Category Archives: Smithsonian

The Corcoran Gallery of Art

The Corcoran Gallery of Art

I wouldn’t read much into it, it’s progress knock it down, it’s the Last Bookstore in Town
Graham Parker

Learning and writing about Art and History are my serious hobbies. In fact, my main credential for writing this piece is that, like many other people, I am an avid museum goer and also a frequent tourist of Washington D.C. So when I read that the present plan concerning the Corcoran Gallery of Art is described as an act that would have been frowned on by William Corcoran, I could not help but to recoil. This allegation seems to ignore the basic facts of the situation as I understand them. While any change affecting any great institution is sad, my gut tells me that maybe this one is for the best.

I studied the life and times of William Corcoran and the beginnings of the Smithsonian Institution for three pieces I wrote, all of which now appear on this website  ( Dedicated To Art;Why Jackie Kennedy Saved the Renwick at; The Smithsonian Castle: An Allegory at and Follow the Money- The Legacy Perhaps of James Smithson at ). I read Corcoran’s self-published book and cited it. I am familiar with the documents creating  the Corcoran Gallery of Art. In fact, William Corcoran was dead when the present Corcoran Gallery of Art was built, and therefore he could not have any intention as to the present building. As to the art it contains, it seems to me that the plan as I understand it is more of a fulfillment of his wishes than a violation of them.

William Wilson Corcoran (1798-1888) was a dry goods store owner turned banker from Georgetown with untold influence in Washington DC. He made a fortune funding the Mexican American War in 1846-1848.  Although known to be sympathetic to the South in the years leading to the civil war, there is no evidence that Corcoran favored the institution of slavery. The best evidence depicts Corcoran as favoring the continued union of the states through the compromises on slavery and this may have led to his participation in the Mexican-American War. Corcoran was friendly with most powerful people in Washington including Joseph Henry, the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In 1846, Corcoran lent his considerable expertise to help build the Smithsonian Castle, a project abhorred by Henry. Joseph Henry wanted the Smithson bequest to fund pure science, but Congress felt that the building of the a large building which would contain a library, museum and art gallery was more in keeping with James Smithson’s unusual alternate residuary bequest “to the united states of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” Henry denounced the Castle as a huge waste of money.


William Corcoran loved art and he collected art both for his personal collection and for the nascent Smithsonian Institution. He was probably using his own money for both collections as I have seen no evidence that he received a penny of the bequest monies before buying any art. When he retired from banking as a very wealthy man, Corcoran travelled to Europe with a note of introduction from Joseph Henry, who was becoming well known among scientific circles in Europe due to his groundbreaking scientific work. Corcoran returned from his 1855 trip with the beginnings of the nation’s first collection of art for public display. By this time, Joseph Henry was living in the Castle with his family and he was growing more irritated by the constant disruptions caused by the presence of a library and an art gallery. Corcoran, who lived nearby, kept many of his collected works in his home which, during the mid to late 1850’s, he freely showed to interested parties. As his collection expanded, and perhaps to accommodate Joseph Henry, Corcoran contracted with James Renwick, Jr., the architect of the Castle, to build an Art Gallery near his home. It was to be a structure “Dedicated To Art”, a phrase probably coined by Corcoran, and that was the inscription placed in its façade. This was the birth of the first Corcoran Gallery of Art which is now known as the Renwick Gallery of Art now part of the Smithsonian Institution.

Construction on the art gallery had begun in 1858. It was designed in Second Empire style, a Parisian architectural movement of the time. Although not nearly the size of its Parisian counterpart, the Gallery was dubbed “The American Louvre”, probably as a bit of promotion by Corcoran who showed a grand flair for the artistic and the dramatic. The building was near completion when the civil war broke out in 1861. Corcoran smartly sat out the war by travelling to Europe and his Gallery was taken by the Union Army and used as a supply depot until the war ended. It is unclear what happened to the artwork that Corcoran had collected…where it was stored and if it became further comingled, as obviously art was not the highest priority of the time. We do know that in 1865, the Smithsonian was to have an exhibit of the Native American portraits of John Mix Stanley. Joseph Henry blamed the preparation of that exhibit for the devastating fire of January 1865 which destroyed part of the Smithsonian and countless documents of scientific, historical and cultural significance, including most of the Stanley works and James Smithson’s personal papers. Henry, who never wanted the Castle to be a museum, used the fire as an excuse to jettison the library and the art museum, with many of the Smithsonian art works ultimately ending up in the Corcoran Gallery of Art.

Upon returning to Washington after the war, Corcoran moved forward with the idea that an art museum was needed in Washington and in 1869, he deeded the Art Gallery and some of his works to the Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, an entity he had set up and funded. Although the ownership of specific works in the collection may have been unclear, Corcoran was able to temporarily open the completed Gallery with massive fanfare in 1871. It later began its run as the first art museum in the new country. Corcoran continued collecting art and when he died in 1888 his art collection and that of the Corcoran Gallery proved too large for the building bearing his name. In 1897, a new building was constructed a few blocks away and it not only correctly took the name “Corcoran Gallery of Art” but also again used the inscription “Dedicated To Art” in its façade, as tribute to the vision of its original founder.

The 1869 deed for the first Corcoran Gallery of Art clearly conveys Corcoran’s purpose:

“…in the execution of a long cherished desire to establish an institution in Washington city, to be “dedicated to Art,” and solely used for the purpose of encouraging American genius, in the production and preservation of works pertaining to the “Fine Arts,” and kindred objects…”

Here Corcoran channels the language of the Smithson bequest but leaves no doubt that his building was to be “Dedicated To Art” and not to science or literature, perhaps freeing the Castle from those burdens. Corcoran specifically indicated that admission to the Gallery was to free of charge at least two days per week, a grand gesture of his intent that the inspiration provided by his Gallery might benefit even those who could not afford to pay admission. From the 1870’s to the 1890’s, his vision was fulfilled by the Gallery at Lafayette Square.

If William Wilson Corcoran’s vision was to have great art free and visible and accessible in Washington for the purpose of fostering American genius, he would be well pleased today. Between the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Museum of American Art, the Renwick Gallery of Art (currently closed for renovation), The Hirschorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, the Freer Gallery and the Sackler Gallery, the amount of phenomenal art one can see for free in Washington DC is unbelievable. Other art museums such as the Phillips Collection and, yes, the Corcoran Gallery of Art have contributed to my opinion that Washington DC is the premier city for art viewing in the world (note: as a native New Yorker even I am shocked by this admission; and yes, I have been to Paris and Rome and Florence and Amsterdam…Where is the American Art there?). Only in the National Gallery of Art can you stand in a room with 17 Cezannes…by yourself! I was in a room with more Vermeers than people! A Da Vinci that you don’t need binoculars to see! Don’t get me started on the American Art, from the Copleys to the Warhols…the genius is on display everywhere. And did I mention that most of it is FREE.

