Category Archives: James Renwick, Jr.

Who Is James Renwick (and what are his plans)?

Who is James Renwick and What are His Plans?

by Jerry Leibowitz

jrenwickportrait

 

Image Downloaded with permission from the Smithsonian Institution website

Who is James Renwick? This is not an Ayn Rand question about a fictional engineer. There was an engineer turned architect named James Renwick (1819-1895) who designed several of the most iconic structures built in America’s early years, including the Castle at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D. C., and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. While still a teen or a young adult, he graduated with a Master’s degree in Engineering from Columbia College, NYC, where his father with the same name was his professor. Not being the first Junior/Senior or Younger/Elder in this world, you would think that the two of them could be kept straight.

In 1853, probably as a result of a partial forced retirement, Columbia College commissioned a painting of its prestigious professor, James Renwick, Sr. to be done by John Whetten Ehninger. The painting is listed in Columbia’s current inventory, as well as an inventory from 1908, but to the best of anyone’s knowledge it has not been publicly displayed. As of this writing, the image on that painting remains a mystery. For years, if you googled James Renwick, Jr., the architect, you would eventually see the above copied image with an attribution that it was an Ehninger portrait from 1853. That was the attribution used by the Smithsonian Institution on its website.  Renwick designed two important Smithsonian buildings, the Castle and the suitably named Renwick Gallery. The attribution claimed Renwick was holding a plan of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

I noticed a few things about the portrait that made me wonder how it could be a portrait from 1853. The most glaring oddity was the age of the subject. In 1853, James Renwick Jr., was 34 years old. The subject of the painting seems much older than 34 years old. Even more significant was the drawing that Renwick was holding. Work did not begin on St. Patrick’s Cathedral until 1858. Could he have drawn a plan for St. Patrick’s Cathedral and then had his portrait done with that plan all by 1853? That would be news to anyone who studied the history of the Cathedral. Well anything is possible, I guess. But more on that later.

The plan of St. Patrick’s Cathedral displayed by Renwick in the image does not look much like St. Patrick’s Cathedral as constructed. In fact, it does look like an early unconstructed plan of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, similar to the beautiful rendering of a plan drawn and signed by James Renwick presently located in the Archbishop Hughes room of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The most distinct difference between the early plan and the Cathedral, as constructed, is that the early plan had two different spires while the Cathedral as built had two matching spires. But why would there be a painting of an older James Renwick (no longer Junior after his father died in 1863) holding a plan for a Cathedral that was not built? He seems to be deliberately showing us the plan, but why?

Before I addressed that question, I examined images of all other churches built by Renwick to see if the plan he was holding was for another building. Calvary Church, in lower Manhattan, once had two spires since removed, but it is clearly not as large as the Church in the drawing. Not only could I not find another structure that was close, but it occurred to me that if you were going to have your portrait taken and you were going to be holding a drawing of one of your works, you would have some reason for the drawing that you pick. Renwick was a man who left few clues to his motivations, so it was left to me to try to figure it out.

So what is it? Well, as usual, I have a theory.

The next time you are at St. Patrick’s Cathedral (after the monumental restoration), look up at the stained glass windows and among the incredibly beautiful religious symbols captured in the glass, done largely by Nicholas Lorin in France, you will see the very image of James Renwick, Jr. that is on the image copied above (although he is holding a different plan, see below). He is even wearing the same shirt and tie. How did he get up there????

The story that I understand is that Renwick, a Protestant, and Archbishop Hughes, the moving force behind the construction of the Cathedral, were incredibly simpatico on how St.  Patrick’s Cathedral should look. Both wanted a huge Cathedral that would be welcoming to Catholic immigrants and could be seen for miles around. It was a “spare no expense” project, even though the Catholic Church was small and cash-strapped in mid 19th century New York City. Begun in 1858, the project proceeded well through donations largely through the strong will of the Archbishop until the civil war broke out in 1861 when virtually all construction in the city was halted. Archbishop Hughes died in 1864 and his successor, Cardinal McCloskey, tinkered with the design before construction was restarted. It was probably he who nixed the idea of two different spires in favor of the more balanced similar spires that were ultimately constructed. Renwick did not like the several changes made to his original plan, and displayed his concern by giving the Cathedral a stained glass window in 1879 which tells the very story! He made it a part of the patron saint St. Patrick stained glass window as if to make sure that it would be installed and be noticed. In one of the most brilliant moves in architectural history, James Renwick placed himself and Archbishop Hughes and Cardinal McCloskey and Nicholas Lorin in a stained glass window with two plans to the Cathedral; the one he and Archbishop Hughes are excited about and the one held by Cardinal McCloskey that was ultimately built. Up there the revised plan is barely acknowledged. In big letters you can see below their images the immortal words… “FROM JAMES RENWICK”.

I suggest that the above googled image of James Renwick tells the same story. I believe there was a photograph taken of Renwick in the 1870’s holding a drawing of the Cathedral he and Archbishop Hughes wanted to construct. A copy of that photograph was given to Nicholas Lorin to model Renwick for inclusion in the infamous stained glass window.  I saw a copy of that photograph somewhere in the Renwick archives either at Columbia University or at the Smithsonian. As Renwick got older, he still ruminated about the plans for his masterpiece which were not built. From the 1870’s photograph, in 1929, an artistic family member named Howard Crosby Renwick produced the oil portrait of Renwick holding his best laid plans, to be seen for eternity. Unfortunately, that painting, as well as the Ehninger portrait of his father, is out of public view and were it not for the stained glass window, this story would remain largely untold. I did finally see the 1929 oil portrait of James Renwick holding the drawing of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. It is in storage at the Avery Library of Columbia University, New York City.  Who is to say if the portrait or the photograph came first?  Somewhat at my urging the attribution of the portrait has changed, at least on the Smithsonian site, but who can correct such things in all of cyberspace, as if such a thing matters.

For history’s sake I suggest one further theory. I do not believe that Renwick produced any plan for St. Patrick’s Cathedral as early as 1853 or 1854. My research indicates that Renwick may have been approached about the commission earlier, but I doubt that any plan existed much before 1857 when Renwick’s plans were accepted by Archbishop Hughes and made public. I suspect that it is confusion with the Ehninger painting of Renwick, Sr. from 1853 which has led to the supposition that there was a plan for St. Patrick’s Cathedral at that early date. I would welcome seeing proof of the contrary.

