DESTRUCTION AND

RESTORATION, 1814–1817

97

After two decades of construction,

in 1814 the Capitol consisted of the

north and south wings joined by a

two-story wooden gangway spanning the area

intended for the rotunda. Half of the north wing

had been rebuilt with masonry vaults while the

other half retained its decaying floors and sagging

ceilings. The south wing boasted what was probably the most beautiful room in America, the hall of

the House of Representatives. Progress was slow,

but it was being built for the ages, a permanent

ornament for the republic’s future. Yet, in the span

of a few minutes, the course of the Capitol’s construction—and the nation’s honor—suffered a

humiliating blow when British torches and gunpowder reduced twenty-one years of hard work to

a pathetic pair of smoldering ruins.

In the history of American military conflicts,

the War of 1812 is perhaps the least understood—

almost as little then as today. The unprepared

country was nudged, then pushed, into declaring

war on the United Kingdom by land-hungry congressmen with their sights set on securing the frontier by conquering Canada and driving British

outposts and their Indian allies from lands east of

the Mississippi River. Rights of neutrality and

impressment of American seamen may have given

the war a moral foundation, but it was the desire

for territorial conquest that drove the country into

hostilities with a far superior enemy. The leader of

the “War Hawks” was Henry Clay, whose preposterous boast that the Kentucky militia alone could

conquer Montreal and Upper Canada was taken as

gospel by followers in the south and west. New

England Federalists lent little support for the war,

dubbing it “Mr. Madison’s War.” Their commercial

interests suffered greatly from the policies of both

the Jefferson and Madison administrations, and

their sympathies were squarely with England, their

largest trading partner.

The first year of the war was a virtual stalemate. American troops were unable to muster an

invasion of Canada, and the English army was too

distracted by Napoleon to win decisive victories in

North America. In 1813, Oliver Hazard Perry’s victory on Lake Erie and the death of Tecumseh at

the battle of the Thames boosted American morale,

although they failed to translate into a meaningful

military advantage. In April 1813, a ragtag force led

by Henry Dearborn slipped into Upper Canada and

raided its capital city of York (now Toronto), burning the legislative hall and governor’s house.

In 1814, with Napoleon’s exile to Elba, the

British navy was free to launch its own offensives to

harass American ports. Its targets were Niagara,

CHAPTER THREE

Capitol in Ruins (Detail)

by George Munger, 1814 or 1815

Kiplinger Washington Collection
98 History of the United States Capitol

Lake Champlain, New Orleans, and the towns of the

Chesapeake Bay tidewater. On August 22, 1814,

about 4,500 British troops were in southern Maryland, only sixteen miles from Washington. They

landed from ships that avoided the well-defended

Potomac by sailing up the Patuxent River instead.

In command were Admiral Sir George Cockburn of

the Royal Navy and General Robert Ross of the

British Army. Washington was their target, and their

proximity triggered a stampede of 90 percent of the

inhabitants out of the city. By August 24, about

5,000 men under the command of General William

H. Winder awaited British soldiers and sailors at

Bladensburg, a little town at the edge of the federal

territory. The ensuing battle was quickly decided in

the enemy’s favor. The Americans swiftly retreated

to Tenleytown and then further to Rockville, fifteen

miles northwest of Washington. (So snappy were

Americans in retreat, the skirmish was later referred

to as the “Bladensburg Races.”) To avenge the

American raid on its Canadian capital, the British

army and navy had come to pay a return call on the

capital of the United States.

A considerable amount of public property was

destroyed by retreating Americans. Commodore

Thomas Tingey, head of the Navy Yard, set it on

fire. Losses included a new frigate, a warship, gunboats, and valuable provisions, rope, canvass, and

other supplies. The lone bridge across the Potomac

was also destroyed before the invading army

marched into the nearly deserted town.

Once the British captured Washington, enemy

troops set about destroying the public buildings.

Fires in the Capitol began to be set just after nine

in the evening.1 In the south wing, some rooms in

the office story were vandalized by means of a gunpowder paste brushed on woodwork surrounding

doors and windows and set ablaze. Papers and furniture in the clerk’s office offered a large quantity

of combustible material. After it was set on fire,

the heat forced troops to withdraw, leaving nearby

rooms on the west side of the wing uninjured.

Among the irreplaceable losses were the secret

journals of Congress kept by the clerk of the House.

Upstairs in the House chamber, rockets were fired

through the roof but its iron covering would not

burn. Failing that, furniture was gathered into a

pile in the center of the room, slathered with gunpowder paste, and set on fire. Helping fuel the fire

was the new floor recently built over the old one,

which doubled the stockpile of seasoned wood

there. The heat was so intense that glass in the

skylights melted and the colonnade was heavily

injured (but did not fall).2 Although supported precariously, the entablature did not collapse; the

wooden ceiling, however, was completely

destroyed. Within minutes, Latrobe’s magnum opus

was reduced to ruins. But just outside, the circular

vestibule with its elegant stone columns (called

today the “small House rotunda”) survived. The

east lobby and principal staircase survived as well.

Indeed, though the chamber was completely

ruined, much of the scenic approach to it was not

damaged at all. Still, the loss was horrific.

Damage to the north wing was more extensive

due to the combustible materials located throughout the library area. That part of the north wing

still had the wooden joists, laths, and floors

installed in the 1790s, which burned fiercely

despite widespread rot. The library’s furniture,

books, maps, and manuscripts helped fuel the

flames. The intensity of the fire in that part of the

north wing inflicted the heaviest damage to the

exterior walls, part of which nearly collapsed. The

marble columns in the Senate chamber were

reduced to lime and fell down, and the room was

left “a most magnificent ruin.” 3 The Supreme Court

was heavily damaged but its Doric columns stood—

weakened but straight. Latrobe’s prize “corn cob”

columns were also spared. The incendiaries concentrated their efforts on the principal rooms and

did minimal damage to lobbies, halls, and staircases, which were, after all, their escape route out

of the wreckage. Still, the British undertook their

mission thoroughly and professionally.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue,

troops continued their trouble making. Around 11

o’clock in the evening, the President’s House was

burned. The torch was put to the War and Treasury departments the next morning. While destroying the arsenal at Greenleaf’s Point, about 100

British soldiers were killed when they accidentally

ignited 130 barrels of gunpowder they were tossing

down a well. The explosion hit like an earthquake,

leaving behind a crater forty feet in diameter: mangled bodies were strewn far and wide.4

As a counterpoint to the destruction of the

public buildings, British respect for private property was, on the whole, admirable. Samuel Harrison Smith’s National Intelligencer printing office
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 99

was vandalized, but largely because of its role as

an administration mouthpiece. Daniel Carroll’s

hotel was burned, but it may have been ignited by

a wayward spark from the nearby Capitol. Two

row houses built by George Washington were

deliberately set on fire. But the Patent Office was

saved by its superintendent, Dr. Thornton, who

argued that patent models were owned by their

inventors and were therefore private property.

Just before Washington fell to the enemy, President Madison fled to Virginia. At dawn on August

26, he crossed the Potomac into Maryland, reaching Rockville at six o’clock in the evening. There

he expected to find the remnants of General

Wilder’s army, but they had left for Baltimore some

hours earlier. The president and his party pushed

eastward to Brookville, a small Quaker community

where Madison took refuge in the home of Caleb

Bentley and his wife Henrietta. In an ironic twist

of history, the silversmith who made the cornerstone plate deposited by the first president at the

Capitol in 1793 now fed and sheltered the fourth

president while the Capitol smoldered in ruins.

On September 1, 1814, President Madison

issued a proclamation calling on Americans to

unite and “chastise and expel the invader.” Despite

the fact that peace talks were under way, the

enemy had deliberately disregarded “the rules of

civilized warfare.” They had wantonly destroyed

public buildings, which according to Madison were

not being used for “military annoyance.” 5

Three and a half weeks after British troops

left, Congress returned to witness firsthand the

extent of damage. Thomas Munroe was asked to

prepare Blodgett’s Hotel (home of the Patent and

Post Offices) as a temporary Capitol, and there a

committee was appointed to investigate the British

successes in their “enterprises against this metropolis.” 6 Yet the causes were understood all too well.

An inadequate defense by an inadequate militia, in

the face of seasoned and well- equipped troops,

was only the latest humiliation suffered in this

badly managed war. The real question before Congress was whether to remain in Washington or to

move the capital to a more central, secure, and

convenient location. The usual forces sprang into

action at the mere mention of relocating the seat of

government, a replay of the intrigues surrounding

the Residence Act a generation earlier. By October

20 the decision was made to stay in Washington,

The Capitol in Ruins

by George Munger, 1814 or 1815

Kiplinger Washington Collection

Sightseers came to Capitol Hill to examine the forlorn wings after they were 

damaged by British troops on the evening of August 24, 1814.
100 History of the United States Capitol

but other questions needed to be settled. Some did

not believe the damaged buildings should be

repaired and preferred to build new ones in new

locations from new, more economical designs. A

committee of the House was appointed to investigate the matter and reported its recommendation

on November 21, 1814. It asked the superintendent of the city to examine the existing building

shells with architects and builders. After conferring with George Hadfield, Munroe reported that

the walls of the Capitol and President’s House were

safe and sufficiently strong to be restored. He

reported that $1,215,111 had been expended on

the public buildings so far and that it would require

about $460,000 to repair the fire damage.7 Thus,

Munroe implied, it would be cheaper to repair the

structures than to build anew. The committee

agreed to restore the Capitol and President’s House

and to give no further consideration to the idea of

replacing these buildings. Reminding the House

that the location of the Capitol was selected by

Washington, who considered it part of the original

plan of the city and thus sacrosanct, the committee

recommended making a small appropriation to protect the ruins from further decay. Most important,

it reported that several banks in the District of

Columbia had made offers to lend the government

$500,000 for repairs. Banks were anxious to provide financial backing for something so vital to their

interests, and while it was not part of the committee’s assignment to report on money matters, it

thought the loan offer not “irrelevant to the object

of their inquiries.” 8

During the first week of February, Congress

debated the questions surrounding the repair of

the public buildings. Senator Eligius Fromentin of

Louisiana urged his colleagues to authorize construction of a “large, convenient, and unadorned

house” near Georgetown to serve as the new Capitol. The vast city dotted with small clusters of buildings reminded him of scattered camps of desert

nomads. A plain building for Congress was preferable to an elaborate one because, he reasoned,