If I may digress, the wondrous thing about Washington for art lovers is that most of the tourists who go there, even those who might frequent the art museums of other cities, barely get to all the art museums. Americans and other tourists who have maybe a week to spend in Washington have their itineraries full of other things. Personally, my most poignant moment in visiting Washington was not in a museum, it was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial where at 7 am a small group of tourists presumably from mainland China were admiring our 16thPresident and sharing their thoughts with each other in their native tongue. To my astonishment, one of them stood next to me on the place where Martin Luther King reestablished America’s Creed and as he looked out on the reflecting pool he said in near perfect English “Free at last, Free at last, great God almighty…we are free at last”. In my mind, somehow William Wilson Corcoran with his dedication to something great helped bring Washington to that moment, which still gives me goose bumps and brings a tear to my eye.

All of which brings me to where we are today. For me, ultimately the issue of the Corcoran Gallery is not so much about one man’s vision, it is not about a building and it is not even about art. It is about trust. Since I believe that the National Gallery of Art is the greatest art museum in the world and has helped establish Washington as the greatest city for art in the world, I trust that it will do right by the Corcoran collection.  Others who are against the plan may not share my trust, and perhaps I do not see all that they see or know all that they know.  I can only imagine how difficult it has been for the Corcoran Gallery of Art to function as an independent museum in a town that despite its incredible collections, is not really about art. That is the beauty of the Smithson Bequest and the Corcoran gifts…they have created something much greater than even they could have anticipated in a city that needs great art if only to counter the nonsense that is often associated with some of its other institutions. As times change and politics change and buildings rise and fall, it is the great ideas that move us forward as a civilization. Those ideas may be expressed in our founding documents, the speeches of our great leaders, the advancement in the sciences and in the great art of the world. I trust that this is a move forward and I suspect that William Wilson Corcoran would think so too.


Encouraging American Genius

Encouraging American Genius

                                                                                                                By Jerry Leibowitz

 We are stardust, billion year old carbon We are golden, caught in the devil’s bargain And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Joni Mitchell

 I have been thinking about what it means to “encourage American Genius” since I wrote my last piece on the Corcoran Gallery of Art (See  ). William Corcoran used the phrase in the deed donating what became the first independent Art Gallery in America in 1869, stating that his gift was:

“…in the execution of a long cherished desire to establish an institution in Washington city, to be “dedicated to Art,” and solely used for the purpose of encouraging American genius, in the production and preservation of works pertaining to the “Fine Arts,” and kindred objects…”

The phrase and the words “Dedicated to Art”, which is displayed on the façade of both the original and the present Corcoran Gallery acquired in 1897, has popped up in the controversy about the future of the present Corcoran Gallery of Art, which seeks to terminate many of its operations. In using the phrase, I see Corcoran as reiterating a strand of American thought that went back at least to 1760, the year that Benjamin West left Pennsylvania to view the great art of Italy, never to return. Despite, or because of, our view of our founding as something inspired by divine intervention, we often fail to see the America that was born of a brutal and barbarous nature, where much of its wealth was extracted from the enslaved to the utter disregard if not the benefit of its founders. Early America was a cultural wasteland which many of the best minds of our early generations chose to leave to pursue their craft. While the civil war did not solve America’s problems, after the war William Corcoran was among those calling for the next America to be better than the last; through art, through culture and through the development and encouragement of American genius.

The cornerstone of the Second America arguably was laid in England in 1791 with a painting by Benjamin West entitled “Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden”.  As if by my design, the painting now hangs in the National Gallery of Art in Washington D. C. Obviously, this was a subject that had been covered numerous times before; it is one of the most familiar and iconic images in western thought. Yet, as the NGA website points out…”West’s Expulsion contains two motifs not found in Genesis or any traditional pictures of the theme: an eagle swoops upon a helpless bird, and a lion chases frightened horses. In general terms, such beasts of prey imply the destruction of harmony that resulted from Original Sin.” The eagle became the bird emblem of the United States of America in 1782. Its placement in the work calls to the viewer the America that Benjamin West had left over thirty years before. Perhaps the lion represents the slaveholders and the horses represent their slaves.[i] West, who was a Quaker and was adamantly anti-slavery, had left America as a British citizen and ended up in England where he rose to the highest level of his craft, a friend and Court painter to King George lll. West was not the only American artist who left his native land; he was soon followed by John Singleton Copley, Gilbert Stuart, and John Trumbull all of whom sat out the Revolutionary War in England. They were eventually followed to Europe by virtually every great American artist of the 19th and early 20th century, each of whom studied or lived in Europe for a considerable period of their artistic development. We know a little of why these early American artists left America; Copley called his native country barbarous and limiting to his craft; Trumbull may have been a spy for America, having served as aide-de-camp for George Washington for a short time early in the War; Stuart was a bit scattered and was perhaps looking for some stability abroad. I suggest that Benjamin West invited this community of artists to England to “encourage American genius” in a place removed from America’s original sin, its toleration of slavery. When the smoke from the American Revolution had cleared, Trumbull and Stuart returned to America fully formed as artists giving America its first artistic life, one couched in love for the new country. It was as if Benjamin West sent out these emissaries of art to go forth and multiply and breed American genius. It is likely that Gilbert Stuart, having lived among those who were a part of the antislavery movement while in England[ii], returned to America as an emissary for that movement, often discussing political subjects with those who sat for him. Trumbull went on to document America’s founding, and established the first University Art Gallery at Yale largely to collect his own works. West and Copley stayed in England and continued their artistic pursuits. West’s views against slavery were quite well known and clearly contributed to his historic and religious themed works. Copley explored the humanity of the slavery issue in his works including Watson and the Shark (1778; also at the NGA!, The Head of a Negro (1777-1778;  and The Death of Major Peirson (1783, In retrospect then, Benjamin West put out the first call to “encourage American genius” just at the time that the founding fathers were beginning their experiment with self-government but were unable or unwilling to recognize that the flaws in their work would render America spiritually damaged and eventually hurl the country towards self-destruction and civil war.

I have written previously of the bequest of James Smithson, and how that gift was intended to propel America out of its barbarous nature (See Follow the Money- the Legacy Perhaps of James Smithson, Under Smithson’s will of 1826, his money was given “to the united states of America to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” Arguably, as I suggest in Legacy, it was the knowledge diffused by that institution that made the end of slavery inevitable, since knowledge is the ultimate cure for ignorance and indifference. While the cure for America turned out to be unbelievably painful, it must be recognized that by 1860 the disease was quite severe. All of the compromises which let slavery continue and expand in America, going back to compromises made in 1775, had rendered the country spiritually depraved. Despite all the progress being made in the Arts and the Sciences, the use of forced labor to create wealth had rendered the country unholy, and that evil was a limiting restraint on the creation of true American genius. The end of slavery through the civil war gave America a new chance, and men with foresight were not about to let the moment slip by doing nothing.

