To George Washington from William Thornton, 1 October 1796
From William Thornton
Washington 1st Octr 1796.
sir
As I disagree with my Colleagues in some Sentiments contained in the Letter from the Board of this Date1 I thought it necessary to trouble you with a separate Communication.
I perfectly agree with them in the Scite contemplated for a National University, as my last Letter to you will testify.2 The Botanical Garden I think would have been better situated in the Square of the University if there had been a larger extent of Ground that the Students of Botany might be the better accommodated, but as the National Library, Museums Menage—School for the Mechanic Arts, and many other Appendages to the University will require a large space I cannot but accede to the eligibility of the Ground now recommended for a Botanical Garden,3 which also will contain all the variety of Forest Trees & Shrubs.4
With respect to the Scites for the Houses of Ambassadors I think the President’s Square would offer an ample accommodation & their vicinity would facilitate the interchanged operations of the Foreign Governments with the United States. The Executive Offices might be placed South of the Squares No. 186. & 2005—for to place Brick Buildings (though ornamented with free Stone) as Wings in any way connected with a Stone Edifice would not only be novel, but irregular & improper. If the Executive Offices should be placed in the Situations mentioned, there would be very elegant Scites for Ambassadors opposite to the Squares 169. 170 171. 224 225. 226.6—which, laid off in small Squares according to the Streets, will give space sufficient to accomodate at least six eight or ten Ambassadors & leave a very ample space for the President’s Square. In thus appopriating Ground for the Ambassadors I contemplate leaving the Grounds now under Consideration by the Board for that purpose in the Capitol park, to be hereafter ceded as may be requested by the different States for their representatives whose inconveniences heretofore, will no doubt be made objects of consideration hereafter, and against which it is probable, provision must be made. To these purposes it must be admitted that the Situations bordering on the Capitol Park will be well adapted—for the Members ought to be near the Capitol—They ought as much as may be to have accommodations nearly equal in value & situation, and no place will admit of such an equality of Situation as this, independent of its being in the Hands of the Public, & may be applied to this use without giving up any property—upon which the Funds depend. Perhaps indeed a System may be recommended by the States which I think it probable the Congress would adopt, to build at the Public Expense a Mansion House for each representative in both Houses of Congress in a similar Style by which all improper competition in point of Grandeur will be avoided; for the large would be enabled to surpass the small States in erecting Mansions, especially as the representatives in both Houses are not in proportion to the Census. Adverting again to the Scite I think the residence of the Members in the same place will be an effectual mean of destroying the prejudices of locality. By living in Neighbourhood they will mix in Company, and by becoming acquainted with the private Characters of each other, more or less confidence will be placed in their public Opinions meteing them by their sincerity; the distinctions of party will by this association be destroyed, and probably a greater unity of Sentiment prevail.7
The Board have recommended to you the division of the Space intended for a Hospital, into Squares to remain subject to Sale.8 I am sorry to differ from them in so many respects, but you as well as they I am confident will not judge unfavourably of my motive, when I declare it is really a sense of Duty. I must confess, that from what I have witnessed in every City of magnitude, I am led to think it necessary to provide very extensively for a Hospital—An Objection might arise to such an Institution in the middle of a City, though nothing is more common in the largest & hitherto best-regulated Cities in the World however, if any objection could be made, there are also many benifits accruing. Physicians generally reside in the most populous parts of Cities, and their attendance would be facil[it]ated by the Hospital being near. The Sick, if in the midst of population generally experience more of the bounty of benevolence than when at a distance—Against such a Building in the middle of a City it may with propriety be urged that in cases of dangerous Infection objects of such a receptable might be an Object of universal terror; but against the Scite formerly under consideration no reason in my opinion can be given; for although it is not out of population yet it is sufficiently remote to prevent any fears that might arise from infection—for the Ground, as it ought to be, is very extensive—it admits therefore of such space between the Hospitals & the Inhabitants of the Squares adjoining the Scite, that there can be no danger—it also admits of sufficient space between the various Hospitals, poor Houses, work-houses—Lazarettos9—Hospitals of Invalids—lying-in hospitals &c. that there would be little hazard of danger. It will be found necessary to have Gardens for Vegetables for the Sick10 also extensive walks, for valetudinarians.11 It will be proper to have various Baths, & the Ground is not only contiguous to the River, but also well supplied with springs. This Ground is, on Account of its vicinity to the River, easy of access to sick mariners without entering the City—The Ground is also dry & in all respects well adapted to the primary Intention.12 The Public may gain by a Sale of part of the Property, but the Property being remote the gain must be remote—It likewise prevents the necessity of paying about £2000 for the ground or, rather of deducting it from the payments due by M. & N.,13 but the amazing consequence of such an appropriation, & the difficulty or perhaps impossibility of obtaining so much well-situated Ground else-where, if this be destined to any other use, is in my opinion worthy of great consideration. There is also another objection—If the original Proprietors (under an Idea that this Ground being destined for public use would only return £25 ⅌ Acre,) sold it to Mr G. for that Sum, it might be considered as an Act of injustice to the original Proprietor to divide it now into Lots which would give probably three times the Sum.14
Since writing the above I find many objections are made by some of the proprietors on the Eastern Branch to a division of this Ground which I hear they mean to forward to you.15 I am Sir &c.