I began my fascination with the life and work of James Renwick after discovering a Scrap Book purportedly belonging to Renwick amongst items belonging to my wife’s family. If you look closely at the blue portfolio belonging to Renwick in the infamous stained glass window below, perhaps you see a long book sticking out. Could it be? Why not? A Scrap Book for eternity.

Scrap Book, James Renwick Jr., Architect, New York

Scrap Book, James Renwick Jr., Architect, New York

by Jerry Leibowitz

My wife Jen had a grandfather named Henry who designed furniture during the depression and for sometime thereafter. He left us several scrapbooks of his designs and other scrapbooks compiled from his journeys abroad. In one box there were some other old books that really did not look like much. One old Scrap Book that was clearly not his caught my eye and I decided to investigate.

I found the name of the apparent compiler of this Scrap Book in beautiful cursive on the first page, “James Reswick, Architect”. I googled it.  I didn’t come up with much. Something about computers, something about furniture, but really nothing that would indicate that I was googling someone memorable. I did see some reference to a church design but it was just one reference so it struck me as an outlier.  I put the book away and went on to other things.

Over time, I studied the scrapbooks with his furniture designs, hoping perhaps I would find some of his furniture in some antique store. I would also glance through the Reswick Scrap Book from time to time and wonder why it was there. What I did not realize for quite a while is that I had misread the name and I was spelling it wrong. In my defense I was told that Henry had a great eye and knew about architecture, having studied it as a youth in Germany. If he wanted me to focus on the owner of the scrap book I think he would have let me know. Of course Henry did not know me, having died about 1955 and me having been born in 1957. Several of Henry’s own scrapbooks were filled with European churches which he had seen and photographed. I figured Henry purchased the Scrap Book from some kindly old architect he met on one of his trips to New York City because that architect loved the same big old European buildings that Henry did. Since the stuff was glued into the scrap book, I didn’t think the book had much value. To my limited knowledge, even if the scraps were important, the act of gluing them into a book reduced them to a curiosity. So while the scraps were interesting I always put it away to dissect at a future date. Well this was that future date, since I was underemployed and looking for fun projects. Since the James Reswick google was a dud, I decided to google some of the scraps inside.

So there I am leafing through the volume, as the binding is falling apart. Maybe I wasn’t too careful since all I thought I had was a curiosity. There was a print of a building…I googled the names on the print…they were 19th century printers. Eh? Then an unsigned photo of a European town with a cathedral in the center…did I notice that there appeared to be an 1851 date that might have significance? I don’t think so. Then another print…another, or maybe that is a drawing. Then, more prints with names that google did not seem to attach much significance. A beautiful little unsigned hand done work that I recognized as Venice (I had just been there as if I couldn’t tell it was Venice from the Gondola). More prints or drawings of castles or churches; many with place names but no other identifying information. On at least one which looked handmade you could see that an engraver name had been cut off which momentarily convinced me that there was nothing original in the book despite the fact that some things clearly looked hand drawn. Then one looked like a print with a perfect pencil drawing inside it. That was weird. I had no idea what that was. At this point my wife, Henry’s granddaughter, was in the room and happens to see what I am doing just as I am looking at this incredible print of a church that I think may be St. Patrick’s Cathedral. She begs me to cut it out to frame it. OK if the book has no value we will cut out the magnificent stuff and frame it and display it in our house as a tribute to Henry. Why have it sit around for eternity waiting for someone else to have time to play with it.

After Jen leaves, I finish looking at the book. At the end there are more photos of famous buildings, more prints and more of what looked like original drawings. The church in the early photograph made another appearance in a drawing.  It made no sense to me. Why mix these prints with what looked like original drawings and early photographs. I decided to start over.

I did a little research on photography and decided that 1851 was really early for a landscape photograph of a European town.. I figured I could identify the town by the cathedral, and sure enough, with the help of google  there it was…Strasbourg Cathedral. And when you google Strasbourg Cathedral 1851 you hit pay dirt.  Missiones Heliographique. Henri LeSecq. I was thinking that maybe this is a one of a kind photo that the world may not even know of. Voila. A reason to go on.

At this point I was convinced that the book was special and decided to redo my search on the first owner, James Reswick, to look up the church reference that I had ignored.  The first thing on google is a message to dummies like me. Do you mean James Renwick, architect? Say what? I looked at my inscription again. James Renwick, Jr. architect, New York. I clicked on the name.  Pardon my French…but Holy Shit!

The Smithsonian Castle: An Allegory

The Smithsonian Castle: An Allegory

By Jerry Leibowitz

“He who comprehends the Smithsonian Castle, comprehends the universe…”

                                          An old Washington proverb possibly attributed to Joseph Alsop  see Gore Vidal, The Smithsonian Institution, a work of fiction[1]

 

“What were they thinking when they dug that hole…”

Graham Parker[2]

Looking back, we know that 1846 was another year that America did not solve the issues that would ultimately lead it to civil war and near destruction. But at the time, for many, America in the 1840s was a land of great opportunity.  Yes, there were disagreements among everyone in Washington… everyone in the country…everyone in the world.  There was growing distrust if not hatred between parts of the country as to the core and meaning of the nation, although until 1848 those disagreements found an uneasy political truce.[3] American democracy was threatened by petty squabbles between rich and poor, intellectual and populist, those perceived as natives and those perceived as foreigners. Yet, the concept of Manifest Destiny had taken hold and, rightly or not, many Americans were again feeling part of something great.[4] Immigrants were pouring in from Europe for the good life in America, just as many Americans were heading west for a better life in the territories and beyond.  Men of Science and the Arts were making great advances and producing great works which were beginning to give the country a wonderful new national character. All this came into focus in 1846 because of a good thing; plans were to be submitted for the design of a great building in accordance with a huge bequest from James Smithson to build an institution in Washington for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.[5] What kind of building would not only fulfill the bequest but also create something lasting that might help lead the country in its best direction? The answer to James Renwick, Jr. was to build The Castle. Possibly the most beloved yet most misunderstood piece of architecture in the history of the world. The Castle is an allegory, an artistic statement on the condition of the country, or perhaps, I dare say, even the condition of the universe.