William Corcoran was intimately familiar with the Smithson bequest, having worked with Congress on establishing the Smithsonian Institution. He provided expertise on the building of the Castle which housed the entire Institution. As a Southern sympathizer who helped foster the compromises in the 1840’s and 1850’s that made the civil war inevitable, Corcoran had some fault to bear in the ugly matter. His fortune had been made in banking largely by funding the Mexican American War in 1846, which provided for the expansion of the country deemed necessary for the continuation of slavery.  While many in the south were devastated by their loss of autonomy through the Civil War, Corcoran came to recognize that without the burden of the slavery issue which could only divide America, the great days of America lay ahead. In 1869, he found himself on the other side of the civil war with a ton of money, a passion for art, and a new blank canvas to create the Second America as a far better place than the first. His gift of the Corcoran Gallery of Art reflects that hope. Where Smithson used the word “knowledge”, a word which connotes something quantifiable and exact, Corcoran’s vision was for “Art” and for “Genius”, concepts which are exquisite and unquantifiable. The Civil War provided redemption from America’s original sin and perhaps Corcoran’s own sins, and now it was time for grace and return to the garden.

It is with all this in mind that I contemplate again the status of the present Corcoran Gallery of Art and specifically what it means to “encourage American Genius”. As I noted in my last piece, I am quite certain that the art from the Gallery will be fine under the care of the National Gallery of Art. The building which houses the Gallery is of no moment here, since it was constructed after the death of William Corcoran and could not have been a part of his vision. But the concept of “Encouraging American Genius” remains to me as important and elusive as ever. We still live in the Second America. We have had our share of genius yet we remain far from the garden. So how do we now encourage American genius?  Arguably “genius” is not developed at all it just happens from time to time. Maybe the MacArthur Foundation has it right…wait for someone to do something great…call it “genius” and throw money at it. But I am not sure that works either, since if I won a MacArthur grant I would probably change the name of my website to and never be heard from again. (Note to MacArthur Trustees: That last comment was just literary license. If I were to receive a grant I would churn out the genius stuff like you wouldn’t believe!). William Corcoran may have had a reasonable notion as to what it meant to “Encourage American Genius“ as shown by his help establishing artists of the Hudson River School, but it is also true that much of what he collected were secondary works. That is not a knock on his talent or ideals, but more a statement on the elusive nature of encouraging genius.

An Art School, a Museum, a studio…whatever. The chance of anyone finding and encouraging true American artistic genius remains slim. The job of the artist is to turn out the work; whether it is genius or not is usually judged by posterity which sometimes takes an awfully long time to answer. For every Michelangelo there is a Van Gogh. William Corcoran must have known all this when he gave his gift. Perhaps with his gift he was trying to follow the mold set by Benjamin West in the 1770’s. The modest building he gave may have been well suited to the task of encouraging American genius in 1869. Perhaps the biggest mistake made by the Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art was when they moved to larger quarters in the late 19th century and are now burdened by something large and unwieldy. But then again, the late 19th century was a time of big ideas, and Corcoran liked living large and probably would have blessed the expansion. But 19th century ideas may not be relevant to our times and our William Corcorans should not be tied to them. How we encourage our 21st century American geniuses is a mystery to me. Still, like the accurate compass which gives direction to this website, William Corcoran pointed the country in the right direction. Hopefully his legacy will continue to lead us back to the Garden.


[i] In the Zong decision (1783) slaves were thrown off a ship in peril and later claimed as a loss under an insurance policy. Lord Mansfield was called to decide if the jury was correct in ruling for the slaveholders… “that the Case of Slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard.” Lord Mansfield reversed, ruling against the slave holders. History has (incorrectly, in my opinion) somehow attributed the analogy of slaves to horses to Lord Mansfield, which is unlikely given his ruling in Somersett’s case (1772) declaring slavery to be odious and therefore unsupportable on English soil. See my piece on Lord Mansfield at and the recent biography by Professor Norman Poser entitled Lord Mansfield, Justice in the Age of Reason (McGill-Queen’s University Press, Canada 2013). The facts of the Zong Case were so horrible that the analogy resonated throughout the antislavery movement in England, leading to British withdrawal from the slave trade in 1807. In 1780, John Trumbull painted George Washington with his slave on a horse, equating the two as servants to their master,

[ii] See Follow the Money- The Legacy Perhaps of James Smithson,

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

Who is James Renwick and What are His Plans?

by Jerry Leibowitz



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.

Follow the Money- The Legacy Perhaps of James Smithson

Follow the Money

The Legacy Perhaps of James Smithson

By Jerry Leibowitz


Knowledge is the pathway from slavery to freedom…

                                                                                                     Frederick Douglass


Ever since the British burned the White House down, there’s a bleeding wound in the heart of town…

                                                                                                                Bob Dylan, Narrow Way (2012)


The most vast and incredible complex of museums in the world sprang from the bequest of a man who was born and lived in Europe and had never been to America. He never showed any special interest in what was then a very young country. It remains an enduring riddle of the Smithsonian Institution as to why James Smithson would leave a vast estate to found an Institution he would never see in a place he had never been. The colorful common narrative concerning his bequest goes like this.[i] James Smithson was of noble British lineage being an illegitimate son of the First Duke of Northumberland, a wealthy Lord who fathered children both inside and outside of his marriage. Upon the Duke’s death, his first son born inside the marriage received his bounty and title. Those children born outside the marriage, including James Smithson, received no more than a modest stipend. James Smithson’s mother, also possibly of noble blood, lived a convoluted if not a troubled life which did not show evidence of luxury. When he was not gambling, James Smithson spent most of his life in France among the scientific elite while also maintaining close ties to the British scientific community. He never married or was known to have any particularly close friends in America or elsewhere. His scientific accomplishments were of dubious value both scientifically and financially.  Smithson had a brother from his mother, who possibly was also the son of the First Duke of Northumberland.[ii]  Smithson’s will, dated October 23, 1826 and probated November 4, 1829, bequeathed his entire residuary estate to the son of this now deceased brother provided that the nephew have adult surviving children “legitimate or illegitimate”. The will provided that if the nephew died without such an heir, the residuary estate was to go “to the united states[iii] of America to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”  Life ensued. The nephew died in 1837 without heir. And the rest, as they say, is history.[iv] The money that originally funded the Smithsonian Institution has generally been considered to be from a source unknown to us. Here I explore where the Smithson money might have come from and if it can be determined who really is the source and true benefactor of the Smithsonian Institution.