“Our laws to be wholesome, need not be enacted in

a palace.” Building sites selected by the first president were not sacred because the conditions of the

city and nation had changed so dramatically. The

treasury was empty, prosperity had vanished, and

commerce was at an end. What would Washington

recommend under these circumstances? Repairing

the public buildings would take at least ten years

and would cost much more than predicted. In Fromentin’s opinion, the only sensible course was to

abandon the remote Capitol and construct an inexpensive hall between Georgetown and the President’s House. By a vote of twenty to thirteen,

however, his effort failed to derail the movement to

repair the public buildings on their original sites.9

In the House of Representatives, there was

disagreement about which buildings should be

given priority and whether the cabinet offices

should be relocated. There was an idea, offered by

Charles Goldsborough of Maryland, to rebuild the

Capitol and offices but to postpone repairs to the

President’s House until times of “leisure and tranquility.” While that Federalist congressman was in

no hurry to return Madison to his palace, the House

disagreed with him by a large majority. Another

Federalist, Thomas P. Grosvenor of New York,

wanted to relocate the executive offices nearer to

the Capitol where members of Congress would

have ready access to cabinet secretaries. After

some debate, the House agreed.10 The following

day, Virginia Congressman Joseph Lewis, a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia,

addressed the House with strong arguments against

relocating cabinet departments. He spoke at length

about Washington’s reasons for putting the buildings next to the President’s House and quoted correspondence between the first president and the

old board of commissioners. Lewis explained that

while the government was in Philadelphia, cabinet

members complained about frequent interruptions

by legislators who made it impossible to attend to

their duties. Thus, when it came time to select sites

for these departments in the new city, they were

very properly located near the president, whose

business with cabinet secretaries was routine.

Lewis continued his address to include the subject

of repairs to the public buildings, which he did not

want delayed or curtailed. He said that he would

rebuild them precisely as they had been, not changing one brick or stone.

Opponents, led by Daniel Webster of New

Hampshire, wanted to postpone repairs until the

end of the war when money would be in greater

supply and consideration could be given again to

removing the seat of government—preferably back

to Philadelphia. Spending large sums of money to

repair the buildings would anchor the government
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 101

more firmly on the banks of the Potomac. Webster

and his friends wanted no more of the federal city,

which they considered miserable and inconvenient. But Lewis argued that constant threats of

removal inhibited investment in the city, thereby

causing the discomforts that were the source of so

much complaint. “The people of this District are

political orphans,” Lewis declared, “They have

been abandoned by their legitimate parents . . . .

Instead of extending to them the parental hand of

affection, we do all in our power to blight and

destroy their fair prospects.” He believed that, if

treated fairly by Congress, the city would rival the

most important towns of the Union in both wealth

and population. Following his speech, a vote

defeated the proposal of relocating the executive

departments to Capitol Hill.11 In each vote, opponents of the federal city were thwarted. Cries for

economy or for contracting the city plan were

drowned by louder voices for restoration to the

status quo ante bellum. On February 13, 1815,

President Madison approved legislation authorizing

the government to borrow $500,000 (at 6 percent

interest) to repair and restore the President’s

House, the Capitol, and the cabinet offices “on their

present sites in the city of Washington.” 12 The battle over the permanent residence of Congress had

been won a second time by the friends of the

Potomac with an unexpected reaffirmation of

Washington and L’Enfant’s vision of an extensive

capital city.

LATROBE’S RETURN

On March 10, 1815, Madison appointed a

three-man commission to administer

monies borrowed to repair the public

buildings. Congress had not authorized such a commission, but the president took it upon himself to

create one based on the precedent found in the

Residence Act of 1790. At $1,600 per year, the

salary fixed for members of the new commission

was the same given members of the former board.

A great deal of trouble and worry was lifted from

the president’s shoulders by such a body, shielding

him from the controversies that inevitably spring

up around large public projects. The first commissioner to be named was John Van Ness, whose

anonymous newspaper attacks caused Latrobe

much embarrassment in 1809. A former congressman from New York, Van Ness was married to the

daughter of David Burns, one of the original

landowners of what became the city of Washington. Tench Ringgold, a member of a prominent

Maryland family, filled the second seat. Last was

Richard Bland Lee, a former Virginia congressman

who had moved to Washington in 1814. All three

were well connected, but like members of the old

board of commissioners, none had experience in

architecture or building. They quickly hired James

Hoban to restore the President’s House, which had

been left little more than a burned-out shell by the

British. The sandstone exterior walls, the brick

interior walls, the kitchen stove, and a few scraps

of hardware were all that survived.13 Hoban was

known for getting the job done and was their only

choice. But the Capitol presented a different problem. Latrobe was, by his own admission, obnoxious

to the president and Congress, and more convivial

architects, including Robert Mills and J. J. Ramée,

had applied for the position. The commissioners

might have preferred either of them, but Latrobe’s

experience with the Capitol’s surviving structure

made up for his unpopularity.

Twelve days after the work was authorized,

Latrobe wrote Madison offering his services. He

stated that he was still sensitive to the charge of

extravagance, which he claimed was shared with

every architect “from the most ancient times, and

in every nation.” He said that he may not deserve

the appointment, but he wanted it to avoid the

embarrassment of someone else restoring the

building he had done so much to create.14

The letter was written by a man in the throes

of doubt and depression. Latrobe’s time in Pittsburgh had been a disastrous strain on his mind and

pocketbook, consisting of a failed adventure in

steam engines and river boats. Troubled by debt

and facing a future without hope or happiness,

Latrobe was suffering a nervous breakdown that

rendered him listless, confining him to his room.

His wife, Mary Elizabeth Hazlehurst Latrobe, fearing for her husband’s health, looked to Washington

for help. Without her husband’s knowledge, she

wrote President Madison, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas, General John Mason,

Pennsylvania Congressman Charles Ingersoll, and

others to ask help in reinstating her husband to the
102 History of the United States Capitol

position of surveyor of public buildings. Her discreet intercession helped carry the day and on

March 14, 1815, the commissioners wrote Latrobe

with an offer of an interview that might lead to

employment. A description of how the architect

received the offer was written by his wife some

years afterwards:

The next day I received a large Packet with the

President’s seal, containing a recall for my husband to resume his former situation—never

can I forget the transport I felt in going to him

as he reclined in deep depression in the easy

chair. I presented him the Packet. Behold, I

said, what Providence has done for you! and

what your poor weak wife has been made the

humble instrument in obtaining. He threw himself on my breast and wept like a child—so true

it is that women can bear many trials better

than men! I received at the same time answers

to the several letters I had written to the gentlemen, and of the kindest and most gratifying

tenor, all acknowledging that there was ‘No man

in the country but Mr. Latrobe as filling the situation he had hitherto held.’ Nothing could

equal the surprise of my husband on the receipt

of this packet, as he did not know of the means

I had taken to procure his return.15

On the day he received the commissioners’ letter (March 22, 1815) Latrobe wrote his acceptance

of the offer it brought. Giving himself a few days to

settle business in Pittsburgh, he promised to be in

Washington by April 15. Annoyed by Latrobe’s dally,

the commissioner’s replied that architects from

New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore awaited

their decision and the delay was hardly convenient.16 Latrobe had taken the commissioners’ letter

as a job offer, while they had only asked him to

come for an interview. Their testy reply to

Latrobe’s first letter did not bode well for a happy

relationship in the future.

One day late, Latrobe arrived back in Washington on Sunday morning, April 16, 1815. He took

a room at the Washington Hotel, where he changed

clothes, and went immediately to see John Van

Ness. Whatever quarrel Van Ness had with Latrobe

in the past was apparently forgotten, because he

received the architect with “wonderful friendliness,” even inviting him to lodge in his home.

Latrobe declined the invitation and soon they

joined Tench Ringgold and visited the Capitol.

Latrobe described the sight as a “melancholy spectacle.” He was proud that so much had survived—

“the picturesque entrance to the house of

Representatives with its handsome columns, 

the Corn Capitals of the Senate Vestibule, the

Great staircase, and the Vaults of the Senate 

chamber . . . . Some of the Committee rooms of

the south wing are not even soiled.” He had prepared himself for a scene of far greater ruin and

was pleased that “the mischief is much more easily

repaired than would appear at first sight.” 17

During his visit with Van Ness and Ringgold,

Latrobe learned that Hoban had been hired to

restore the President’s House and that his work

would be confined to the Capitol. Thus, his title

Ruins of the 

House Chamber

attributed to Giovanni

Andrei, 1814 or 1815

Only vestiges of the

Corinthian colonnade

remained after the fire.

Long poles were used to

prevent the entablature

from falling and crushing

the floor.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 103

would not be the surveyor of public buildings, but

rather architect of the Capitol or surveyor of the

Capitol. The arrangement did not displease him,

but he did wince at the salary—$1,600 per year—

the same as that of a commissioner. Van Ness told

him that there was no shortage of architects willing

to be employed at that salary and, indeed, Hoban

had agreed to it without complaint. After some

negotiations Latrobe agreed to the salary so long as

he also received $300 more to move his family to

Washington and an allowance to rent a house.18

Latrobe was put under contract to restore the

wings of the Capitol on April 18, 1815. The commissioners asked if work should proceed on both

wings simultaneously or if it would be wiser to

repair the south wing first and then turn to the

north wing. In a remarkably naive question, they

also asked if it would be possible to have the hall

of the House ready for use in December.19 Latrobe

reported that a great deal of effort would be necessary to stabilize the north wing but after that it

would possible (he did not say advisable) to focus

entirely on the other wing. As for the likelihood of

seating the House of Representatives in its chamber eight months hence, he answered “in the negative.” Even if all the materials were on hand and

all the workmen hired, it would be impossible.

And, as he reminded the commissioners, “rapid

building is bad building.” Latrobe then said the

hall would be ready in December of 1816 and both

wings would be completely restored by the end of

1817. As if the past had taught him nothing,

Latrobe again created expectations that would be

impossible to fulfill.