By historic definition, a castle is a building which serves two functions. A castle is a residence and a fortress.[6] Invariably it was built by the Lord of the Manor who controlled some expanse of land around it. At perilous times would serve as protection for “a great man, his family, his guests, his household and retainers.”[7] It is often thought that the military purpose of a castle is purely defensive. In fact “the fundamental military purpose of that stronghold is offensive rather than defensive, to control the surrounding countryside…”[8] Is then the Smithsonian Castle just a fanciful castle-like structure or is it a functional castle in any true sense of that word? Is it a residence? What is its offensive purpose?

It is possible to point to the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington D.C. in 1814 to assume a military aspect to the Smithsonian Castle. Not much had changed in Washington between 1814 and 1846. It was still a small town with little military protection. The thought of Dolley Madison running from a deserted White House carrying some of our national treasures must have been on the minds of some who took part in the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. Several influential members of the newly created Smithsonian Board of Regents[9] and Building Committee were men of military backgrounds, including former members of the Army Corp of Engineers who were familiar with fortress construction.[10] Among other purposes, this building was intended to house a museum which would hold our great national treasures.[11] Some consideration had to be given to the idea that it had to be defensively secure. Was there to be the offensive purpose of this building? Look at the Smithson Will and the Smithsonian charter. Its offensive role was to repel ignorance through the increase and diffusion of knowledge.  Understand this purpose and you begin to understand the Castle.

What was the residential aspect of this Castle? From its earliest inception apartments were built within the Castle to house its ranking executive, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and perhaps some visiting scholars. The first Secretary of the Smithsonian, Joseph Henry, lived in the Castle with his family from 1855 to his death in 1878.[12] The Castle did serve to protect him from the horrors of war that later engulfed the nation, with much of the fighting taking place on nearby battlefields.  This Castle was not constructed for a Lord, bureaucrat or a politician. Joseph Henry was generally considered to be the leading American scientist of the era. The great Lord of this manor was not to be someone who owned the Castle through an accident of birth, or even bravery in battle. He was to be the great man of achievement, Chief Increaser and Diffuser of Knowledge.  Under its charter, it was Science and Art and the treasures of the nation that were to live in and be protected by the Castle. Like all other castles, the Smithsonian Castle was a residential fortress, although arguably as much in an allegorical sense as in actual one.

By the time James Renwick, Jr. submitted his plan for what is now the Smithsonian Castle in 1846, there were already plans drawn for a structure that looked like a castle. In 1841, Robert Mills, an architect of several neoclassical government buildings and official Architect of Public Buildings of the United States, drew such plans for an entity called “The Institution for the Promotion of Science and Useful Arts,” which hoped to take control of the Smithsonian project.[13] Although their bid for control failed, the idea that there should be a large Castle-like multipurpose structure survived despite the many countervailing views that the money would be better spent on projects which increased and diffused knowledge rather than building an expensive structure that would only serve a local purpose.[14] Congress incorporated the multipurpose view into its enabling legislation,[15] and the notion of a multipurpose structure was embraced by Robert Dale Owen, an important member of Congress who was Chairman of the building committee.[16] Owen, an early American utopian, wanted a large structure which would be practical to the masses, yet without ornamentation which might be perceived as impractical and un-American. David Dale Owen, Robert’s brother and a noted geologist, submitted his own plan for a Castle, since lost, and successfully advocated for the use of red sandstone from a nearby quarry in Maryland.[17] However, by 1846, there was enough clamor among the community of architects that such a prized commission might be awarded without a fair process that a decision was made to open the process to bids from the leading architects of the time.[18]

I digress to offer that there are (at least) three great mysteries to the Smithsonian Castle. The first is where James Smithson got the money for such a huge bequest and why he made that bequest to a country that he had never visited. His oft-told story is that he was an illegitimate son of a great Lord in England, although of limited inheritance and income. He had a notorious gambling problem. He fancied himself as a great man of science, an assessment apparently not shared by many in the scientific community. His fortune, whatever it was, was intended by his will to be passed to a nephew provided that nephew died leaving children. When the nephew died childless in 1835, an interesting international adventure culminated in the sum of over $500,000.00 (real money then, source unknown!) being paid into accounts in the United States in accordance with the alternate bequest in Smithson’s will.[19]

The second mystery is the unusual nature of the great fire of 1865, which destroyed part of the upper floor of the completed structure. Although there are accepted answers to these mysteries, none of the answers would survive even a cursory examination by our modern conspiracy theorists. The accepted notion that workers accidently caused the fire by the improper venting of an old stove brought into a work area on the upper floors defies logic. Joseph Henry was so concerned about fire safety that he established numerous rules to assure that there would be no fire.[20] In an interesting juxtaposition of mysteries, I note that the papers of James Smithson were stored in that very location of the building and were lost in the fire. With the fire went most any possibility that we may learn where Smithson got his money from and why he gave it to a country he had never visited, for an Institution he would never see.[21]

The third mystery was how James Renwick Jr. won the commission to be the architect for the Smithsonian Building. In 1846, Renwick was 28 years old and had designed all of two major buildings, both gothic revival churches in New York City. Much of his work history had been as an engineer on the Croton Reservoir which supplied drinking water to New York City.[22]  Although, it is true that both Grace Church and Calvary Church were (and remain) magnificent examples of gothic revival architecture, it is unlikely that these examples of his work propelled Renwick past all the leading architects of the day who wanted this commission. But Renwick did have one thing that the others did not have, a father who was a leading scientist, builder, and well respected Professor at Columbia College. It is often said that James Renwick Jr. was trained as an engineer and self taught as an architect. This is not exactly true. Although Architecture was not a recognized subject at Columbia College, James Renwick, Jr. learned his science and engineering from his professor there, who happened to be Renwick pere, James Renwick, Sr. When Renwick fils attended Columbia as a teen, his father was already the author of a text on Mechanics[23] and had already translated a book on warfare and fortifications from the French[24], a people who knew a bit about the subject through their constant struggles on their Eastern and Western Fronts. We know from a Scrap Book of James Renwick, Jr., although probably of later origin, that he had a fascination with the castles of Europe.[25] Between his father, who had worked closely with at least one influential member of  the Building Committee[26]and greatly impressed another[27], and his intellectual capacity and knowledge of castles, somehow the competition was wired in favor of James Renwick, Jr. to the chagrin and distain of other architects who bristled at the procedure and the choice.[28]

I submit that James Renwick Jr. brought several talents to the project that must have convinced the deciding members of the building committee that he was their guy. He brought unbridled intellectual curiosity and knowledge of European Architecture of the grandest scale, clearly learned at his father’s knee and at the Columbia Library where he undoubtedly spent much of his youth.[29] He brought an engineer’s sense of the ability to get a project done despite natural and manmade impediments. Most importantly, he was an American, born and bred, which was quite rare for an Architect or scientist of the early 19th Century, (although Mills too was American born). Renwick brought a sense of what the building could mean to the young country. Although there is no proof of any such discussion, it is my sense that Renwick knew and somehow conveyed the notion that the building itself, even with its statutory limitations, could be a unique work of art which could define and propel the American experience…Smithsonian Castle as allegory.