There is quite a cast of characters in the James Smithson story. There are nobles and wannabes. Patriots and sympathizers. Insiders looking out and outsiders looking in. In short, the family here is like many families and their story would not be so unique or important were it not for the museum complex that bears the Smithson name. When Richard Rush of Philadelphia, special envoy of the United States, loaded the James Smithson bequest of L100,000 British Pounds onto a boat in Britain in 1838 bound for the American Treasury, that was real money then, enough to fund quite an Institution.  Is it good enough to say that the legacy came from James Smithson without showing the source of the money? If the James Smithson estate and subsequently the Smithsonian Institution was funded with someone else’s money perhaps that person deserves some recognition too. Perhaps there was a special reason for this bequest which has remained hidden throughout these years. As always, the best way to get to the truth in Washington is to follow the money.

Jacques-Louis Macie later James Lewis Macie later James Smithson sometimes Monsieur de Smithson, or Seigneur Anglais (1765?-1829)

James Smithson had a lot of names to choose from to name his potential institution. It could have been “Macie’s” or “The Hungerford” or perhaps “Percy’s Place”. It was not until he was an adult that James chose to be Smithson. James Smithson’s putative father was born Hugh Smithson in 1714.[v] When Hugh Smithson married the wealthy and well-connected Elizabeth Seymour in 1740, he took her family name of Percy.[vi] So when James was born in or about 1765, his putative father’s name was no longer Hugh Smithson but Hugh Percy.[vii] James Smithson’s mother was not Hugh Percy’s wife. She was Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie, having been born Elizabeth Hungerford Keate before taking her husband’s name when she married John Macie. Hungerford was a family name from her mother’s side tied to royalty and great wealth. Her father was a Keate, a respectable family but not wealthy. John Macie, her husband who was also respectable but not wealthy, had died in 1761.  So when James was born about 1765 he was not a son of Macie who was long since dead, in fact he was not a James. Although British by blood, James Smithson was born in France, probably due to the more liberal attitude there to out of wedlock birth.[viii] James Smithson was given the name of Jacques-Louis Macie.[ix] A total fabrication. “Louis” was probably an homage to the current French King.[x] Jacques was brought to Britain and naturalized there as a youngster. In England, he was given the name James Lewis Macie[xi], which he carried through his young life until he changed it to James Smithson as an adult in 1801. In his later life in France and perhaps Italy, he was known to spruce up his name to Monsieur de Smithson, or use the French term for an English gentleman, evoking an aristocratic air mixing his French and British heritage.[xii]

In his youth, James seemed to have a ready source of funds. He attended the finest schools, most notably Pembroke College at Oxford.[xiii] Presumably, his funds came from his putative father. Although already quite wealthy, with his marriage Hugh Smithson/Percy had become one of the richest men in the world.[xiv] But since Hugh Smithson never acknowledged James as his son, and there is scant proof that he provided for this putative son, it is possible that those ready funds came from James’ mother, either through her connection to the Hungerfords, or the Keates or the Macies.[xv]

James Lewis Macie, later James Smithson, studied the sciences, specifically Chemistry and Mineralogy.[xvi] He was well known in the scientific communities of England and France. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that his scientific accomplishments were such that they could have made him wealthy through his own toil. His greatest scientific legacy was probably the discovery of a mineral ultimately named Smithsonite. Interestingly, James Smithson had nothing to do with that discovery which was made by a French mineralogist after Smithson’s death who named it Smithsonite in tribute, apparently without any financial recompense to James Smithson, deceased.[xvii]

For much of his life, James Smithson was a notorious gambler. While most gamblers die without a farthing in their pocket, it remains a possibility that Smithson made his fortune on the gaming tables of Europe.[xviii] Yet, by most accounts, James Smithson did not lead the life of a wealthy man.[xix] Although he often lived well, it seems that the mention in his will of founding an Institution was the first indication that he believed he had access to great wealth. The most likely conclusion is that Smithson’s wealth was not his own but came to him in the 1820’s when he was an older man. It must have come to him in a way that he could not lose it in European gambling halls. But if it was family money, which family was it? And how did it get to America, specifically Washington, instead of its more logical destination back into the family from whence it came?



Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie (later Dickinson) 1728-1800[xx]

It is one thing to fund an education and quite another to fund an Institution.[xxi] James Smithson’s mother may have had some connection to the wealthy Hungerfords, but there is no evidence that she was an heir to any of its great fortune which may already have been dissipated.[xxii] It is noted in James Smithson’s will that his mother was a “niece” of Charles the Proud, who was tied to the Seymour/Percy wealth that eventually found its way to Hugh Smithson.[xxiii] The mention of that connection in the will appears to be more about blood than money, since there is no evidence that Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie was an heir to any of that money either. As for Keate, her father, his family was respectable but not wealthy.[xxiv] Former husband John Macie? He was long since dead and left her money to live very comfortably, but not extravagantly.[xxv] In 1768, When James was about three years old, Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie married John Marshe Dickinson, probably due to a pregnancy that did not result in childbirth. Although there may once have been some family money, John Marshe Dickinson was in debt and more concerned with acquiring money from his wife than providing for her. Their stormy relationship, which included litigation between them, ended not in divorce but with the death of John Marshe Dickinson in 1771. It is unlikely that Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie Dickinson received anything from his estate that was not previously hers.[xxvi] However, a child was born to her one month after Dickinson’s death. Although she was now again using the name Elizabeth Macie, she named the child Henry Louis Dickenson, apparently a play on the name of her deceased husband Dickinson.[xxvii] When Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie formerly Dickinson died in 1800 she left James Macie, later Smithson, little more than a story. The story was that he was a Smithson[xxviii] and perhaps she told him that his brother, Henry Louis Dickenson, was one as well. It was only then that James Macie successfully petitioned to use the name James Smithson, to perhaps more actively seek recognition as a Smithson[xxix], this despite the fact that his putative father was long since dead.

Hugh Smithson later Percy- First Duke of Northumberland (Third Creation) 1714-1786

The accepted story is that James Smithson was the illegitimate child of Hugh Smithson, later Hugh Percy, later the First Duke of Northumberland.  However, there is no known birth certificate in France for Jacques-Louis Macie and the college records of John Lewis Macie are silent as to the name of his father.[xxx] The best evidence of a liaison between Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie later Dickinson and The First Duke of Northumberland comes from the will of James Smithson, written many years later, which boldly asserts that The First Duke is his father.[xxxi] While James Smithson was there, at his birth, it could hardly be said that this assertion in his will is based on James’ firsthand observation, and not just a story told to James presumably by his mother, perhaps on her death bed.  Since The First Duke was fantastically wealthy, this parentage, if true, could explain a possible source where James Smithson would acquire sufficient assets to fund an Institution. But if true, then it is strange that The First Duke never acknowledged James Smithson as his son, since he did acknowledge two daughters who were born of his acknowledged mistress, Margaret Marion.[xxxii] Nor did The First Duke acknowledge that he was the father of Henry Louis Dickenson, the second child of Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie. He never acknowledged that Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie was a paramour. A connection between James Smithson and his (perhaps) full brother Henry and The First Duke could explain how Henry Louis Dickenson’s son, Henry James Dickenson (sometimes Hungerford, sometimes Baron Henri (Eunice?) de la Batut)[xxxiii], would be the primary residuary beneficiary in the will of James Smithson and heir to a great fortune presumably of Smithson/Percy origin.

