat of a presidential veto

suddenly ended when Taylor died on July 9, the

victim of cholera morbus brought on by consuming a huge bowl of cherries and a pitcher of iced

milk, one or both of which were contaminated

with deadly bacteria. Millard Fillmore, who supported Clay, was sworn in as the thirteenth president before a joint session of Congress in the

House chamber on July 10. In September he

signed a string of bills that admitted California to

the Union as a free state, created the territories of

New Mexico and Utah with slavery to be determined by the “popular sovereignty” of voting residents, established the west boundary of Texas,

prohibited slave trade in Washington (although

slavery remained legal), and enacted a tough fugitive slave law. For each concession it made, each

side received something in return. Not everyone

was happy, but most were relieved that these divisive issues seemed to be settled at last. Senator

Stephen Douglas of Illinois was so relieved that he

thought it would be unnecessary to speak of slavery ever again. The president called the measures

“a final settlement of the dangerous and exciting

subjects which they embrace.” 42

Ten days after signing the last of Clay’s compromise resolutions, President Fillmore approved

the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill for

1851. Buried among monies to keep foreign missions opened and light houses burning was an

appropriation of $100,000 for the extension of the

Capitol. The manner by which the building would

be enlarged and who would be named the architect were matters left to the president to decide.

The legislation originally written by Jefferson Davis

read: “For the extension of the Capitol by Wings

according to such plans as may be adopted by the

joint committee of both houses of Congress, one

hundred thousand dollars for each wing.” 43

Because it did not agree with the notion that the

Capitol would necessarily be enlarged by wings,

the House struck Davis’ language from the bill. In

conference, it was decided to leave the matter for

the president to decide and to restore half the

money to begin the project. Congress adjourned

on September 30, and legislators poured out of the

city. By the truce hammered out in the Compromise of 1850, they felt assured that the Union

would go on and that the Capitol would not be

abandoned as a redundant relic of a failed experiment. Beyond merely acknowledging the necessity

of enlarging the Capitol, the appropriation was a

concrete expression of their faith in the peaceful

future of a united nation. A dormant period in the

Capitol’s history was about to end.