In the early 19th century, many considered the leading American man of letters to be Washington Irving, author of Rip Van Winkle, perhaps the first and greatest of all American allegories. Considered by many to be the father of the American short story if not the father of American literature, Washington Irving was a very close family friend of the Renwicks, having been bailed out at business at least once by a young James Renwick, Sr.[30] Although Irving spent much of his time in Europe, when he was in America he was a regular visitor to the Renwick household[31], including the period in the 1830’s when a young James Renwick Jr. was living with his parents and learning his arts and sciences at Columbia College. Although there is no mention of the Renwick children in any of Irving’s collected letters, many of which were famously written to Henry Brevoort, the uncle of James Renwick, Jr., it seems certain that Renwick fils would have had a knowledge of and an intimate connection to the works of Washington Irving, including his use of allegory in Rip Van Winkle.  Interestingly, much of Washington Irving’s early work was derided on occasion as being too “borrowed” from European folklore to be a truly American literature, just as the buildings of James Renwick, Jr. are occasionally derided as being too “borrowed” from European sources to be an American art form. I suggest that what James Renwick, Jr. learned from this expert was how to use symbols in his craft and the unique power of the metaphor and allegory in art.

An examination of the Castle today enables one to begin to understand what James Renwick was trying to accomplish in its construction. Despite the fire of 1865, several renovations, and the many forces which always influence the construction of a building, there is general agreement that the exterior of the Castle as it exists today is much how the architect envisioned it.[32] Upon first viewing the Castle under construction, the noted 19th century social reformer, Dorothea Dix, famously called it “a monstrous pile of misshapen towers, arches, columns, etc…” As if that were a bad thing. Did she not realize that in her expression of dissonance she was uttering a statement of the purpose of the building? It was to be a physical embodiment of the great American motto…E Pluribus Unum…Out of Many, One. It is often noted that the Castle contains numerous towers, each of which is different from the others. Is this not a statement of diversity, whether it be the diversity of the states, or perhaps the diversity of the many people which populated the young country?  The success of the Smithsonian Castle as a piece of Architectural Art lies in whether Renwick has successfully taken the incredible diversity of the land, its people, and perhaps its universe and created One Thing by molding them into one unified structure.

 

Examine first the two North towers, commonly considered as the main entrance to the Castle. Immediately to the right of the Mall entrance is the largest tower of the Castle, known as the clock tower for its four-sided clock built in accordance with Renwick’s original design. Above the clock is an octagonal lookout, reminiscent of a lighthouse, which diffuses light to a dark world. Above the octagonal lookout is a walkout where historically many scientific experiments on wind and meteorology were undertaken. In this allegory, this tower is the representation of Science. It is the tallest tower perhaps in tribute to the benefactor of the Institution, James Smithson, who fancied himself as a great man of science. From Renwick’s father, a Professor of Chemistry at Columbia College, to Joseph Henry, Professor of Chemistry at Princeton who in 1846 was recently selected as the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, to Alexander Dallas Bache, great grandson of Benjamin Franklin and professor of Science at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Building Committee of the Smithsonian Institution, America’s great men of science were peddling science as the great hope of the time. If the institution was going to fulfill Smithson’s mandate, its highest concern had to be to increase and diffuse Science for the betterment of mankind.

Just to the left of the North entrance, and similar and only slightly shorter than the Clock Tower is the Tower that represents the Arts. The mandate from Congress to the Regents of the newly formed Institution, and therefore the marching orders of Building Committee was to build a structure “without ornamentation”.  Renwick had to work within this constraint. This tower takes the basic structure of the Clock Tower, removing the “scientific” references of the clock and the lighthouse, and adds minimal ornamentation including a top consisting of a sloped roof. It is far more fanciful and less useful than its nearby sister. One of the mandates from Congress insisted that the Smithsonian Institution be used as an art museum, a place to gather and spread the work of great American and International arts. From Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson down to men like Samuel Morse and James Renwick, Sr. it was understood by Renwick that the diffusion of the Arts is what gives the country what we would now call its soul. To Renwick, who studied science and loved art[33], these two towers must have represented everything that the Smithsonian could bring to the modern world.

Approaching the Castle from its main entrance on the mall a visitor is greeted by these two large Towers separated by the entrance to the building. Above the entrance is the large rose window which, at its most elemental, serves to provide light to the interior. Why a circular window when other choices would serve an equal practical function? “The symbolist regards the circle aesthetically, and he chooses a circular form as a symbol of perfection and eternal tranquility and peace.”[34] The entrance to the Castle is a statement of dedication to the Arts and Sciences and their joinder on the highest planes of perfection, tranquility and peace. It is peace and unity through the ideals of Science and Art that the north entrance of the Castle was offering to diffuse to our chaotic world.

The South entrance, generally considered to be the rear of the building offers a different notion. A visitor is greeted by a robust battlement, a representation of the military or force. That this battlement faces the Potomac and further South may have been a premonition of the troubles that were to come. It may have indicated support for the notion that unless protection existed behind the beauty of the Arts and Sciences, all great knowledge was vulnerable to attack. This battlement may have been a great tribute to those in the military who protect from behind the scenes and who supported the building of the Castle. While actually providing some defense, the battlement also represents the idea of defense and its importance to the young country.

Above the battlement is a command tower, which houses a stairway to its roof. Perhaps this represents the unique American idea of civilian control of the military as it lets one look down on the battlement. Perhaps it stands for the Presidency itself as its height and central location give it strength and importance but its skinny nature next to the massive battlement gives it an air of weakness and vulnerability. Perhaps it stands for the entire government of the United States, centrally located but not that critical to the whole and dependant on other American institutions for its power and significance.