Most of Latrobe’s first report to the commissioners was an assessment of existing conditions

and the steps necessary to protect the wings from

further decay. He proposed to construct a board

roof over the south wing pitched from the window

sills of the attic story. Rain would be discharged

through gutters out the window openings. A scaffold built on the floor of the chamber would help

support the roof. Under cover, the colonnade

would be dismantled, a job requiring great caution

because of the danger of it falling and crushing the

vaults supporting the floor. The temporary roof

would also allow the rooms in the office story to

dry. A temporary roof was needed over the north

wing as well. Materials to be ordered immediately

included 60,000 feet of rough boards, scaffolding

poles, 500 tons of freestone, 1,000 barrels of lime,

and all the bricks that could be had. Carpenters

were needed to enclose the grounds for a stone

yard and to construct the temporary roofs. Laborers of all sorts were needed in vast numbers. Particularly important were stone cutters, whom

Latrobe thought would be difficult to hire in

sufficient numbers for the work ahead.20

RETHINKING THE 

HALL OF THE HOUSE

W hen discussing the need for an

abundant supply of building

stone, Latrobe reported that

“The interior of the Hall of Representatives will be

carried up entirely in freestone if the room should

be rebuilt exactly upon the former design.” This

statement was the earliest indication that the

architect had something different in mind. On the

job just two days, Latrobe was mulling over an idea

for a chamber that first occurred to him in 1803.

His initial idea had been a chamber in the form of

a half-domed semicircle without columns. Jefferson overruled the proposal because it was too great

a departure from the accepted plan. With Jefferson now retired, Latrobe felt the time had come to

again propose a half-domed semicircle for the

House of Representatives. This one, however,

would have a magnificent colonnade, which was

such a popular feature in the former hall. It would

replicate the former colonnade with Grecian

columns modeled after the Choragic Monument of

Lysicrates and an entablature with Roman modillions: an enduring Jefferson-Latrobe collaboration.

In a matter of days Latrobe wrote a report on

the south wing to accompany a plan and section of

a new design for the House.21 He discussed the

complaints lodged against the old room and

explained how the new design would solve all former problems. Difficulties with acoustics, lighting,

and ventilation would be vanquished by adopting

the new plan. Latrobe indicated that acoustics was

the least important defect and was usually the

cause of gripes only when the chamber was filled

with rowdy members or the galleries crowded with

noisy spectators. When order prevailed, acoustics
104 History of the United States Capitol

was never a problem. Even so, the plan and form of

the semicircular Senate chamber, “the best room

of debate in America,” made it a better model for

the new hall of the House. His anatomical theater

at the University of Pennsylvania, the ancient Theater of Bacchus in Athens, and the legislative halls

erected in Paris since the revolution were other

examples of semicircular rooms used successfully

for lectures and debates.

Problems with light and ventilation would also

be solved by the new plan. The hall would have

direct access to the windows along the south wall

and the ceiling would support a lantern twenty feet

in diameter. “Not only will the room be ventilated in

the most perfect manner and kept cool in the

hottest weather,” Latrobe promised, “but all complaint against insufficient light will be at once and

forever removed.” Although numerous, the former

skylights had not provided enough light to the hall

because so many were covered with canvasses to

control glare or stop leaks. Protected by a dormer,

only one skylight in the old hall could be opened

Design proposed for the Hall of

Representatives U. S. Section 

from North to South

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1815

This small drawing beautifully conveys the essence

of Latrobe’s second design for the House chamber with

its semicircular colonnade, coffered dome, and central

lantern. Columns shown against the south wall (right)

would later be brought out to provide a loggia behind

the Speaker’s rostrum.

Sketch of a Design for altering the plan

of the House of Representatives in the

Capitol U. S. at Washington

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1815

Afew days after Latrobe began his second career

at the Capitol, he redesigned the hall of the House in

the form of a classical theater. The plan shows alterations necessary to carry out the new design—the old

walls are shown in light red and the new work is shown

in black. Faint circles indicate the position of the 

former colonnade.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 105

and was inadequate to the object of ventilation. A

lantern with vertical sash would allow diffused light

to enter the hall and a large volume of warm air to

leave it. After years of battling Jefferson over

lanterns, Latrobe hoped Madison and the commissioners would approve this practical feature.

Practical considerations aside, Latrobe also

noted that the style of the old room was better

suited to a theater than to a legislative chamber.

He claimed it had “an air of magnificence bordering

on ostentation and levity.” The new design was

less like a theater and, since he was the architect

of both, he said he should be allowed to state his

decided preference for the new plan.

Latrobe ended his description of the new

design with a request for a speedy decision so he

could begin ordering materials. The commissioners were impressed with the “improved plan,” as

they called it, and recommended it to the president but did not forward the architect’s report or

drawings to him. Writing from his Virginia estate,

“Montpelier,” Madison replied that it would be best

not to deviate from the former design unless it was

approved by Congress. He respected Latrobe’s

judgment but could not evaluate the merits of the

case from where he was: “I suspend an opinion,

until I can form one with the advantage of being

on the spot.” 22

Had Madison been in the company of his friend

and neighbor, Thomas Jefferson, to discuss

Latrobe’s plan it is unlikely that it would have been

approved. At least the old subject of lanterns

would have resurfaced. Jefferson first learned of

the revised plan in a letter from Dr. Thornton, who

wanted to restore the House chamber to the elliptical plan shown in the old “conference plan” of

1793. He had just learned of Latrobe’s proposal for

a semicircular hall and wanted to put a stop to it

as soon as possible. A further deviation from the

original plan would place Thornton farther away

from his claim (which always ignored Hallet) as its

author. Thornton claimed that the ellipse was a

superior form because it lacked “those little breaks

that destroy the unity, grandeur, and dignity of

Architecture.” It would foster a better room for

debate because an ellipse contains no part of a circle that creates “repercussion of sound.” 23 Jefferson, however, was not in the habit of interfering

with Madison’s administration and did nothing

about Thornton’s letter. He had heard enough from

Latrobe regarding the many defects of the elliptical plan. When Madison returned to Washington

he was able to judge the case “on the spot” and, by

June 20, 1815, Latrobe’s semicircular plan for the

House of Representatives had been approved.

ANDREI’S MISSION

W hile the commissioners studied

the revised plan for the House of

Representatives, Latrobe wrote

them about the chamber’s columns.24 Whether the

old plan was retained or the new plan adopted,

either scheme would require a great deal of architectural carving for the column capitals. In the former room, Giovanni Andrei had carved the capitals

in place and, after eight years, they were not yet

finished when the room was destroyed. The work

was done while Congress was out of session, and

each time Andrei was about to begin, furniture

had to be moved and a scaffold built. The whole

process was slow and expensive. Latrobe calculated that each column capital had cost $600. He

proposed the commissioners send Andrei to Italy,

where in a few months he could supervise carving

of all the capitals needed for the hall of the House.

By Andrei’s own estimate, capitals could be carved

and shipped to America for $300 each. Not only

would the work be faster and cheaper, but pure

white Italian marble would be more beautiful than

the coarse brown sandstone used formerly.

Latrobe felt Andrei should supervise carvers in

Italy because if they were left to their own devices

each capital would be “the production of the fanciful taste of the Sculptor, cheap in execution and

dashing in effect, but wholly unworthy of the situation it would occupy.” Andrei was thoroughly

converted to Latrobe’s taste for Grecian architecture and he would insure that the design would

be faithfully executed.

If the commissioners agreed to the proposal,

Andrei could also undertake another mission,

namely finding someone to execute the allegorical

statuary formerly modeled and carved by

Giuseppe Franzoni, who had died on April 6, 1815.

Unless a replacement was found, Latrobe feared,

“the decoration of the Capitol must be confined to
106 History of the United States Capitol

foliage.” Andrei knew Washington manners and

working conditions, placing him in an ideal position

to find someone of the right temper to assimilate

into American society.

In a few weeks the commissioners approved

Latrobe’s suggestion.25 By the time Andrei’s instructions were written on August 8, his mission had

expanded to include the carving of Ionic capitals for

four columns and two pilasters in the Senate chamber and four Ionic capitals for the President’s House.

He and his wife would depart Baltimore on the U. S.

Corvette John Adams for Barcelona, where another

navy vessel would provide passage to Leghorn.

Andrei was expected to employ carvers in nearby

Carrara, keeping in mind the commissioners’ admonition to take care of the public interest by having

the work executed in the best materials at reasonable prices. The entire cargo of thirty-four capitals

should be packed and ready to leave Italy by April 1,

1816, a deadline so important that the commissioners stated it twice. While abroad, Andrei continued

to draw his salary of $1,500 a year (he had been

placed back on the public rolls on August 4) and

was allowed $1,200 for expenses. He was authorized

to employ a master sculptor as skillful as the late

Franzoni, who should agree to come to America for

three or four years to work on the Capitol. Passage

to and from Washington would be paid by the commissioners. Two “inferior” sculptors should also be

engaged as assistants with pay appropriate to their

talents. The commissioners concluded their instructions by wishing Andrei “a pleasant voyage to your

native country, a successful execution of your labors,

and a safe return to Washington.”26

The first three weeks of Latrobe’s re-employment in Washington had been remarkably productive. He redesigned the House chamber, proposed

Andrei’s trip abroad, and organized the workmen.

Many of the same men employed on the public

buildings before the war applied for jobs soon after

Congress authorized restoration and repairs. Upon

Latrobe’s return, he appointed Shadrach Davis clerk

of the works, Leonard Harbaugh foreman of carpenters, and George Blagden foreman of stone cutters. Wartime conditions in the federal city had

been miserable for most workmen, who were saved

from starvation by the resumption of the public

works. Things were now much better for the building trades, and Latrobe was happy to have so many

talented and contented workmen at his disposal.

Latrobe set off for Pittsburgh on May 10, 1815,

to pack up his family for their return to Washington. During the trip he made a detour to inspect a

newly discovered deposit of marble near the

Potomac River in Loudoun County, Virginia. From

Cumberland, Maryland, he wrote Van Ness that it

seemed inexhaustible and equal to Carrara marble.

It also appeared infinitely superior to Philadelphia

marble.27 When he inspected the marble again, it

appeared to be “first rate quality as to texture, and

purity of Color,” but due to its position in the

ground with rock above and below it, Latrobe

thought that it would be expensive to quarry. While

impractical for present purposes, it was perhaps

worth further investigation.28

On the same trip, Latrobe found an outcrop of

a beautiful variegated marble southeast of the

Catoctin Mountains. The rock was found on both

sides of the Potomac River in Loudoun County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland. It was

composed of geologically fused pebbles of different

colors, which he thought exceptionally beautiful

when polished. Belonging to the family of sedimentary stone called breccia, Potomac “marble” was

sometimes referred to as “puddling stone” or “pebble marble.” (It was not a marble but was usually

referred to as such.) The existence of a beautiful

variegated stone so convenient to water transportation was an exciting discovery that meant column

shafts could possibly be wrought from single blocks

and delivered with little land carriage.29 Latrobe

thought the Potomac marble more beautiful than

any used in modern or ancient buildings, and it

promised to be a fine replacement for much of the

coarse brown sandstone universally used on the

public buildings in Washington.