The First Duke of Northumberland was a man of learning and a patron of the arts.[xxxiv] Yet it does not seem that the idea to fund an institution in America for learning or the arts could have come from him. Although he was somewhat of a free thinker when it came to the American Colonies[xxxv], he showed no special affinity for the young country. Having died a short time after the British defeat in the American Revolution, his life was far removed from the more widespread sympathy for America that developed in Britain after the War of 1812.[xxxvi] James Smithson’s money may have been Smithson/Percy money, his blood may have been Smithson blood, but the concept of the Smithsonian Institution at Washington, in America, did not likely emanate from Hugh Smithson, later Hugh Percy, The First Duke of Northumberland.

Hugh Percy, born Hugh Smithson, The Second Duke of Northumberland (1742-1817)

Like his father, The Second Duke of Northumberland was born Hugh Smithson. In 1750, several years after the First Duke married Elizabeth Seymour, the elder Hugh Smithson took her family name, Percy, as his own. At that time, both he and his young son from Seymour became Hugh Percy. Hugh Percy, the younger, was heir to the great Percy wealth and the title of Duke of Northumberland.[xxxvii] As a young man, he was known to have lived a wild life.[xxxviii] He became a British Officer who fought against the French in the Seven Years War and despite possible reservations concerning British policies he was sent to the American Colonies in 1774 as a General in the British army.[xxxix] It was there that he participated in the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Long Island. He was peculiarly absent from the Battle of Bunker Hill and arrived at the Battle of Brooklyn just after that battle ended.[xl] He left America in 1777 supposedly due to a disagreement with General Howe.[xli] Having been married in 1764 he divorced his first wife in 1779, with whom he was childless, claiming her adultery.[xlii] He immediately married again and had five children of this marriage survive to adulthood, including his oldest son who was to become the Third Duke of Northumberland, and a younger son who ultimately became the Fourth Duke of Northumberland. Yet, were it not for his half-brother, James Smithson, there would be no need for this family story to be retold here.[xliii]

The Second Duke of Northumberland is one connection between James Smithson and the United States of America. Both before and after his participation in the American Revolution, Hugh Percy, the younger, later the Second Duke of Northumberland, demonstrated occasional respect for the rebels across the ocean.[xliv] There were continuous hostilities between Britain and America after the American Revolution[xlv], but the Second Duke of Northumberland was never one to push for more war. When the War of 1812 broke out, probably over misunderstandings of intentions[xlvi], The Second Duke was an older man. Although presumably loyal to the crown and of such great wealth that his opinion mattered, there is no indication that he supported any continued hostilities against the former British colonies.

Slave Bill, later Bill Richmond, nicknamed The Black Terror (1763?-1829)

General Hugh Percy returned to England from the war within America in 1777 with a slave named Bill who was reported to be about thirteen years old. Any facts about the young life of Slave Bill in America were probably construed as none were known with any certainty. It has been written that he was born a slave to a minister in Staten Island (also known as Richmond NY).[xlvii] It has been written that he was a shipyard laborer originally from Richmond Virginia.[xlviii] It has been written that he was born a slave to a preacher in Georgia.[xlix] There is reliable evidence that he was a very jovial lad in America but, when prodded, could beat up multiple men at one time.[l] This report leads one to question his age as only thirteen when he left America in 1777. While much of the literature indicates that in England the Second Duke kept him as a servant, this is probably untrue. Once in England, the Second Duke of Northumberland saw to it that he was educated and taught the trade of a cabinet maker.[li] Formerly Slave Bill, now Bill Richmond, he lived as a respected black man in England, a life which apparently included an occasional pummeling of those who showed offense at his existence.[lii] Although the sport of boxing was gaining popularity in England, there is no evidence that Bill Richmond was a boxer as a young man and did not become one until he was encouraged to do so by wealthy friends. His first known fight was in 1791 and he is not known to have professionally fought again until 1798.[liii] In fact, boxing was illegal in England. Bill Richmond was quite old for a boxer when he took up boxing and yet had great success as “The Black Terror”.  There is general agreement that he may have become boxing champion of England if he had started boxing earlier.


Bill Richmond’s great contribution to boxing was that he changed the sport from a purely offensive sport to a thinking sport[liv]…hence it has become known as “the sweet science”. He ran a boxing school for many years which catered to students of all classes, from the nobility of Lord Byron to former slaves, one of whom famously fought for the championship of England.[lv] When authorities finally began cracking down on the brutal sport, Bill Richmond bought a well attended pub in the heart of London and lived the good life of a former sporting legend. There is little dispute that he was a beloved great fun smart guy.[lvi]


The presence of Bill Richmond and other successful former slaves helped turn the discussion of slavery from an intellectual pursuit into an immutable truth. Anyone who came in contact with Bill Richmond had to have learned the obvious; that no man was born to be the slave of another. His life well lived must have contributed to the change of thought in England and the ultimate end of the Slave Trade and slavery itself. That the wealthy and powerful Second Duke of Northumberland treated Bill Richmond much like a family member  must have impacted positively on his sons,  the Third Duke of Northumberland(1785-1847) and his brother, the Fourth Duke of Northumberland (1792-1865). I submit that their well-documented abhorrence to the institution of slavery would play a role in the disposition of the money that would fund the Smithsonian Institution.

Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828) and Dolley Madison (1768-1849)

There is an interesting connection between the Second Duke of Northumberland and the United States of America in the person of the great portraitist, Gilbert Stuart. Although born in Rhodes Island, Gilbert Stuart moved to England before the American Revolution presumably to avoid the growing troubles.[lvii] Having studied in England under America’s first great expatriate painter, Benjamin West, Gilbert Stuart had some early success. Yet, due more to his lack of discipline or business sense rather than ability, his success quickly turned to dire financial straits.[lviii] The Second Duke of Northumberland, and a few of his friends showed up at Gilbert Stuart’s studio one day in 1785 to help him out of his troubles. When Gilbert Stuart refused their offer of a bailout, these English gentlemen suggested that they sit for portraits, to be paid in advance. These portraits solved Stuart’s immediate financial problems. These men also connected Stuart with the cream of British society whose portraits he painted and for which he was paid handsomely.[lix] The Second Duke of Northumberland had two portraits done by Stuart in 1785 and remained a steadfast patron and possible friend of the artist, housing him for a while at the Duke’s magnificent country house outside London.[lx] In 1787, The Second Duke also commissioned Stuart to paint his children in a family portrait depicting his future heir at age two being fawned over by his three older sisters.[lxi] It has been noted that the face of the young Lord Percy is not well defined and too similar to the faces of the other young children. While this has been attributed to a possible lack of interest on the part of Gilbert Stuart in painting a child’s face[lxii], perhaps Stuart had something more existential in mind. To a portraitist, the face is the key to the soul. Just as you must make your own name for yourself, so too must you grow into your own face. Stuart would not develop the features of the young Lord…that was something that the young Lord would have to do for himself. Presumably this great work hung in a place where it continually reminded young Lord Percy to make something of himself or be a faceless nobleman resigned to the back pages of history. Shortly after he painted this masterwork, Gilbert Stuart left for Ireland and ultimately went back to America, where he became the foremost portraitist of America’s founding families.

There were few Americans of any note who did not sit for Gilbert Stuart after he returned to America in 1793. Among the many others, he painted James Madison and Dolley Madison in separate portraits in 1804.[lxiii] Most famously, Gilbert Stuart painted several series of many paintings of George Washington based on sittings beginning in 1795. The Lansdowne Portrait, or perhaps a Stuart copy of the original, was hanging in the White House during the term of James Madison and the War of 1812. The Godmother of American art and historical preservation, Dolley Madison, knew just what it was and who it was by when she famously saved it from destruction in 1814.[lxiv]  The British attacked and burned all the major buildings in Washington D.C., including the White House, apparently without any tactical reason for the attack. The portrait of George Washington was saved…but like the then current President and his heroic wife, after the War of 1812, it too was essentially homeless until Washington D.C. could be rebuilt.

Meanwhile, in England, The War of 1812 was not universally supported. By 1815, while the British were prideful in their military prowess in having defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, they were also weary of war in general, having been in a continuous state of war on various fronts for as long as most in Britain could remember.[lxv] The War of 1812 seemed to have little clear purpose on either side, apparently resulting from a mutual mass of confusing intentions.[lxvi] Although Washington D.C. was the new capital of the young country, it was not considered a valuable military target. Even in Britain, many thought that the burning of Washington was a vulgar act.[lxvii] With the end of hostilities in America and Europe in 1815, both continents entered a period of relative quiet.[lxviii] This time of peace opened trade routes blocked by war[lxix] and led to a period of relative prosperity. By 1817, Britain and America were at peace, Dolley Madison was revered, Washington D.C. was being rebuilt, and America still did not have a suitable place to safely store its treasures. Many of Gilbert Stuart’s portraits were naturally dispersed throughout the country in the homes of their patrons.  None of this could have been lost on the Second Duke of Northumberland, or on his heir, the Third Duke of Northumberland, Lord Hugh Percy, who succeeded to the title and great wealth upon his father’s death in 1817.

Henry Louis Dickenson (1771-1820)

Like his father, I mean his brother[lxx], Henry Louis Dickenson had a career in the military. As a young man, his exploits on behalf of the British military took him to many parts of the world.[lxxi]  Like James Smithson, he spent most of his later life in Paris where he fathered a son by his long time paramour.[lxxii] The best evidence shows that he lived comfortably but he was not a man of great wealth. When he died he entrusted James Smithson with his modest estate and directed that the money be used to care for his son. It is understood that James Smithson fulfilled this obligation and also, from time to time, provided for the boy’s mother, who went on to marry and have other children. There is speculation that it was the estate of Henry Louis Dickenson that provided the bulk of funds that became the vast estate of James Smithson[lxxiii], but this speculation is without proof and is specifically discounted in the last paragraph of the James Smithson will. In any event, even if it were true, it could only be that Henry would have acquired any such substantial wealth from the very same sources as those mentioned in this inquiry. The only difference might have been that if James Smithson died before Henry Dickenson, the Smithsonian might have been called the Dickensonian, although more likely, it would not exist.

Henry James Dickenson sometimes Henry James Hungerford, sometimes Baron Henri, or Enrico (maybe Eunice) de la Batut (1808-1835)

Under the commonly accepted scenario, the son born to Henry Louis Dickenson, and given the name Henry James Dickenson, was a direct male blood descendant of Hugh Smithson, later Percy, The First Duke of Northumberland. Henry James Dickenson was a boy when his father died and was provided for by James Smithson in accordance with the will and estate of his father, Henry Louis Dickenson. Henry James Dickenson was approaching the age of majority in 1826 when James Smithson wrote his will. Perhaps there was already a sense that he might not procreate.[lxxiv] He was a young adult when James Smithson died, having taken the name of Henry James Hungerford for a short time perhaps in deference to the wishes of his uncle who was providing for him and naming him as his heir. After Smithson’s death, Henry James Hungerford rejected the Hungerford name and the Dickenson name and took the last name of the man to whom his mother had married. After all, Dickenson probably identified himself as French, not British, since he had lived in Paris during his young life. As an adult he travelled under the glorified name of Baron Henri de la Batut, and in Italy was known as Baron Enrico de la Batut, perhaps (but maybe not) later mistranscribed as Baron Eunice de la Batut.[lxxv] Although apparently of a sickly nature, he lived large from the interest he was receiving from his father’s estate and the estate of James Smithson.[lxxvi] All he needed was a child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, for his family to acquire the great wealth found to be in the James Smithson estate. It was not to be. He died in 1835 without issue, and the money went to the alternative residuary beneficiary in the will of James Smithson, the united states of America.



Hugh Percy, The Third Duke of Northumberland (1785-1847)

So what happened to that adorable two year old child painted by Gilbert Stuart in 1787 in his portrait of the children of the Second Duke of Northumberland? With all those adoring sisters and all that money you could have guessed that he would become a spoiled selfish obnoxious British gentleman. You would have guessed wrong. By all accounts the Third Duke of Northumberland was kind and generous. His obituary was to say “…In the administration of his large income, his Grace was generous without ostentation, and the extent of his liberality was commensurate with the ample means at his disposal. In his domestic and social relations he was truly beloved, and nothing appeared to afford him greater happiness than his being the cause of happiness in others.”[lxxvii] Although he was not known to be politically active, as a young Member of Parliament in 1807 Hugh Percy aggressively pushed for a measure that would ban slavery in any British colony, a measure that went to defeat.[lxxviii] The anti-slavery faction in Parliament did succeed in a lesser but important goal of passing the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which largely banned the trading of slaves in the British Empire.[lxxix] In 1825, after he inherited the title of The Third Duke of Northumberland, he was named the British envoy for the coronation of the new French King, Charles X. He paid for the elaborate trip with his own funds despite not being required to do so. By all accounts he strengthened the new peace that existed between England and France.[lxxx] In 1829, he spent a year in the difficult position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at a time when the issue of Catholic Emancipation and other rights was hotly debated. Although Tory by nature, he was quiet on most issues and did not appear to be an obstacle to the reforms of the age.[lxxxi] Where his father was known to be prickly and domineering, it seems that, at least after his father died, the Third Duke of Northumberland was considered competent and fair-minded.[lxxxii]