The crosses on the tower to the southwest of the battlement represent religion in America. In European castles, windows made of crosses often appeared on castles. It would seem that the historic idea was to invoke the protection of the Lord for the castle while one used the window for offensive purposes of a lookout or for weapon placement. An 1846 Mills design plan prominently contained such crosses.[35] The size and location of this tower in Renwick’s design reduces their significance from the Mills design as if to signify that although religion was important, it was just one aspect of the American experience. Or, perhaps, since religion was not a part of the Smithsonian charter, Renwick included this tower because he felt that the building could not be an allegorical representation of the America he knew without some reference to its religions. Remember, this architect had basically previously designed but two buildings, and both were Protestant churches. Renwick later proved that it was faith, not religion, which guided his work when he went on to design his Catholic masterpiece in the 1850’s, a striking feat for a Protestant architect.[36]

It has been suggested that the design of the Castle was intended to invoke the atmosphere of an English University.[37] If this is true it is only true as to the Eastern wing which is of plain rectangular design and highly compartmentalized inside. It was here that the offices and research facilities were intended to be housed. In essence, it was intended to be the practical side of the Castle. As it was built first and used first, it easily could represent the industrious Eastern part of the United States.

The Western wing of the Castle evokes a whole different atmosphere. The most western room carries the red sandstone design inside and merges it with a red wooden interior to create one of the most magnificent rooms in the world. It has been said to be chapel like, and while that may be true I find it more evocative of the red hued west of Monument Valley or the Grand Canyon. In the 1840’s, America was obsessed with the West, so much so that James Polk won the presidency in 1844 on the one issue which unified Americans, that it was its manifest destiny to extend its borders to the Pacific Ocean. Although the gold rush did not begin in earnest until 1848, by 1846 adventurous sorts had already discovered the incredible virtues of the American West. In fact it was in 1838 when Horace Greeley first wrote “If any young man is about to commence the world, we say to him, publicly and privately, Go to the West”.[38] It is that wondrous notion of the American West that is exquisitely quantified in Renwick’s Western wing.

In essence then, the Smithsonian Castle may be considered an allegorical retelling of the American story from the 1840’s.[39]. It takes the beautiful confusion which is America, its politics, its land, and its people, and sees it and depicts it as part of one great plan. As the Castle was being built and scrutinized, the building’s apologist, Robert Dale Owen, tried to make a case for the Castle to be considered as perhaps the first example of a new American Architecture.[40] This conclusion would be laughable if it was not so oft repeated. After all, how many castles have been built in your neighborhood since 1846? No, the Smithsonian Castle is more Thomas Cole than Fallingwater. It is an allegory in the long line of the Hudson River School of storytelling, where folklorists, writers and especially artists occasionally reach fantastic conclusions. By the 1840’s, it was obvious that the implacable problems gnawing at America were not going to be solved politically. Perhaps, in a more perfect world, instead of by war they could have been better solved by science through innovation or artistically through cleansing. When James Renwick Jr. built the Castle in Washington, America was still a country where it was perceived that all things were possible. When it was built, the Castle meant something. It was an expression of hope. Sadly, after the Great War between the states, it seems that the Castle must mean something else. Maybe not. Comprehend the Castle and perhaps you comprehend the Universe.

 


[1] Gore Vidal, The Smithsonian Institution, A Novel (New York: Random House, 1998) 4.

[2] The Other Side of the Reservoir, Don’t Tell Columbus, Bloodshot Records, 2007.

[3] Donald A. Rakestraw, “The Lasting Significance of America’s War with Mexico” in Antebellum America 1784-1850, volume 4 of American History By Era ed. William Dudley, 260-262. Farmington Hills, Mi: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Originally published in “Interpretive Essay on the War With Mexico, ” Events That Changed America in the Nineteenth Century, edited by John E. Findling and Frank W. Thackeray, Westport, Ct: Greenwood Press, 1997.

[4] Timothy Foote, “America in 1846″ in Antebellum America 1784-1850, volume 4 of American History By Era ed. William Dudley. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Originally published as “America in 1846: A Country on the Move, ” Smithsonian, vol.27, April 1996, pp. 39-50.

[5] Will of James Smithson. See Heather Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson: Science, Revolution, and the Birth of the Smithsonian, (New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007) 306-308.

[6] R. Allen Brown, The Architecture of Castles A Visual Guide (London: Fact On File Publications, 1984) 7.

[7] Brown at p. 8.

[8] Brown at p. 8.

[9] Congress vested responsibility for the administration of the Smithsonian Institution in a Board of Regents, consisting of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Vice President of the United States, three members of the United States Senate, three members of the United States House of Representatives, and nine citizens.

[10] Among them were Alexander Dallas Bache who was a Lieutenant in the Corp of Engineers. He had erected coastal fortifications and for a time was a professor at West Point. Joseph G. Totten was Chief Engineer of the United States Army. Roger B. Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had been an Acting Secretary of War.

[11] Enabling Act of the Smithsonian Institution (9 Stat. 102).

[12] Richard E. Stamm, The Castle, An Illustrated History of the Smithsonian Building (Washington: Smithsonian Books, Second Edition 2012) 49.

[13] Stamm, The Castle, 11. This section is entitled “A Symbol for the Institution” and is authored by Cynthia R. Field.

[14] Joseph Henry espoused this view. See Stamm and Field, The Castle, 18.

[15] (9 Stat. 102)

[16] Stamm and Field, The Castle, 14.

[17] Stamm and Field, The Castle, 21.

[18] Stamm and Field, The Castle, 15.

[19] See Heather Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson: Science, Revolution, and the Birth of the Smithsonian, (New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007).

[20] The huge additional expenses that would have made the building fireproof were rejected and instead Henry promulgated a set of rules to safeguard the building from fire. See Stamm, The Castle, 28, 91. The section of the first cite is entitled “Changes with the Times” and is authored by Sharon C. Park.

[21] See Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson, Prologue.

[22] See “Murray Hill and the Reservoir” The New York Times, February 27, 1898.

[23] James Renwick, The Elements of Mechanics, (Philadelphia: Carey & Lea, Chestnut-Street 1832).