Characteristically, the quarries at Aquia were

not delivering stone fast enough to keep pace with

the demands of the Capitol and President’s House.

The need for “speedy completion of the National

Buildings” prompted the commissioners to write

stone merchants in East Haddam, Farmington, and

Middletown, Connecticut asking about the quality,

prices, and quantity of freestone available from quarries on the Connecticut River.30 Letters back informed

the commissioners that sandstone in Connecticut

was plentiful enough, but was brown or red and not

suitable for use at the Capitol or President’s House.

Returning from a disappointing visit to Aquia, Blagden soon located about 400 tons of freestone at a
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 107

quarry on the Chapawamsic Creek in Stafford

County, Virginia, that was left over from the 1790s

building campaign. In 1794, the old board of commissioners had ordered 4,000 tons of this stone for

the walls of the north wing. Some of it proved satisfactory, yet a good deal did not, and the board

canceled the order. The quarry’s owner still had

the remaining stone in the yard, and Latrobe

thought that if those blocks had survived two

decades of weathering they might prove useful for

his present purposes.31 The commissioners authorized Latrobe to purchase all the Chapawamsic

stone that Blagden might approve.32

Scarcity of stone was matched by a scarcity of

men to cut it. Latrobe blamed the shortage mainly

on the method used to pay stone cutters. The commissioners paid them by the day rather than by the

piece. Thus, a lazy stonecutter or one of lesser skill

commanded the same wage as a talented and diligent workman, one who would not stand for his

superior industry to go unrewarded for long. Given

the pay structure there was no reason to complete

a stone-cutting task expeditiously. Without the

means to make more money to keep up with the

high cost of living, the best men were leaving Washington. Wages were lower in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, but rents were less and

amenities greater in those places. Paying stone

cutters by the piece would expedite the work,

attract the best men, and cost no more than paying

by the day. Latrobe recounted the story of a stone

cutter named Haydock who was so motivated by

piecework that he literally worked himself to death:

In boasting the upper blocks of the capitals of

the columns, a man working fairly could finish

one in about 4 days, perhaps in 31

⁄2. They were

given to Haydock at $8 each, and he began &

finished one in a single day. It is true, he

destroyed his health & lost his life ultimately by

that day’s work, but had he even taken two days

to the business & saved his life, he would have

earned double wages. By paying such a man $2

or $2.50 a day, while by the piece, he can earn

$4, no money is saved & much time is lost.33

Perhaps Latrobe could have given a less extreme

example to make his point, yet the commissioners

agreed and authorized Latrobe to adopt the piecework system.34

One of the most delicate tasks undertaken in

the first year of restoration was demolition of the

colonnade in the House chamber. Normally a scaffold would be built to give workmen access to the

upper parts of the stonework, but that was out of

the question because of the danger of accidentally

hitting a column. If one column were to topple, the

whole colonnade and entablature would collapse,

bringing down a hundred tons of stone and brick

that would shatter the vaults supporting the floor.

Workmen were afraid to touch the colonnade until

it was shored up. Latrobe wanted to support the

underside of the entablature with bundles of long

sticks, but finding and cutting sticks would take

time. Commissioner Ringgold came up with a better, money-saving plan. He suggested stacking common firewood between the columns up to the

bottom of the entablature, which would thus be

supported during demolition. Five hundred cords

of wood would go half way around the room. Once

the work was finished, the wood could be sold for

cost, recouping a large expense. Using this

approach, the colonnade was demolished in July

without incident.35

To supplement his income, Latrobe took a job

as one of the city surveyors at an annual salary of

$1,200. Among outside architectural commissions,

he earned $300 designing an addition to Long’s Tavern, located just east of the Capitol grounds. Begun

on July 4, 1815, the addition was built to accommodate Congress until restoration work on the Capitol

was finished. Latrobe’s clients were a group of

investors who wanted to return Congress to Capitol

Hill and, by providing comfortable and convenient

accommodations, squelch the persistent talk of

moving the seat of government. Built in just five

months, the “Brick Capitol” was ready at the opening of the 14th Congress in December 1815. Latrobe

was not certain if Madison would order Congress

out of Blodgett’s Hotel and into the new building,

but it could just as well be used for supper rooms,

assembly halls, and card rooms.36 Yet Congress happily vacated their quarters in the old hotel and met

in Latrobe’s handsome brick building through the

end of the 15th Congress in 1819.

At the close of the 1815 building season, the

restoration of the Capitol’s north and south wings

had made a modest start. Much of the blackened

stone around window and door openings had been

cut away and replaced with clean blocks. Workmen

scrubbed the outside walls to remove smoke damage from stones that otherwise survived the fire.

Temporary roofs had been placed over the two
108 History of the United States Capitol

wings, demolition work had begun, and a vast quantity of rubbish had been removed. The new vaults in

the committee rooms under the library in the north

wing were completed, but this was the only new

construction finished in 1815. A philosophical yet

resolute Latrobe wrote an acquaintance in London:

The labor of 10 Years of my life were destroyed

in one night, but I am now busily engaged, in

reestablishing them with increased splendor. I

have already gotten rid of the sooty stains here,

and hope your Government are taking the necessary means of washing them out of the history of England. The only fact that I regret

deeply, is the destruction of our national

Records. Every thing else money can replace.37

RETHINKING THE

SENATE CHAMBER

In 1813 Vice President Elbridge Gerry

talked with Latrobe about how the

Senate chamber would accommodate

members from new states. A year before, Louisiana

had been admitted to the Union, and a fresh crop

of new states awaited in the Mississippi, Michigan,

Missouri, and Illinois territories. With each new

state, two senators would be sent to Washington

and Gerry feared the chamber was too small to

seat them. The conversation was informal because

Latrobe had been out of office since 1811 and his

advice would have been given unofficially. His

removal to Pittsburgh put aside any ideas that

might have occurred to him at the time.

After the vice president’s death in 1814, his

concerns were taken up by a number of senators

who consulted with Latrobe about space problems: they asked him to explore the options and

put his ideas on paper. On February 21, 1816, he

submitted a short report outlining his solution to

the problem, illustrating it with plans and sections

showing the old room and how he proposed to

enlarge it.38 The chamber could be rebuilt on an

enlarged diameter, retaining the same form as the

old room that the architect found so well suited to

its purpose. To capture more space, Latrobe suggested removing the small staircase and the narrow range of water closets occupying the area

behind the curving wall. By eliminating these features, it would be possible to enlarge the Senate

chamber to a diameter of seventy-five feet, the

greatest dimension possible without interfering

with the central lobby. The new plan increased the

diameter of the room by fifteen feet, giving enough

room to accommodate senators from twenty-four

or more states. The small gallery over the entrance

lobby would be sacrificed but two larger galleries

along the east wall (one on top of the other) would

more than make up the loss. Ionic columns, some

of which were already ordered, would support the

lower gallery while the upper one would be upheld

Brick Capitol

ca. 1865

Mathew Brady Photograph, National Archives

For clients wishing to return Congress to Capitol Hill, Latrobe designed an addition to Long’s Tavern for the House and Senate to use while the Capitol was undergoing repairs. (Rent was $1,650 a year.) Citizens worried that Congress would abandon

the federal city and return to Philadelphia, a move that would have devastated the

Washington real estate market.

After 1819, the “Old Brick Capitol” served as a rooming house where members of

Congress boarded, particularly those from the south. Senator John C. Calhoun of

South Carolina, for example, died there in 1850. During the Civil War the building was

commandeered by the government and converted into a military prison. It was demolished in 1867.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 109

by caryatids. Although his report was silent on

what the caryatids would represent, Latrobe later

wrote that he intended them to be allegorical representations of the states.

Enlargement of the Senate chamber caused

Latrobe one regret. He was proud of the brick dome

that had withstood the British attack and needed

nothing more than fresh coats of plaster and paint

to put it back in first-class condition. To enlarge

the room the dome would have to come down and

a larger one be built in its place. Latrobe considered the sacrifice worthwhile, however, and, supposing most of the bricks could be cleaned and

reused, estimated the new masonry would cost no

more than $3,000.

The Senate appointed a special committee to

evaluate Latrobe’s proposal and to discuss other

ways to improve its accommodation. In making the

appointment the Senate sidestepped the commissioners, who were not pleased with this breach of

their authority. (They did not complain to the Senate but rather to Latrobe, whom they suspected

was party to the snub.) The committee met with

Latrobe to give him ideas about the needs of the

Senate, its members, officers, and evolving committee system. On March 6, 1816, Latrobe wrote

the chairman, Rufus King of New York, saying he

had “digested a plan by which your objects will be

perfectly accomplished and provisions made for

the Library elsewhere.” 39 Three weeks later, King

asked the architect to report the effect that the

change would have on the general expense of the

Capitol. Latrobe explained that the plan of the

whole building had not yet been approved, but in

the case of the Senate wing, the proposed changes

would actually decrease the cost of that part of the

building.40 The crux of Latrobe’s plan was to relocate the Library of Congress to the center building

and to rebuild its former space into eight committee rooms. Because the library was intended to be

a magnificent room with stone columns and extensive galleries, it would be one of the most expensive interiors in the Capitol—but if it were placed

in the center building, its cost would not be charged

to the north wing.

The need for additional committee rooms was

due to the pending formation of the Senate’s first

roster of standing committees. On December 5, 1816,

Senator James Barbour of Virginia introduced a

motion to create eleven permanent committees to

help modernize the old system of select committees,

which were created from time to time to take care of

temporary assignments. The new system promised

greater continuity and stability in the conduct of the

Senate’s business.41 Permanent committees needed

accommodations that were private, where they could

meet at will, where papers could be securely stored,

and where committee members might work.