W.T.
ADfS, DLC: Thornton Papers.
Thornton enclosed the present document with his second letter to GW written on this date: “After writing the inclosed I heard it suggested that if the Square now contemplated for a Hospital should not be divided into Lots it might not be improper to recommend it for an University—In this Case it would be necessary to point out another Scite for a Hospital, but I do not hesitate to say there is no place equal to this for that purpose in the whole City. It will also be admitted I hope on mature Consideration that the Scite already recommended for a National University is so much superior to the other that there can be no hesitation in fixing it, especially as the Library & Museum would be objects of gratification to the more refined Members of Society, who would inhabit, most probably, the portion of the City remote from Trade” (ADfS, DLC: William Thornton Papers). For the proposed sites for the national university and marine hospital, see notes 2 and 8 below.
1. Thornton refers to the D.C. commissioners’ first letter to GW of this date, which Thornton did not sign because commissioners Gustavus Scott and Alexander White formed a board without him.
2. The site proposed for the national university was Peter’s Hill, a tract delimited by 23d, 25th, and E streets, and the Potomac River (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. [first letter], and n.2). Thornton had recommended that area as a location for the national university in his draft letter to GW of 13 Sept., first composed as a communication from all three D.C. commissioners and then modified into a draft of a private letter. In that letter, Thornton recommended “the Ground at present appropriated for a Fort & Barracks, lying west of Squares No. 60, 61. 62, & 63. containing nineteen Acres” as an ideal location for the university. Although Pierre Charles L’Enfant had proposed this ground for military use, Thornton presented five reasons in favor of locating a university at the site: “first, because it may be confessed as improper for the Objects primarily contemplated; secondly, it is the only Ground not appropriated, if rejected for the first specified Uses; thirdly, it is already in possession of the Public; fourthly it is sufficiently in the public part of the City, yet out of the bustle of Trade; and fifthly, it is situatied on an Eminence, and a Public Building on that mount would add much to the grandeur of the City of Washington; all which Advantages are not united in any other part of the City” (Df, DLC: William Thornton Papers; see also , 395–97). Squares 60 through 63, immediately east of the location known as Peter’s Hill, were near square 33, in which Thornton owned lots.
3. GW also proposed including a botanical garden on the grounds of the intended national university (see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 21 Oct.). However, President’s Square (now Lafayette Square), located on the grounds of the presidential mansion, had been suggested as another possible site for a botanical garden (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. [first letter], and notes 3 and 19).
4. Thornton wrote and then deleted the following from the preceding paragraph: “A Botanical Garden does not require more than [ ] Acres—and there appears to be room enough in the front of the Hill now contemplated for this Object. It is also a South aspect & well suited for a Garden—If it be fixed there the place recommended by the Board might be well appropriated as a National Forrest, containing all the variety of Trees & shrubs in the United States & in the world, as far as they could be propagated in this Country, & proved worthy of cultivation—They might be so disposed in Groves, Clumps & irregular Forms as to beautify the Ground. They would also serve as parent-trees; from the Seeds of which the nurseries of the various States might be supplied—for many valuable Acquisitions might be made by the Nation, which the individual States would not be supplied with except through this general medium without great trouble.”
5. The area south of squares 186 and 200 is at the confluence of Connecticut and Vermont avenues and 17½ Street north of the President’s House. For the commissioners’ proposal to build two brick buildings at President’s Square to house executive offices, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. (first letter), and n.17; see also , 394.
6. Squares 169 through 171 are west and south of the President’s House, while squares 224 through 226 are east and south of the house site.
7. Congress never passed a law related to Thornton’s proposed housing provision for its members. In nineteenth-century Washington, D.C., congressmen and other federal officials typically rented rooms in private residences, lived in boardinghouses, or lodged in hotels such as the Eastern Branch Hotel (see 128–40; see also , 128).
8. Thornton refers to the recommended establishment of a marine hospital on the Eastern Branch (Anacostia River). The commissioners, however, suggested that the hospital tract instead be divided into marketable lots or squares (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. [first letter], and notes 8, 11, and 12 to that document).
9. A lazaretto is a “house for the reception of the diseased poor, esp. lepers” ().
10. Following this word, Thornton wrote and then crossed out “which may be tended by invalids.”
11. A valetudinarian is an invalid or a “person in weak health, esp. one who is constantly concerned with his own ailments” ().
12. At this point, Thornton wrote and then crossed out the following incomplete sentence pertaining to a marine hospital: “Taking all things into consideration I am of opinion that it is indispensable for.”
13. Land speculators Robert Morris and John Nicholson had failed to make timely payments to the commissioners for the Federal City lots that Morris and James Greenleaf had purchased in 1793. In the summer of 1795, Morris and Nicholson bought out Greenleaf’s interest (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 23 Dec. 1793; see also GW to Edmund Randolph, 22 July 1795).
14. For the compensation owed federal district proprietors, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. 1796 (first letter), and the source note to that document. “Mr G.” probably refers to Federal City investor Greenleaf.
15. Thomas Law sent GW a petition criticizing both the D.C. commissioners and their proposal to sell the land designated for the marine hospital (see Law to GW, 6 Oct., and n.7 to that document; see also Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 7 Oct., n.2).