[24] H. Lallemand, A Treatise on Artillery: To Which is Added, A Summary of Military Reconnoitring, of Fortification, of the Attack and Defence of Places, and of Castramentation. Translated from the Manuscript of the Author, By James Renwick. (New York: C. S. Van Winkle, 1826).

[25] Renwick Scrap Book, estimated dates 1853-1870.

[26] James Renwick Sr. worked with Alexander Dallas Bache on the solving engineering problems relating to the mapping of the United States coastline. See NOAA Central Library, National Oceanographic Data Center, “Bache’s Early Years” http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/coastsurveyvol1/BACHE2.html.

[27] See Report of the Committee of the Franklin Institute, on the Inclined Plane of Professor James Renwick. Extract from the Report of General S. Bernard, and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph G. Totten (of the United States Engineering Department) on the Morris Canal. Published in the Franklin Journal and American Mechanics Magazine, Volume II No. 5, December 1826. Edited by Dr. Thomas P. Jones, Published by Judah Dobson, 1826. This report, coauthored by Totten, a building committee member, called Renwick, Sr.’s work bold, ingenious and novel.

[28] See Stamm and Field, The Castle, 18.

[29] Edward Sabine Renwick, the younger brother of James Renwick, Jr., wrote of his own disciplined upbringing and broad education in “Memoir”, 1883, transcription located in the Selma Rattner Research Papers on James Renwick, 2005.006 Box 05, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Drawings and Archives, Columbia University. Although not about James Renwick, Jr., this memoir presents the best evidence of the education of James referred to in other sources.

[30]Letter from Washington Irving to Henry Brevoort dated March 15, 1816.  As collected by Pierre Munroe Irving, The Life and Letters of Washington Irving, Volume I (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1883) 263.

[31] Supposedly a room was built into the Renwick house for use by Washington Irving when he was in NYC.

[32] Stamm and Park, The Castle, 26.

[33] Renwick died with massive art collection which is in itself an interesting story, untold here.

[34] Paul Frankl, Gothic Architecture, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1962) 238.

[35] Stamm and Field, The Castle, 14.

[36] On April 26, 2012, I was truly honored to walk through St. Patrick’s Cathedral with it rector, The Reverend Monsignor Robert T. Ritchie, who pointed out two chapels and part of the pulpit designed by James Renwick, Jr.

[37] Robert Dale Owen, Hints on Public Architecture (New York: Putnam, 1849).

[38] Aug. 25, 1838 issue of the newspaper New Yorker.

[39] One cannot underestimate the influence of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Volume 2(1840) on American thinkers of the 1840’s. His chapters on art, science and literature and references to architecture must have dared both architects and their patrons into building a more American story.

[40] Robert Dale Owen, Hints on Public Architecture (New York: Putnam, 1849).

Dedicated To Art

DEDICATED TO ART

Why Jackie Kennedy Saved The Renwick

                                                                                                By Jerry Leibowitz

 In 1962 the building we now know as The Renwick Gallery was set to be razed for a park as part of a massive redevelopment of Lafayette Square across from the White House. Everything was “go” for the demolition except for one thing. The First Lady of the United States was enormously popular and she did not want the building torn down.[1] Why did Jacqueline Kennedy save that building and in the process change our attitude and laws regarding historic preservation? Although there has been some speculation on this subject, I believe the answer is evident if you study the history of the building and the life of the First Lady.

Construction on the Renwick Gallery, built as The Corcoran Gallery, (“The Gallery”) was begun in 1859 and continued to the start of the Civil War when it was left unfinished. It was built to house the personal art collection of William W. Corcoran, who was what we would now call a player in Washington D. C. Although his life would make for a fantastic biography which has not yet been written, he is important to our story because he was very wealthy, very connected and he loved collecting art. He set about to collect great works of art from Europe and America both for his own collection and for the fledgling Smithsonian Institution. His Smithsonian purchases were to be displayed in an Art Gallery in “The Castle” which had recently been built with his approval. His private collection needed a Gallery worthy of his position and taste to display his art in Washington D. C. and he turned to James Renwick, Jr., the architect of The Castle, to build it.

 Corcoran had traveled to France in 1855 and was no doubt influenced by the renovation work on the Tuileries and the Louvre, begun in 1852. These buildings were being renovated in a Baroque revival style which became known as Second Empire, named after the decidedly undemocratic reign of Napoleon III (1852-1870). This style was yet unseen in America but was becoming popular among architects in Europe, especially France. [2]

Corcoran’s chosen architect, James Renwick, Jr., came from a well connected New York family where dabbling in artistic endeavors was encouraged. His father was a Columbia professor of Natural Philosophy (Physics) who dabbled in watercolor and was a good friend of Washington Irving, the gifted writer who also dabbled in watercolor.[3] His mother was a Breevort, a family that owned much of lower Manhattan. For much of his young life, James Renwick, Jr. lived at Columbia, perhaps even in a bedroom in the same building as the College Library, where he spent much of his time.  Although trained as an engineer at Columbia College and displaying his own talent to draw and paint, James Renwick Jr. became a self taught architect. Renwick’s first major commission as an architect was in 1844 for Grace Church, a Gothic Cathedral surviving to this day. While it is assumed he received that commission because the church was built on Breevort land, the beauty and the success of this endeavor lead to commissions for The Smithsonian Castle in 1847 and then to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in the 1850’s.[4] In 1852, James Renwick, Jr. married Anna Lloyd Aspinwall, the daughter of the fantastically wealthy shipping magnate. By the time William Corcoran was looking for an architect to design his new Art Gallery in Second Empire style, James Renwick, Jr. must have been the logical choice. Not because Renwick had ever designed a building in Second Empire style, but because he proved to be incredibly knowledgeable and adept in different styles. It is doubtful that there ever was or will be another architect who could design and build Gothic Churches, Castles and Second Empire buildings with the flair and competence of James Renwick, Jr.