Section of the North Wing,

Looking North

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1817

Library of Congress

Anticipating a new roster of standing committees,

the Senate asked Latrobe to provide more meeting

rooms in the north wing. He was able to fit eight rooms

into what had been the old library space (left). An

enlarged chamber (right) could accommodate a greater

number of senators.
110 History of the United States Capitol

On April 3 Senator King introduced a resolution

approving Latrobe’s revised plans for the north wing:

it was agreed to two days later. The plans were sent

to President Madison, who referred them to the

commissioners for approval. The commissioners

asked Latrobe if the library could be relocated to

the third floor instead of waiting to accommodate

it in the center building. Latrobe replied that the

Senate had strong objections to sharing its

vestibule with the library and the situation would

not be improved by moving it upstairs. People going

to and from the library would still pass through the

lobby in front of the Senate chamber. Climbing an

additional flight of stairs would be another source

of complaint. However, these rooms could house

the library temporarily, “altho’ they are low.” 42 The

commissioners accepted Latrobe’s explanation and

approved the revised plan, but regretted it had not

been suggested before considerable progress was

made in rebuilding the former plan.43

The reconfiguration of the north wing’s floor

plan occupied so much of Latrobe’s time that he

neglected (or so the commissioners thought) the

south wing. Much of that work hinged upon the

selection of material for the columns, and the commissioners were anxious for Latrobe to revisit various quarries along the upper Potomac so that a

decision might be reached. On February 7, 1816,

they reminded him of the necessity of making the

trip.44 Two weeks later they again implored him to

examine the quarries.45 Under this pressure and

that exerted by Senator King’s committee, Latrobe

unexpectedly and uncharacteristically advised the

commissioners to abandon the idea of marble

columns and to use sandstone instead. The commissioners were unhappy with the recommendation, saying that it was their duty not to give up so

easily.46 They ordered Latrobe to examine “Mr.

Clapham’s pebble marble in Maryland near Noland’s

ferry, & the white marble above Harper’s ferry.”

Latrobe scheduled his trip for the first week in

March but then wanted to delay it a week because

of the pressing business with the Senate. The commissioners denied the request, citing the importance of the journey and said that they would deal

with the Senate themselves.47

Latrobe finally set out on his journey, arriving

at Noland’s Ferry on March 13, 1816. With him were

a marble mason named John Hartnet and a laborer

who carried the tools needed to bore and polish

stone. Over the next five or six days they examined

the Potomac marble from the “Big springs to the

Catoctin mountains” and the “white marble strata

from Waterford to its final termination on the river.”

The party then set out for Harper’s Ferry, where

limestone deposits containing a variety of marble

were said to be located. They examined a marble

quarry on the banks of the Monocacy near Woodbury in Frederick County, Maryland, and proceeded

to a recently discovered marble deposit four miles

inland. The expedition then left for Baltimore to

examine the quarries supplying that city. Latrobe

stayed there until March 26, taking care of some

personal business and allowing his lame horse to

rest. He was exhausted by the rigors of the trip,

during which he had covered a considerable area

of rough terrain on foot and on horseback. While

the party was at Harper’s Ferry, seven and a half

inches of snow fell one night, and it snowed again

on the way to Baltimore. He had also suffered a

painful fall from his horse.48

When Latrobe returned to Washington, he

was too unwell to come to the Capitol for a few

days. But he immediately reported his findings to

the commissioners, who were anxious to settle

on a marble for the House chamber. Some of the

Plan of the Attic

Story of the North

Wing of the Capitol

U. S. as authorized

to be built

by B. Henry Latrobe

Drawn by Frederick C.

DeKrafft, 1817

Library of Congress

The rooms along the

western side of the north

wing’s top floor were

designed for Senate committees but were labeled

here as “Apartments for

the temporary accommodation of the Library.” In

1815, Thomas Jefferson

sold his library of 6,487

volumes to the government for $23,900 to

replace the books lost 

in the fire.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 111

marbles examined were exceptionally beautiful,

some could be easily quarried, and some were convenient to water transportation, but only one had all

three advantages. Latrobe recommended the pebble

marble located on Samuel Clapham’s land on the

banks of the Potomac River. He had tested the stone

and thought it would supply all the column shafts

needed for the House of Representatives.49

Without a quarry in operation, the commissioners would have to find someone to extract the

stone, polish it, and transport it to Washington.

Luckily, there was a nearby mill race that could

provide power to cut and polish the stone, and the

immediate access to the Potomac would simplify

transportation to Washington. The owner of the

marble was also willing to give it to the government gratuitously.50 (He later changed his mind.)

Despite earlier misgivings, Latrobe was now in

favor of using the pebble marble instead of freestone in the House chamber. It was, he said,

“acknowledged to be more beautiful than any foreign variegated marble hitherto known,” and would

be well suited to the marble capitals that were being

carved in Italy. It was stronger than sandstone and

would better support the brick dome he intended

to build over the chamber. Admittedly, sandstone

shafts would be less expensive. Shafts in the former

chamber had cost about $500 each (exclusive of

fluting), but now they would cost $625. According

to an offer made by John Hartnet, Potomac marble

shafts would cost $1,550 apiece. Thus, marble for

twenty-four shafts would cost $22,200 more than

sandstone. By manipulating the cost of the capitals,

however, Latrobe argued that marble columns

would actually cost $16,000 more than sandstone.

The difference was therefore trivial.51

THE COMMISSIONER 

OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS

H artnet’s offer to deliver each

marble shaft for $1,550 was, in

Latrobe’s opinion, an excellent

bargain. Comparable shafts at the Union Bank in

Baltimore cost $2,000 apiece, and he was confident

no one in Baltimore could beat Hartnet’s price.52

The commissioners had already made inquiries

about the cost of marble columns in other cities,

Details of the Center Building 

and the North Wing

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1817

Library of Congress

At the lower part of this drawing, Latrobe sketched

a section showing the rotunda, the “ornamental air

shaft” (called today the “small Senate rotunda”), the

Senate vestibule, and a committee room. Except for 

the latter room, each space was lighted and ventilated

from above.

The top part of the drawing illustrates Latrobe’s 

latest plan to gather flues in the central stone lantern 

to avoid cluttering the roof with chimneys. The idea 

had been a favorite with him since the Jefferson administration but he was not allowed to proceed until his 

second campaign.
112 History of the United States Capitol

but before replies were received they discovered

that Congress had abolished their office. On April

29, 1816, President Madison approved an appropriation to enclose the Capitol grounds with a

fence and authorized alterations to the plans of

the north and south wings.53 The legislation also

abolished the three-man board as well as the office

of the superintendent of the city, which had been

occupied by Thomas Munroe since 1802. The

duties were combined into the new, one-man office

called the “commissioner of public buildings.” The

salary was $2,000 a year.

The change of authority was a mixed blessing

for Latrobe. While the legislation was still before

the Senate, he wrote Madison asking to be named

commissioner.54 He complained that the board had

treated him in the most “coarse and offensive”

manner. They constantly reminded him that there

were other architects ready to take his place. The

commissioners were a condescending lot who told

Latrobe that pity for his family was the principal

reason they kept him on. Contracts were made

and workmen dismissed without his knowledge,

and their ignorance had cost the public dearly. He

recalled his relations with Jefferson, which illustrated the necessity of having direct access to the

president without meddlesome middlemen. The

new arrangement offered little hope for improvement but he had to endure because he was too

poor to quit.

The letter did not convince the president to

make the appointment Latrobe hoped for. Instead

Madison nominated John Van Ness on April 29;

however, he was rejected by the Senate the following day. The president intended next to nominate

Richard Bland Lee but learned that the Senate

would not confirm any of the former commissioners to the new post. Samuel Lane, an old friend of

Secretary of State James Monroe, was nominated

instead. Lane was a wounded veteran of the last

war who was first considered for the post of claims

commissioner to pay for property destroyed, lost,

or captured by the enemy—what Latrobe called

the “Commissioner of Dead Horses.” 55 Considering

the politics of the situation, Madison switched the

appointments and nominated Richard Bland Lee

claims commissioner and Samuel Lane commissioner of public buildings. The Senate confirmed

Lane on April 30, 1816. 

Latrobe was delighted that Congress had abolished the old board, “the most villainous board of

Commissioners that ever had the power of tormenting in their heads.” He was also happy the

Senate rejected Van Ness, whom he characterized

as an “insolent brute.” 56 He looked forward to meeting the new commissioner, “a disbanded Officer,

with one arm useless, and a ball thro’ the thigh,”

but felt his subordination to a nonprofessional man

would cause trouble in the future.57 His fears, as it

turned out, were fully justified.

In military fashion Lane demanded regular

reports. He had forms printed to report the number of workmen at the Capitol, what tasks they

performed, and what salaries they were being paid.

On May 29, 1816, the clerk of the works, Shadrach

Davis, reported that (not counting foremen) ten

carpenters were making centers for vaults and

arches, twenty-nine men were cutting stone, five

men were laying brick in the north wing, and

twenty-eight laborers were “attending.” 58 Three

sculptors were on the payroll, engaged in repairing

the exterior carvings and making the entablature

for the hall of the House. Two American carvers,

named McIntosh and Henderson, were joined in

1816 by a talented Italian sculptor whose brief

career had a lasting impact on the Capitol. Carlo

Franzoni, younger brother of Giuseppe, was

recruited at the commissioner’s request by Richard

McCall.59 Other Italian sculptors, including Antonio

Capellano, Francisco Iardella, and Giuseppe

Valaperti, were also employed in the restoration of

the Capitol.

Lane was a stern task master. Latrobe thought

that although he was not a bad man he was entirely

unfit for his place.60 After returning from a trip to

Baltimore where private business detained him for

several days, Latrobe received a letter from Lane

scolding him for allowing work to suffer for want

of attention. A new master mason named John

Queen started laying brick in Latrobe’s absence,

which Lane thought was just the time he should

be watching closely. Latrobe’s hours were only

from 10 o’clock in the morning until three o’clock

in the afternoon, which left enough time for other

business and gave Lane the right to expect the

architect to be “punctual and regular.” 61 While

testy, Lane’s letter was hardly impolite, yet Latrobe

took offense. He returned it with a note that said:

“The enclosed has been sent by mistake to my
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 113

address: that it was apparently intended for somebody who was supposed to have neither the

habits, the education, nor the spirit of a Gentleman.” 62 Lane’s reaction can only be imagined, but

the episode did nothing to promote harmony at

the Capitol.

Another letter Latrobe received about this time

was most welcome. Thomas Jefferson wrote an

account of a sundial he mounted on the “corn cob”

capital that Latrobe sent to Monticello in 1809.

Latrobe responded to this friendly letter with news

that the corn columns were barely injured by the

British and he wished to leave them alone.63 But

some things in the north wing would be changed,

including the location and design of the principal

staircase. The former staircase had survived but

was damaged when the lantern above it crashed

down and broke some of the stones. In rebuilding,

Latrobe relocated the stair just off the east lobby

and designed it to be “less curious.” In its former

location a vestibule was being built with a circular

colonnade supporting a dome with an oculus to

admit light and air. Here, the capitals were

designed with tobacco leaves and flowers—

Latrobe’s third exercise in Americanizing the classical orders. Iardella made a plaster model of the

tobacco capital, which Latrobe promised to send

to Monticello after the carvers were done with it.