The Coronation of King Charles X took place in France in the spring of 1825. The Third Duke of Northumberland arrived in Paris several months early and enjoyed the company of French High Society. He lavishly spent his money.[lxxxiii] In 1825, James Smithson lived in Paris, as did his nephew Henry James Dickenson. There is no known record of a meeting between The Third Duke and Smithson or Dickenson. Neither is there any evidence of animosity between them.[lxxxiv] It was shortly thereafter that Smithson left Paris for England and wrote the will which contained the first mention of the wealth that would ultimately pass to become the Smithsonian Institution. Given the nature of the Third Duke as a quiet conciliator who freely spent his money to achieve his goals, and Smithson’s first reference to apparent new found wealth, I suggest that the most logical explanation of the known facts is that in 1825 in Paris there was an important meeting between the Third Duke and James Smithson.[lxxxv]

There would have been much to discuss. James Smithson was a scientist with a known passion for mineralogy and was friendly with many leading botanists.[lxxxvi] The Third Duke’s wife also had a known passion for botany[lxxxvii], and her mother was a respected mineralogist, an interest she was known to have shared with her children. Both James Smithson and Henrietta Clive, the Countess of Powis, had massive collections of minerals from around the world.[lxxxviii] There appears to have been a shared interest in archeology and art. If such a meeting occurred there would no doubt be a discussion of science and family and money. Smithson would have been especially concerned to provide for Henry James Dickenson, which would likely have been quite agreeable to the Third Duke. Although Henry James Dickenson was not eligible to inherit the title of Duke of Northumberland, his blood was Smithson blood.  In 1825, the Third Duke was childless, as was his brother, Algernon Percy. Unfortunately for the Third Duke, since both he and his brother did not have legitimate sons, upon his death and the death of his brother, the title and the great Percy wealth would go to his cousins, the legitimate male heirs of the brother of the Second Duke. This side of the family apparently did not share many of the worldly views of the Third Duke and his family.[lxxxix]  There is ample evidence that the families did not get on well.[xc] This could be a reason why the Third Duke was happily spending so much of his money. Why retain assets which will eventually go to an unloved cousin when the money could be put to a better use? Passing a large amount of money to a Smithson blood heir through the eventual Estate of James Smithson would be a clever way for the Third Duke to honor his family without being accused of wasting the estate of his cousin. But there was a problem. If Henry James Dickenson was given the money outright and died without children, all that money would likely end up in Dickenson’s heirs. This could ultimately be Dickenson’s mother, now known as Mary Ann de la Batut as a result of her recent marriage, or her family. It is unlikely that the Third Duke or even James Smithson would countenance that, so some acceptable alternate beneficiary had to be devised.

Here the commonly accepted story is that James Smithson was a man of science who was going to leave his wealth to the British scientific community by naming the Royal Society of England as his alternate beneficiary. It is thought that at some point Smithson was offended by that organization which caused him to change his alternate beneficiary to the United States, even though he had little connection to that new country.[xci] The problem with this theory is that until 1825, there is no evidence that James Smithson had any great wealth. Nor is there real evidence of a dispute between Smithson and the British scientific community. Nor is there any evidence of a prior will. The more logical scenario is that there was a grand agreement between James Smithson and The Third Duke of Northumberland regarding the Smithson estate. The naming of the united states as alternate beneficiary was not an act against the Royal Society. It was not the act of an insane person, as some thought Smithson must be. It was not an act of revenge against the British or French aristocracy. It was an act of reconciliation between the Third Duke of Northumberland and the United States of America. Under this agreement, the estate of James Smithson was to be funded not with the money of James Smithson, which was limited if by then it existed at all[xcii], but with the real Percy/ Smithson money, provided that Smithson name the united states as the alternate beneficiary. Here we recall The Second Duke’s respect for the former colony of America and his possible reassessment of his actions in fighting on the wrong side in the American Revolution. Perhaps The Third Duke was compensating for Britain’s needless confrontations with the former colony and especially the senseless burning of Washington in the War of 1812. Most notably, America still had no safe place to hang those wonderful portraits that Gilbert Stuart painted of all the great Americans. Remember, after the White House burned down, the Lansdowne portrait of George Washington was essentially homeless, and the Stuart paintings of its heroine, Dolley Madison[xciii], and her husband James, as well as numerous others were barely accounted for. The Third Duke’s paintings by Gilbert Stuart were safe in his Norman castle and in his home outside London where they could be enjoyed by the Third Duke and be a source of inspiration to him. Perhaps America needed a Norman castle of its own to house its great treasures. And what James Smithson was to receive from this grand agreement is obvious to us now.  A name that will live forever.[xciv] Yes, with the naming of the great institution of knowledge, Smithson won the name game.


The Money

It is unlikely that James Smithson saw much of the Percy/Smithson money in his lifetime. I suggest that The Third Duke was too clever to hand over major assets to an inveterate gambler. It is likely that as part of the bargain Smithson received enough to live well and by all accounts that is what he did. That good life included travel to Italy, where he died in 1829 with a receipt for the will in his pocket. We know that Henry James Hungerford never saw the real money. Upon learning of the Smithson bequest to him, he went to London to claim his interest in the interest, and went on his truly merry way. Since “the money” was in a trust controlled by bankers, we do not really know what would have happened if an heir to Henry James Hungerford was born and showed up to receive it. Maybe it would have been there, maybe not.

John Singleton Copley(1738-1815); John Singleton Copley, Jr., later Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863); Henry Brougham later Baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868); the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (founded 1825); Nassau William Senior(1790-1864);  Richard Rush(1780-1859)

I bequeath the whole of my property of every nature & kind soever to my bankers, Messrs. Drummonds of Charing Cross, in trust, to be disposed of in the following manner, and I desire of my said Executors to put my property under the management of the Court of Chancery.