Although The Renwick Gallery prominently displays the words “DEDICATED TO ART” on its facade, by 1962 one could hardly say that the hundred year old building successfully fulfilled that charter. Due to an accident of history and the Confederate leanings of its owner, its first use was as a headquarters for a Union General during the Civil War, having been taken from Corcoran by the government of the United States in 1862.  After it was returned to Corcoran, it was used as his Art Gallery for a time until it proved too small for the burgeoning collection, which now included the art he purchased for the Smithsonian Institution. Corcoran’s stuff was moved to the larger Corcoran Gallery of Art a few blocks away. In the first half of the 20th Century, the building was mostly used as a courthouse despite being ill suited for that role.[5]

It remains somewhat of a question as to whose idea it was to put the inscription DEDICATED TO ART on the first Corcoran Gallery. When the Corcoran art collection moved to what is now the Corcoran Gallery in 1897, it again used the inscription DEDICATED TO ART above one of the entrances, as if to own the phrase. Of course, William Corcoran had nothing to do with that second inscription since he had died in 1888.  Yet while the words come alive on the facade of what is now the Renwick Gallery, they seem somewhat hollow and hidden on the newer Beaux -Arts Corcoran Gallery. Still many believe that the phrase had originated with Corcoran owing to his love of art.[6] Of course this may reflect Renwick’s uncanny ability to convince his patrons to use his ideas for Architectural details and then to convince them that the ideas were those of the patron. His patrons tell great stories of the buildings they created; Robert Dale Owen takes great credit for the Smithsonian Castle; Archbishop Hughes for St. Patrick’s Cathedral; William Corcoran for what is now the Renwick Gallery; and Matthew Vassar for the Main Building at Vassar. None of them were architects. They had in common one gifted architect, James Renwick, Jr. [7]

I mention the main building at Vassar College not only in passing but because it plays a critical role in this story.  It was constructed from 1861 to 1865, just after the construction of the Gallery. In the Gallery, Matthew Vassar must have seen a small version of what he wanted for his grand building. Both buildings were built of red brick in otherwise Second Empire style containing prominent mansard roofs and similar ornamental touches.  Unlike the Gallery but in keeping with the Tuileries and the Louvre, the Main Building at Vassar is huge. For a time it was the largest building by interior space in all of North America. It is said that when Matthew Vassar saw a lithograph of the work on the Tuileries, he wrote on this lithograph, “Similar to Vassar College”.[8]  While the main building at Vassar and the Gallery differ on size, one is not surprised to learn that they were designed and built by the same architect.

In 1929, the building now known as The Renwick Gallery was being used as the United States Court of Claims and was presumably showing some age. In that year Jacqueline Lee Bouvier was born in Southampton New York. In 1947, Jacqueline Bouvier entered Vassar College. There are conflicting accounts about whether Jackie enjoyed her days at Vassar. We do know that for her junior year she left to study art in Paris and chose not to go back to Vassar. She ultimately received her degree from George Washington University.[9]

During Jackie’s years at Vassar, there was documented interest in Renwick’s “Old Main”. Rollie McKenna (Vassar ’40) returned to the school in 1947 and included in her continuing studies an investigation into Old Main. She was perhaps the first to treat the building as an important piece of American Architectural history.[10] Old Main was built as an all purpose building including dorms, and there is some evidence, perhaps folklore, that Jackie Bouvier lived in the building during some of her time at Vassar.[11] Whether she lived there or not, the massive presence of that building on campus provides a deep psychological connection to many who pass through Vassar’s gates. Jackie’s trip to Paris, where she could view the Louvre (The Tuileries Palace having been a victim by destruction of the somewhat democratic Paris Commune of 1871) and other Second Empire structures may have reinforced her connection to her old college building. Although she would come back from Paris destined for bigger things, I suggest that by 1951 her connection to the Renwick designed Old Main at Vassar was well fixed in her psyche.

Ten years later Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy became First Lady of the United States. Aside from her obvious natural charms, she brought with her a keen knowledge of art and history which she displayed to approximately 56 million Americans with her unprecedented televised broadcast A Tour of the White House with Mrs. John F. Kennedy, which aired February 14, 1962.[12] By then, she had already learned of the plan to redevelop Lafayette Square which included the destruction of both The Gallery and the Dolley Madison house. On February 15, 1962 she walked the Square with David E. Finley, chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. She is known to have said, “Mr. Finley, these buildings can be preserved. And they must.”[13]  John Carl Warnecke, the eventual architect for the restoration of Lafayette Park later speculated that she “became quite concerned when she learned of the proposed destruction of the Renwick building.”[14]

According to the papers of Donald R. McClelland at the Smithsonian Institution, early in his presidency, John F. Kennedy “viewed the gallery from a second floor window of the White House, across a snow covered lawn… [And] decided that if possible the ambience of the building and its relation to the square should be saved.”[15]  While we are not privy to the White House conversations, it may be presumed that at that time John F. Kennedy had somewhat more important things to do than to worry too much about buildings on Lafayette Square. Although there is little doubt that John shared his wife’s involvement with the Lafayette Square project[16], whether as a dutiful husband or based on his own aesthetic sense of what was correct for the area, it makes more sense that in this endeavor Jackie was the team leader. That she too could see The Gallery from the White House, at a location where Presidents no doubt had strolled, and its inscription “Dedicated To Art” commanding her to take action, she must have felt like the right person in the right place to get it done. That the project also included the destruction of retirement house of Dolley Madison, the First Lady whose dedication to saving art and preserving history in the face of invasion is the stuff of legend,  made Jacqueline Kennedy’s involvement all the more certain.[17]

In American architecture, the movement of the day was clearly towards the modern. Ralph Walker, former president of the American Institute of Architects, called the architecture of Lafayette Square “bad architecture…junk architecturally- it is junk!” As to the Gallery he opined “It is just a deplorable piece of degenerating architecture which will cost more to restore and put back into shape, and what are you going to use it for when you are through with it?…We live in an age of bigness. We don’t live in an age of tiny little things…”[18] Douglas Orr, also a former President of the American Institute of Architects agreed that “all those little bits of houses sitting along the street is going to make the United States look perfectly ridiculous architecturally speaking in the eyes of the world. I think that to preserve the old Corcoran Art Gallery or the Dolley Madison House is pure folly.”[19]

It may have been useful for leading architects to point out that The Gallery had failed in both its first use as an art gallery and then as a courthouse. Perhaps it could have been argued that its location would be better served by the plan of destruction and gleaming new office buildings and parks. But the miscalculation of denigrating the artistic and historic value of The Gallery and the Dolley Madison House naturally served to bolster the resolve of the First Lady. It could be assumed that the first lady acted because of her sense of the neighborhood or her appreciation of 19th century architecture in general. Perhaps it was a kinship she felt for Dolley Madison and the place Madison retired to after her years serving her country. I find it more logical to assume that Jacqueline Kennedy’s years at Vassar and then Paris, and her contemplation of the work of James Renwick, Jr., gave her a personal and powerful impetus to save The Gallery. Within a short time the architect John Carl Warnecke was brought into the project by the President and he helped devise a new method of redevelopment in which new buildings were constructed in the character of the existing structures.  President Kennedy and his First Lady adeptly managed the politics. The Gallery and the Dolley Madison House were saved.[20] I think it no coincidence that The Renwick Gallery is now the largest building in the world named after its architect.