Work done during the 1816 building season

disappointed members of the House and Senate

upon their return to Washington for the opening of

the second session of the 14th Congress in December. Latrobe’s annual report stated that nothing

could be done inside the south wing until the

columns were delivered, but he assured members

of Congress that the beauty of the marble made

the wait worthwhile. Only one pilaster was ready

to be sent and it would be some time before all the

column shafts were delivered and ready to put up.

In the meantime, 106 blocks of sandstone had been

carved for the entablature—about a third of what

would be required—and all the stone for the

gallery front was ready to set.64

Progress was more apparent in the north wing.

The columns and vaults in the Supreme Court

chamber had survived the fire but were greatly

weakened and had to be removed. A new vault was

Preliminary Design for the Small Senate Rotunda

by B. Henry Latrobe, ca. 1816

Library of Congress

While repairs to the north wing were under way, Latrobe built a domed air 

shaft where a stair had formerly been located. The oculus of the dome provided an 

unexpected and welcome source of light and air.

Tobacco Capital

Sixteen columns in the small Senate rotunda were

designed with tobacco capitals, another case of Latrobe’s

assured and original adaptation of native plants to 

classical usage. The capital was modeled by Francisco

Iardella in 1816. Latrobe admired his faithfulness to 

the botanical character of the tobacco plant. 

(1961 photograph.)
114 History of the United States Capitol

built along the lines of the old one but no columns

were used along the semicircular arcade. Instead,

the arcade was built with stout piers, and columns

were used only to support the three-bay arcade

along the eastern wall. In the Senate chamber

upstairs, the fire had destroyed everything that

was marble or sandstone, but the great brick dome

survived. The enlargement of the room meant that

it too was removed. Latrobe reported that ten feet

of the new semicircular wall was in place. The new

plan also required removal of the vaults over the

first-floor rooms in the western half of the north

wing in order to raise them to the proper level.

(Had it been built, the floor of the Egyptian library

would have been five feet lower than the general

second-floor level.) New vaults for three stories of

committee rooms in this section were completed

during the 1816 building season.

As members of the House of Representatives

could plainly see, repairs to the Senate wing were

proceeding apace while nothing was being done in

the south wing. The chairman of the Committee on

Expenditures on Public Buildings, Lewis Condict of

New Jersey, asked the commissioner to provide an

account of the monies spent to repair the Capitol

and to explain why work on the south wing was at

a standstill. Lane reported that from April 30, 1815,

to January 1, 1817, $76,000 had been spent on the

Capitol—about $40,000 for materials, $31,000 for

labor, and $5,000 for incidentals such as freight,

wharfage, and tools.65 Construction of the House

chamber depended on delivery of the marble

columns to support the ceiling and roof structure

and without them nothing could be done. It was

not only the pebble marble that was slow in coming: the Italian marble capitals that were supposed

to be shipped in the spring of 1816 had not been

received either. The cause for the delay was

unknown: Andrei had not been heard from. Lane

quickly pointed out that the delay could not be

Supreme Court

Chamber

There are no known

views of this chamber

drawn during the halfcentury the Supreme

Court met here

(1810–1860). Perhaps

artists were daunted by

the unusual architectural

setting, or perhaps the

Court simply discouraged

such endeavors. (1975

photograph.)
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 115

blamed on him because the order for Italian capitals had been made by his predecessors.66

Condict and his committee also wanted an estimate of the cost to complete the wings. Latrobe

reported that the probable expense of finishing the

north wing was $108,000 and $126,500 would be

needed for the south wing.67 The figures were given

without an explanation of how they were calculated or broken down into labor and material categories. Latrobe wrote the commissioner a letter

explaining the difficulty of compiling estimates on

short notice when the plans for the wings had been

altered and there were not sufficient drawings from

which to make calculations. Lane forwarded

Latrobe’s numbers to Condict without explanation,

leaving the architect exposed to the committee’s

censure. Condict’s committee said the estimates

were “deficient in point of detail, and by no means

satisfactory to the committee.” 68 On February 22,

1817, Latrobe wrote a memorial to the House of

Representatives explaining why his estimates were

so terse and expressed his “utter surprise and

mortification” that they were sent without the

explanatory letter.69 He did not show the memorial

to Lane, accusing him instead of deliberately trying

to embarrass him. “Under such circumstances of

official hostility,” Latrobe wrote, “I could only

appeal to the Legislature in explanation, which I

have done.” 70

TROUBLE IN THE “ERA

OF GOOD FEELINGS”

W ith the close of the 14th Congress

came the end of James Madison’s

presidency. He attended the inauguration of his successor, James Monroe, which

was held in front of the “Brick Capitol,” and

returned to his Virginia estate to begin a long, quiet

retirement. In contrast to his earlier career, Madison’s two terms as president were only marginally

successful, clouded by diplomatic blunders, a mismanaged war, the humiliating fall of the capital,

and his own embarrassing flight just ahead of

British troops. He took no interest in the work to

repair the public buildings, shielding himself with

inept commissioners. Latrobe longed for the days

of frequent and friendly counsels with Thomas Jefferson, which were intellectually invigorating,

occasionally frustrating, but always cordial. In Jefferson’s administration, he had held a position of

trust and was a complete master of his works. With

Madison, a man never known for warmth, the best

Latrobe could hope for was icy indifference and

frustrating deferrals to the citizen commissioners.

Monroe’s assent to the presidency could only

improve his situation, or so Latrobe thought.

Monroe was no stranger to Washington, having served the previous administration as secretary of state and, after the city’s capture, secretary

of war as well. He did not think the repairs to the

Capitol and President’s House were proceeding as

quickly as they might, and he became determined

to expedite matters. Monroe had every intention

of pushing the works forward and becoming more

involved than his predecessor. To advise him on

ways to speed things along, he appointed an informal board consisting of Lieutenant Colonel George

Bomford of the Army Ordinance Department and

General Joseph Swift of the Army Corps of Engineers. Latrobe thought they would make all the

important decisions while the commissioner would

merely carry out their orders.71 Mistakenly, the

architect believed that Lane’s behavior had discredited him and that the new council was created

to sidestep his authority. Instead, Monroe merely

wanted to consult with men who knew about construction and procurement and, as army officers,

appreciated economy and efficiency.

In office less than a month, Monroe began

deciding issues regarding the Capitol based largely

on expediency. It became clear that the overriding

consideration in his mind was speed. The first question Monroe decided was which material to use for

the ceilings over the House and Senate chambers.

Latrobe planned to build both semicircular domes

with brick and cover them with plaster. Masonry

domes would be permanent, fireproof, and worthy

of the beautiful marble columns that were destined

for these rooms. Monroe put the question of

masonry domes to Bomford and Swift, who

reported their thoughts on March 19, 1817. They

did not doubt that brick domes could be built, but

did not consider the time and money worthwhile.

Timber ceilings would last fifty years and would

help calm the public’s fears regarding the danger

of falling masonry vaults.72
116 History of the United States Capitol

Heeding expert advice, Monroe ordered the

chambers covered with wooden domes. On April 2,

1817, Lane informed Latrobe of the president’s

decision, and he immediately reacted with a bitter

letter of protest.73 The matter was of great importance and he hoped it would not be necessary to

act contrary to his judgment and experience. It

was particularly important that the ceiling over the

Senate chamber be made of brick so it could help

support the stone lantern intended for the center

of the roof. Latrobe proposed to gather many of

the wing’s chimney flues in the lantern in order to

preserve the symmetry of the roof line.

George Blagden, like Bomford and Swift, also

favored wooden domes and helped the president

make up his mind on the issue. Coming from the

most experienced and trustworthy mason in the

city, Blagden’s advice carried at least as much

weight as Latrobe’s, and his reputation as a practical man placed him higher in many minds. Blagden

offered his opinion on brick domes in a long letter

written on March 14, 1817.74 He entered the subject gingerly, saying: “From my youth I was taught

to look up to the character of an architect, as a

workman however, and one that has grown grey in

the service, I give you my opinion freely.” It was

clear that he had little taste for Latrobe’s heavy

vaults and other things he considered extravagant.

Blagden thought the form of the House chamber

was changed to a semicircle so that it could be

“arched,” and he asked himself if such an arch

could stand. To this question he replied: “I think

not, first because of the work beneath, if conjuncted

to the load of the columns and entablature, ‘tis

enough the arches of the Basement story must ever

groan . . . why run this risk, why give an additional

weight of nearly five hundred tons to these arches.”

He was reminded of the dangerous consequences

of extensive arches and vaults, which the architect

knew from “terrible experience.” The east wall of

the Senate chamber was forced out almost four

inches from the pressure of the interior vaulting.

Even the relatively small arches over the gallery in

the former House chamber pushed the walls out of

plumb. Blagden thought it best to abandon the idea

of a domed House chamber, suggesting instead to

suspend a flat ceiling from roof trusses. He would

also abandon the circular colonnade and bring the

galleries out four feet to give more space to the

committee rooms underneath, thereby making

them more useful. Moving to the north wing, Blagden observed that the span of the proposed vault

over the Senate chamber posed the same dangers

that threatened the House. He dreaded Latrobe’s

extravagance in both the extent of the vaulting and

the expense of using costly materials. Particularly

bothersome was Latrobe’s design for the Senate

galleries, with marble columns holding a row of

marble caryatids, that Blagden thought wildly and

excessively expensive.

Blagden’s letter dealt the fatal blow to Latrobe’s

plans for brick domes and emblematic caryatids for

the Senate gallery. A few days after the letter was

written, the commissioner asked Latrobe about

what was needed “to supply the place of the caryatids formerly proposed for the Senate chamber.” 75

Framing Details of

the Senate Ceiling

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1817

Library of Congress

Against his objections,

Latrobe was ordered to

build timber-framed ceilings

over the chambers. These

were neither permanent nor

fireproof and, in the architect’s opinion, were unworthy of the magnificent rooms

they would cover. Yet, as this

drawing illustrates, framing

such a ceiling was no simple

matter. It required the skill

of an engineer and the experience of a master carpenter.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 117

Latrobe suggested using a row of dwarf columns of

variegated marble. Although he did not tell Lane,

he intended to retain six caryatids in the corner

piers, but these too would eventually drop from

the room’s final design.76

Latrobe was genuinely upset by the president’s

decision to build wooden domes. He reacted by

saying that he could not devise a plan or method of

framing these ceilings but would attempt to build

them if plans could be obtained from another

source. Perhaps it would be best, Latrobe told the

commissioner, for him to resign, as “the Public

could do very well without him.” 77 In a short time,

however, he swallowed his pride and submitted an

estimate of the lumber necessary to build the dome

over the House chamber and the roof over the

south wing.78 The domes and roofs for both wings

would be framed on the ground, disassembled, and

reassembled in place. The commissioner first

thought the ground west of the Capitol was the

best place to frame the domes, but Latrobe

objected because it would be too far from the lumber yard (presumably on the east grounds), and it

would interfere with masons making mortar near

the pump located between the wings.79 Who won

the argument is not known, but it seemed that the

architect and the commissioner could not agree on

any issue, large or small.