When Jacqueline Kennedy saved the Renwick Gallery there were few tools beyond political will that could be used to identify and save worthy structures. Although she was not the first to understand and value the old, her insistence in saving Lafayette Square is largely considered as a forerunner to later preservation efforts. “Member of Congress, in urging the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, called Mrs. Kennedy’s preservation efforts a model, not only for the preservation in this city, but for large and small communities throughout America. “[21] If it can be said that all politics is local, it is equally true that all art is personal. I do not venture to guess how seemingly innocuous events in one person’s past can change history, but I am left to wonder if the same result would have occurred if Jackie Bouvier went to Smith instead.

So who in this history is “Dedicated To Art?” There was William W. Corcoran, the avid collector and patron who knew the young country would greatly benefit from the construction of an art gallery for the acquisition and display of art; and James Renwick, Jr., whose knowledge and skill made the construction of any idea a possibility and whose creation on Lafayette Square was so admired by some in power that their desire to preserve it changed our view of the world; and Dolley Madison whose legendary action in art and historic preservation set a standard for a later First Lady; maybe it was Matthew Vassar who fulfilled the need to properly educate women, including two in this story, and who built a great building for their inspiration; or Rollie McKenna who noticed something about an artistic structure when others would just walk on by and she elevated it into her own form of art; and, of course, Jacqueline Kennedy who studied and learned her art so well that she instinctively knew when it had to be protected from predators. Since art can be defined as the exchange of inspiration, maybe it is me for writing or you for reading this. Think about it. You decide.



[1] Kathleen P. Galop, Esquire, National Trust For Historic Preservation; The Historic Preservation Legacy of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis; Forum Journal, Spring 2006, Vol. 20, No. 3.

[2] For general background on William Corcoran and the Renwick Gallery see Papers of Donald R. McClelland 1857-1968, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Also, Rosalie Thorne McKenna, James Renwick, Jr. and the Second Empire Style in the United States, Magazine of Art  44(March 1951)  and Heather Ewing and Amy Ballard, A Guide To Smithsonian Architecture, Smithsonian Books, Washington 2009.

[3] Watercolor paintings of both Renwick, Sr. and Washington Irving are referenced in the Renwick Family Papers, 1794-1916. Columbia University Libraries. Rare Book, Butler 6th Fl East. Call Number:MS#1063.

[4] One leading researcher on the life of James Renwick Jr. was Selma Rattner whose immense collection of research in preparation for publishing a biography of Renwick is located at the Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Drawings and Archives, Columbia University. Sadly the biography was never written. The Rattner research collection remains an incredible source of general and specific information about Renwick and must be reviewed by any researcher who wants documented accurate information about the subject.

[5] Heather Ewing and Amy Ballard, A Guide To Smithsonian Architecture, Smithsonian Books, Washington 2009 at 88-91.

[6] William W. Corcoran self published a book entitled A Grandfathers Legacy Containing a Sketch of his Life and Obituary Notices of Some Members of his Family Together With Letters From His Friends, Washington, Henry Polkinhorn, printer, 1879. The book can be found at http://www.archive.org/stream/agrandfathersle00corgoog. In a letter to the Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery dated May 10, 1869. Corcoran takes credit for designing the Gallery and including the words “Dedicated to Art” on its facade at p. 32, 33. No mention is made of the architect.

[7] There is barely a mention of James Renwick Jr. in any of the recorded works and letters of the benefactors of his great buildings. See Robert Dale Owen, Hints on Public Architecture (New York: Putnam, 1849). Corcoran’s A Grandfathers Legacy, supra. Vassar, Matthew, The Autobiography and Letters of Matthew Vassar. New York: Oxford University Press, 1916. Complete Works of the Most Rev. John Hughes, D. D., Archbishop of New York Comprising His Sermons, Lectures, Speeches, Etc. Carefully Compiled from the best Sources. Edited by Lawrence Kehoe Two Volumes, New York The Catholic Publication House, 1866.

[8] See Rosalie Thorne McKenna, James Renwick, Jr. and the Second Empire Style in the United States, Magazine of Art  44 (March 1951).

[9] John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Life of Jacqueline B. Kennedy. Website location: http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/Life-of-Jacqueline-B-Kennedy.aspx.

[10] See for example, Rosalie Thorne McKenna, James Renwick, Jr. and the Second Empire Style in the United States, Magazine of Art  44(March 1951) 

[11] Alison Lee Cowen, Ghosts of Dorm Rooms Past, New York Times, June 8, 2010. Website location: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/ghosts-of-dorm-rooms-past/

[12] Kathleen P. Galop, Esquire,  National Trust For Historic Preservation; The Historic Preservation Legacy of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis; Forum Journal, Spring 2006, Vol. 20, No. 3.

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Papers of Donald R. McClelland 1857-1968, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

[16] John Carl Warnecke, The Rescue and Renaissance of Lafayette Square, Journal of the White House Historical Association, Number 13, 2004. Noted to be originally published in White House History #13, 2004.

[17] In the televised broadcast A Tour of the White House with Mrs. John F. Kennedy, which aired February 14, 1962, Jacqueline Kennedy pays tribute to the heroic acts of Dolley Madison.

[18] Warnecke, supra p. 43.

[19] Ibid

[20] John Carl Warnecke, The Rescue and Renaissance of Lafayette Square, Journal of the White House Historical Association, Number 13, 2004. Noted to be originally published in White House History #13, 2004.

[21] First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Memorial Tributes in the One Hundred and Third Congress of the United States, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 1995. Jackie’s Washington: How She Rescued the City’s History by Richard Moe, Leonard A. Zax, from the Washington Post, May 29, 1994. Website Location: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-103sdoc32/pdf/CDOC-103sdoc32.pdf.