THE MAJESTY 

OF MARBLE

The 1817 building season was Latrobe’s

last at the Capitol. It was a stressful

time, with the commissioner applying

pressure to speed construction and the president

demanding heroic exertions from all concerned.

Because most of the old drawings were rendered

useless by the changes to the design of the wings,

Latrobe worried that he could not produce new

drawings fast enough to keep up with demand. The

president allowed him to hire two draftsmen to

help. William Small, son of Latrobe’s friend Jacob

Small of Baltimore, was employed full time at $750

a year. It was the same salary he had earned assisting his father and directing carpenters building the

Baltimore Exchange, one of Latrobe’s largest outside jobs. A draftsman from the city surveyor’s

office, William Blanchard, was hired part time at

$350 a year. With these men, Latrobe was able to

hand over original drawings to be copied, either for

explanatory purposes or to be used (and used up)

by workmen.80

Some thought that slow delivery of Potomac

marble would delay restoration of the wings for

many more years. Lane wanted to abandon the

marble altogether and use sandstone columns. To

decide the case, President Monroe went to Noland’s

Ferry on March 28, 1817, personally inspected the

stone, and became convinced that its beauty was

worth the trouble and time it would take to deliver

it to Washington. But the master of the works, John

Hartnet, found it beyond his means to quarry and

Section of the South Wing, Looking South

by B. Henry Latrobe 

Drawn by John H. B. Latrobe, 1817

Library of Congress

Latrobe’s son drew this section showing the House chamber covered with a wooden

dome, a construction shortcut ordered by President Monroe over the architect’s strenuous objections. The smooth wooden ceiling promoted echoes that plagued the room

from the beginning.
118 History of the United States Capitol

Ground Story of the

Capitol U. S.

by B. Henry Latrobe

Drawn by 

William Blanchard, 1817

Library of Congress

This plan illustrated only

those parts of the Capitol

undergoing repair. The plan

of the south wing remained

virtually unchanged from its

pre-fire configuration, while

the north wing plan reflects

changes brought about with

Latrobe’s post-fire adjustments. In that wing, only the

east vestibule with its corn

columns was left exactly as it

had been from the pre-fire

period. With the plan still

undecided, the entire center

building was left blank.

Plan of the 

Principal Floor 

of the Capitol U. S.

by B. Henry Latrobe 

Drawn by 

William Blanchard, 1817

Library of Congress

Prepared for President

Monroe, this plan shows the

wings under repair and a 

proposed plan for the center

building. For the western 

projection, Latrobe proposed

a large, three-part room for

the Library of Congress that

would be lighted from above.

Reading rooms, committee

rooms, stairs, and two rooms

for the librarian were provided nearby.

The rotunda was 

labeled: “Grand Vestibule.

Hall of inauguration, of

impeachment, and of all 

public occasions.”
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 119

polish the pebble marble with anything approaching the speed the president wanted. Monroe

detailed Robert Leckie, “the conductor of all the

Arsenals U. S. and a famous Quarrier,” to assist in

the effort.81 After Monroe instructed the commissioner to divide the work into two parts, Leckie

was placed in charge of getting the stone from 

the quarry and Hartnet was made responsible for 

shaping it. A clerk was hired to keep accounts, pay

workmen, and take care of provisions. To keep the

pressure up, the president wanted to see concise

reports every Monday morning.82

Latrobe wrote Jefferson that he had nine blocks

of what he now called “Columbian marble” that

would “render our public buildings rich in native

magnificence.” 83 While its beauty was undeniable,

Latrobe suggested that the stone was more generally admired because it was American. The sentiment was echoed in Niles’ Weekly Register, when

it praised Latrobe for using the “internal riches of

our country” for the Capitol’s embellishment.84

While Potomac marble supplied column shafts,

and Italian marble would be used for most capitals, other marbles were employed for bases,

entablatures, stairs, and statuary. Latrobe wanted

to use white marble from Baltimore for the main

staircase in the north wing. It was harder and

cheaper than Philadelphia marble and was much

more suitable for stairs than the sandstone used

previously.85 On August 13, 1817, Lane agreed to

pay Thomas Towson $1,200 for steps and landings

and asked him to complete the order as soon as

possible. The commissioner thought Towson’s price

was high and asked if a discount would be considered in return for prompt payment.86 Once the marble was delivered to Washington, it was turned over

to Blagden and his stone cutting department. He

predicted that the marble could be boasted,

molded, polished, and installed in about seven

weeks.87 For the dwarf columns in the Senate chamber, Latrobe wanted to use veined marble from

Thomas Traquair’s stone yard in Philadelphia.

Traquair offered to furnish the short column shafts

for ninety dollars each, a price Lane again thought

too high. He wanted to pay five dollars less and

hoped Traquair would agree. Lane also wanted to

buy bases and cinctures for the columns in the

House chamber from Traquair, who offered to

deliver the bases for $200 apiece and the cinctures

for forty dollars. Lane countered with an offer of

$200 for both.88 But Traquair would not budge and

Lane was obliged to pay the asking prices.89 Time

was running out and Traquair could deliver the

stone promptly. Lane enlisted the help of a prominent architect from New York, John McComb, to

secure white marble bases and entablature for the

Senate colonnade. These were sent to Washington

in mid-June 1817.90 Carvers finished the Philadelphia and New York marble after it was received at

the Capitol.

A cargo of beautifully carved white marble capitals accompanied Andrei upon his return to Washington in June 1817. He had fulfilled his mission

admirably and, although he returned more than a

year late, his time in Italy had not delayed construction. During his absence the plans for the Senate chamber were changed. Instead of four columns

and two pilasters, the revised design called for

eight columns in the chamber and four more in the

lobby plus dwarf columns, antae, and pilasters.

Apparently Latrobe or Lane wrote Andrei about

the additional capitals that were needed. He procured eight additional capitals in Italy but the less

intricate caps for antae and pilasters were carved

in Washington. Luckily, there were four blocks of

Italian marble on hand that Latrobe intended to

use for these capitals as well as for the doorframe

around the entrance to the House chamber. What

remained could be used for statuary. He was

horrified to learn that Blagden had other plans for

the stones, including cutting them up into hearths

for the President’s House, and immediately sent a

letter of protest to Lane, who put a stop to Blagden’s scheme.91 Five carvers worked on the antae

and pilaster capitals for the Senate chamber and

lobby, copying as best they could the exquisite models from Italy. Andrei carved the capitals of the

dwarf columns in place just as he had done years

ago for the columns in the former House chamber.92

The best of the sculptors, Carlo Franzoni, was

engaged in 1817 on two allegorical groups: a figure

of Justice for the Supreme Court and the Car of

History for the hall of the House. The first was a

reproduction of the destroyed sculpture by his

brother Giuseppe. The Car of History was substituted for the four allegorical figures over the principal entrance to the old House chamber. The new

work was “a figure of history in a winged Car, the

wheel of which forms the face of the Clock or time

piece.” 93 Only the Car of History, one of America’s
120 History of the United States Capitol

foremost neoclassical sculptures, was translated

into marble. The Justice figure was never carved in

marble due to the lack of materials. Latrobe also

planned additional sculpture, including an eagle

for the frieze in the hall of the House to replace the

one destroyed by the British. Carved by Giuseppe

Valaperti, it formed a part of the sandstone entablature. Above the eagle was a figure of Liberty holding the constitution in one hand. An eagle and a

serpent, symbolizing America and wisdom, flank

the central figure. The grouping recalled a similar

work of art that was admired in the former hall,

except that this figure of Liberty was standing

rather than seated. Enrico Causici sculpted the

plaster models that, like Franzoni’s figure of Justice, were never carved in marble.

On the outside of the building, Latrobe

planned to incorporate sculpture into the attic

panels located in the center of the south end of

the House wing and the north end of the Senate

wing. A “phoenix rising from burning ruins” was

intended for one while “the last Military Achievement of the War” was proposed for the other.94

Thus an allegory of the destruction and restoration of the Capitol would be seen on one end 

of the building and a commemorative representation of the Battle of New Orleans would be on the

other. By the time the panels were completed by

Latrobe’s successor, however, the sculptural

enrichments were greatly simplified.

Commissioner Lane, seemingly without

Latrobe’s knowledge or advice, sought out marble

mantels in Philadelphia, New York, and Italy. He

wrote his agent in Philadelphia about mantels and

other matters related to marble. Ready-made mantels were available and the price depended only on

the marble selected. Lane received drawings of

various designs with a key to explain the kinds of

marble available.95 Lane also asked John McComb

about mantels available in New York City and was

shocked by the prices they commanded: $300 to

$450 for plain mantels, and $600 for those with

sculptural enrichments.96 It would be cheaper, Lane

concluded, to obtain them from Italy. Lane sent an

order to a London firm for mantels, hearths, and

paving tiles made from Italian marble. Purviance,

Nicholas & Company was asked to ensure that the

materials were genuine and the workmanship

excellent, as the American public wished to have

its money’s worth.97

House Chamber

Details

by B. Henry Latrobe

1815

Library of Congress Latrobe’s preliminary

sketch for the Car of 

History appears in the

center of this drawing of

the principal entrance to

the House chamber.

Ionic Order of the

Erechtheion,

Athens

From the 1825 edition of 

The Antiquities of Athens

by James Stuart and

Nicholas Revett Many connoisseurs

consider this the most

beautiful specimen of 

the Ionic order. Latrobe

specified it for the Senate

chamber and vestibule,

omitting some of the

carved ornaments and

erecting the shafts without flutes.
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 121

LATROBE’S FINAL DAYS

In the summer of 1817, President Monroe embarked on a three-month tour

of New England, traveling to the very

core of Federalist strength. The so-called “Era of

Good Feelings” marked a lull in party differences,

and for a short time the nation thrived without

political factions. Before he left, Monroe made it

clear that he wanted the public buildings finished

by the time he returned to Washington. Everything

was in place, everyone knew his duty, there was

money enough, and Monroe had no intention of

remaining in rented quarters or denying Congress

the use of the Capitol any longer than necessary.

The president threatened to dismiss Latrobe or

Lane if they did not proceed with greater harmony

and expedite the completion of the Capitol.98 The

old colonel was determined not to disappoint the

president while the architect seemed less concerned about matters beyond his control.

The chambers remained unfinished and little

could be done until the marble was delivered. The

first floor of the south wing had been restored and

was occupied by a few workmen as their temporary residence. Three floors of offices and committee rooms on the west side of the north wing (the

former Library of Congress space) were vaulted

and the curving wall in the Senate was nearly completed. But when Monroe returned to Washington

in September he was greeted by two wings that

were still far from finished. Unavoidable setbacks,

such as the collapse of a lock on the Chesapeake

and Ohio canal in July that interrupted marble

delivery, meant little to the president. He wanted

results, not excuses.

Latrobe thought that some unknown adviser

had tricked the president into thinking the restoration of the wings could be finished in three months.

He was not surprised when Monroe appointed yet

another commission to look into the management

of the works, but regretted that it would isolate

him further from the president. In a letter to John

Trumbull, Latrobe recounted the president’s

actions upon returning from his gratifying trip to

New England:

On his arrival, the President, misled by I don’t

know who, expected the Capitol to be finished;

of course he was disappointed, and in his first

emotions would have ordered my dismissal,

had he not been prevented by some very disinterested friends. He however appointed Genl.

Mason, [Colo]nel Bomford, and Mr. Geo. Graham, a com[mission] of enquiry into the conduct at the Capitol. These are honorable and

good Men. But what a system is that, which

shutting out from the President all direct and

professional information, interposes that of

men, whom neither leisure nor knowledge of

the subject qualifies to give it, or explain the

Car of History

by Carlo Franzoni, ca. 1819

Clio, the muse of history, watches the House of Representatives over its members’

shoulders, while billowing drapery suggests movement and the passage of time. Her

winged chariot is carved with a bas relief portrait of George Washington accompanied

by a figure of Fame blowing a horn. Simon Willard, the famous Boston clock maker, provided the workings for the time piece housed in the chariot’s wheel. 

(1971 photograph.)
122 History of the United States Capitol

difficulties, or remove the misrepresentatives

of ignorance or Malice. And under such a system it is expected that Genius shall freely act,

and display itself?99

The popular wisdom around Washington

blamed the pace of work at the Capitol on Latrobe’s

absences from the city. His work on the Exchange

and Cathedral in Baltimore took him out of town

regularly, and it seemed obvious that the Capitol

suffered accordingly. It was rumored that Latrobe

would go to Baltimore and stay three weeks at a

time. To defend himself, Latrobe wrote the president an account of his absences.100 Since moving

back to Washington, he had never left the city unless

to go to the marble quarries or to Baltimore. In all,

he had missed only thirty-seven and a half days of

work over the last twenty-nine months but was

sometimes detained because of unforeseen sickness or family distress. He did not feel the journeys

affected the Capitol in the least, but he could not

prevent the public perception of neglect.

The commissioner wrote foremen about the

state of affairs in their departments while Latrobe

was asked to compile answers to a long series of

questions posed by the latest advisory board.101

Were there enough workmen? Was all the lumber

bought for doors and windows? Did he have enough

bricks, lime, and sand to complete the brickwork?

When would the roof be ready? How many blocks

of pebble marble were at the Capitol and how many

were ready to be sent from the quarry? How much

sandstone would be needed to complete the entablature in the House chamber? Question after question was asked, most of which Latrobe or the

foremen had answered before, but there was now

another set of “experts” to educate.

Shadrach Davis, Latrobe’s plodding yet

dependable clerk of the works, reported to Lane

the number of workmen employed at the Capitol

for the week ending October 27, 1817.102 There

were twenty-three stone cutters working on both

wings, twenty marble cutters and nine polishers

working on the columns for the House chamber,

twelve sculptors and carvers working on ornaments, eighteen bricklayers working on the north

wing, and forty carpenters building the dome over

the north wing and making centers for arches and

vaults. One hundred and thirty-five laborers, many

of whom were slaves, brought the total number 

of workmen at the Capitol to 257. By contrast,

Davis’ first report five months earlier showed only

eighty-two workers and illustrated the effects of

Monroe’s push to accelerate construction.

A day or two after Davis wrote the report, he

was fired by the commissioner. Latrobe was

enraged by this breech of his professional prerogative and accused Lane of lording his power over

the workmen while denying the architect his rights.

Latrobe liked Davis and was sorry he was mistreated by the commissioner. He suspected the

foreman of carpenters, Leonard Harbaugh, was

behind all this. Harbaugh and Davis had never gotten along, and Lane tended to trust the master carpenter’s opinion because he respected his industry

and attention to duty. When Lane would show up

at the Capitol at daybreak, Harbaugh was there.

Members of Congress were politely escorted

around the works by Harbaugh, who courted their

favor. Davis, on the other hand, was gruff and slow

but was “a capital Ship joiner,” which prepared him

well for building the curving centers for Latrobe’s

complicated vaults.103

Lane replaced Davis with Peter Lenox, who

had been the foreman of carpenters under Hoban

at the President’s House. Although still unfinished,

the residence was sufficiently habitable for the

Monroes to move in during the month of October.

Diligent workmen such as Lenox could help speed

restoration of the Capitol, and Latrobe’s feelings or

opinions were of no concern to the commissioner.

Lenox was an excellent carpenter who had helped

build the “oven” in 1801. He had also worked under

John Lenthall, but Latrobe thought he was something of a showoff. Latrobe preferred Davis’s quiet,

methodical ways, and following his dismissal, a

protest letter was written by the architect on 

October 29, 1817. Two days later the commissioner

shot back with a letter of his own saying the matter

was not open for discussion and scolded Latrobe

for broaching the topic. Lane continued with a

harsh condemnation of Latrobe for his habit of

overreaching the bounds of his office, for recommending incompetent men for employment, and

for not preparing estimates and plans with enough

speed. Although there was a perfunctory remark

acknowledging Latrobe’s “professional talents,”

Lane’s response indicated a wholesale lack of

confidence in the architect: “My anxious desire is

to accelerate not retard the work.... Knowing my
Destruction and Restoration, 1814–1817 123

duties I shall scrupulously perform them. All that I

wish of you is attention to your own.” 104

Lane’s open hostility chipped away at Latrobe’s

confidence. His nerves were rattled by the incessant attacks on his skill, faithfulness, judgment,

and professionalism—and this from a commissioner

who had no business in the office he held, lacking

the experience or temperament to oversee the

work under his charge. To him, the creative process

of architectural design was a luxury that went well

beyond necessity, certainly nothing to command

respect. Like so many Americans of his time, Lane

did not appreciate the skill of an architect and considered bricklaying or carpentry a worthier occupation. Proud of his training and confident of his

talents, Latrobe jealously defended his professional

“rights” to a man who could not understand the

concept. The two men were temperamentally, intellectually, and socially mismatched. And Lane had

power where Latrobe had none.

As if Lane were not making life difficult enough,

Latrobe was haunted by the prospect of bankruptcy.

The old debts incurred in Pittsburgh had not been

satisfied, and there were numerous new debts to

compound the problem. His rent had not been paid

for months. (His landlord was John Van Ness.)

Investments in the Washington Canal Company, the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, Fulton’s Ohio Steamboat Company, and lesser ventures were assets on paper only. He kept afloat by

taking outside jobs to supplement his meager government salary.

Worries about money and Lane nipping at his

heals were aggravations that were sadly put aside

when Latrobe learned of the death of his eldest

son, Henry, in New Orleans. His death occurred on

September 3, 1817, and his father learned of it

three weeks later. The young Latrobe was in New

Orleans developing plans for a municipal waterworks when he was stricken with yellow fever. His

father took the news hard and slipped into a

depression that lasted weeks.105

With his mind clouded by grief and his selfconfidence compromised, there can be little wonder that Latrobe’s last audience with President

Monroe turned into a senseless act of aggression

directed at the crippled commissioner. Lane had

already dressed down the architect shortly after

his return from yet another trip to Baltimore. “No

schoolboy,” Latrobe recalled, could have “borne

patiently” his mistreatment at the hands of the dictatorial commissioner. Latrobe left the office in a

fury and refused to speak to Lane until he had

cooled down. But the commissioner would not drop

the matter, insisting that Latrobe make “immediate

concessions for leaving him in a rage, [or] he would

immediately look for another Architect.” 106 The

scene was replayed on November 20, 1817, at the

President’s House with Monroe looking on. This

time, Latrobe struck back. As retold by Mary Elizabeth Latrobe, he lunged at the commissioner,

seized him by the collar, and exclaimed, ‘Were

you not a cripple I would shake you to atoms,

you poor contemptible wretch. Am I to be

dictated to by you?’ The President said looking

at my husband, ‘Do you know who I am, Sir?’

‘Yes, I do, and ask your pardon, but when I consider my birth, my family, my education, my

talents, I am excusable for any outrage after

the provocation I have received from that contemptible character.’ 107

Latrobe returned home and wrote a letter of

resignation. It was the only course left to him after

the scene he made at the President’s House. The

letter was addressed to Monroe instead of Lane.

He said that he had chosen to leave office over

“the sacrifice of all self respect,” apologized for

causing worry, and thanked the president for never

doubting his skill and integrity. The restoration of

the Capitol might be “inconvenienced” by his sudden resignation but he promised to finish all the

drawings for the completion of the work.108 On

November 24, 1817, Lane—not Monroe—accepted

the resignation.

Less than two weeks after his resignation,

Latrobe filed for protection from creditors by

declaring bankruptcy. Judge William Cranch (who

had served briefly on the old board of commissioners in 1801) ruled that Latrobe could not keep his

architectural books and declared that they too

must be sold along with his household goods.

Latrobe borrowed $198 to save his library, but

everything else was lost to the auctioneer’s gavel.

While William Small helped Mary Elizabeth Latrobe

pack up books and papers, Latrobe went to Baltimore to arrange for his family’s removal there. During the first week in January 1818 he was

committed to the Washington County jail as punishment for debt, and after his release on the 5th

he left the federal city to begin again in Baltimore.109