                                                                                                Will of James Smithson


Reading the will of James Smithson, it is easy to gloss over the seemingly meaningless language and focus on the presumed intent of the bequest.  But the Chancery Court of England was an exacting place, and its results were never certain.[xcv] In the Smithson will there are actually several conflicting beneficiaries and fiduciaries. As a result of its imperfections, the bankers, the unnamed “Executors”, The Court of Chancery, the High Chancellor, the King of England and any proven residuary beneficiaries could all claim some right to determine the disposition of the assets. The Court of Chancery was the forum to resolve such conflicts and the High Chancellor was the head of the Court of Chancery. At relevant times in this saga, from 1825 to 1837, the High Chancellor of the Court of Chancery was either Baron Henry Brougham, a virulent opponent of slavery[xcvi], or Lord Lyndhurst, a/k/a John Singleton Copley, Jr., son of the expatriate American painter.[xcvii] The Master of Chancery who presided over the case was Nassau William Senior.[xcviii] I submit that either of these High Chancellors or the presiding judge could have stymied the attempt of the United States to acquire the “Smithson” funds. To the contrary, they each had a personal stake to see that the Smithsonian Institution was to be formed as a place for the diffusion of knowledge.


Henry Brougham was a British lawyer and scientist who was a founding member of both the Anti-Slavery Society in 1823[xcix] and the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge in 1825.[c] The Anti-Slavery Society was given great credit for the enforcement of the end of the British involvement in the slave trade, as well as the ultimate legislation which banned slavery in all British Colonies in 1832.[ci] The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was part of an educational reform movement which provided guidance for the education of the common masses who could not afford the expensive British educational system.[cii]  That the abolition of slavery and the push for education through the diffusion of knowledge were linked was no accident as it became understood among many in Britain that the institution of slavery could only be abolished by knowledge and reason.[ciii] Nassau William Senior, a lawyer and leading economist of the era who presided over the case of the Smithson will, would give lectures at Oxford about the unproductive nature of slavery as a means of creating wealth.[civ] Senior was a friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, the liberal French analyst who was later to be famous for his incredible perceptions into the beauty and problems with the American form of government. Senior went on to write perhaps the most scathing anti-slavery treatise ever published.[cv] This plan of attack on slavery through education, while already successful in England, was not well developed in America in the 1820’s and 1830’s probably due to the fact that the American economy was much more dependent on slave labor than most other nations. Perhaps that was exactly the reason why men and women who were anti-slavery needed to provide for the diffusion of knowledge to the American continent.


It was equally true that in the 1820’s and 1830’s America did not have a single museum or other institution where its citizens and budding artists could view or learn about the great art of the world. There was a sense that any American with an inclination towards art had to travel to Europe or be stifled in their art education.[cvi] During the American Revolution, American born artists John Singleton Copley, Gilbert Stuart, and John Trumbull all worked at or about the London studio of the great American expatriate artist, Benjamin West, who had found favor with the King of England. While Stuart and Trumbull eventually made their way back to America and great success, Copley, who did not like to travel[cvii], never returned to his Boston home and raised his family as British subjects in London. Copley expressed a significant distress about having had to leave America to further his career as an artist.[cviii] Copley’s view of America could not have been lost on his son, who dabbled poorly in the arts but found his calling as a great litigator in the British courts. He first rose to the position of High Chancellor in 1827 and he and Lord Brougham alternated in that position for the next several years.[cix] It seems clear that all the problems with the wording in Smithson’s will were not going to stop Copley, Jr., now Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham or Nassau William Senior from sending the pile of money over to America to fund the diffusion of knowledge. I suggest that the money was released to the United States because that is where several important men wanted the money to go. Although the litigation over Smithson’s will took several years, many were impressed by just how quickly the British courts reached the surprising positive result.[cx] The gift of these men to America was a great strategy…science, art, knowledge; welcome America to the modern world.


What assurance was there to guarantee that the Americans would do right by the money? Really none.[cxi] But the presence of just the right agent in England litigating to acquire the money on behalf of the United States had to suffice. Richard Rush had numerous credentials that must have impressed those that were deciding on the fate of the money.  An attorney and diplomat living in Washington D.C., Rush demonstrated the desire to increase and diffuse knowledge through his work as an early member of the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences. That society noted the importance that such an institution must exist at the seat of power to be influential among the powerful.[cxii] As with many great men perhaps his best credential was his father, Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who really believed that all men were created equal and fervently fought for the abolition of slavery at the earliest inception of the new country.[cxiii]  It is generally acknowledged that were it not for the presence of Richard Rush at the litigant’s table, it is unlikely that the United States would have been successful in its attempt to acquire the Smithson bequest.



The will of James Smithson is an intriguing document. Despite its great importance, it was clearly not written by a skilled professional. It recites a questionable family history which does not serve a legal purpose. It contains words that have legal connotations which make no sense in the context of the document. Were it not for some guiding hand the document could easily have been declared void and the money, if it really existed, could have gone wherever the court ruled.  I submit that the money went exactly where it was supposed to go, presumably under the watchful eye of the Third Duke of Northumberland. For all of its flaws, I believe that in its naiveté the will of James Smithson conveys its greater truth. It gives insight to what James Smithson and perhaps the Third Duke of Northumberland were thinking in 1825. It is about family ties and blood and titles. It is about legitimacy and illegitimacy. It is about England and France and the united states. To any who doubt this analysis I ask why the will contains the words…”at Washington”. Why not New York, the bustling head of commerce of the young nation which stayed fairly loyal to Britain during the revolution and remained a great trading partner? Or perhaps Philadelphia, if the point was to honor the great intellectual and scientific center of the new world.[cxiv] I submit that the words “at Washington” were not James Smithson’s words; they were words dictated by The Third Duke of Northumberland to satisfy his personal aims. After the War of 1812, much thought was given to remove the Capital of the United States to another place.[cxv] But it was Washington which the British needlessly burned to the ground in 1814. It was Washington where Dolley Madison saved the Gilbert Stuart portrait. Frankly it was Washington, the man, who himself who was the subject of the portrait that was saved, a portrait which now symbolically represented the treasures of the new country. The institution of slavery, while abhorred in most of the world, still existed and was acceptable in Washington.[cxvi] Perhaps a contrary institution of knowledge was needed there. An institution of knowledge that could speak truth to the political power of the young country. After all, it was the British who first brought slaves to the new world and grew wealthy off their toil. If the goal of The Third Duke was reconciliation and the advancement of civilization, then Washington is where the Smithsonian Institution had to be. The Third Duke of Northumberland was of Smithson blood as well, and it is not lost on me that he died in 1847, the year this new castle with his former family name was constructed at Washington. As Richard Rush was resolving the case of the probate of the will of James Smithson, he wrote a letter which indicated that his inquiries had led to the conclusion that the money was generated from “the ample provision made for him [James Smithson] by the Duke of Northumberland…”[cxvii] It was presumed this meant the First Duke which is where his cursory inquiry might have lead. As for me, I can imagine the Third Duke of Northumberland standing at the London Docks, perhaps with Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and Nassau William Senior, smiling as he watched the crates containing 105 sacks of gold being loaded onto an aptly named ship, The Mediator, thinking that this was a good start but there was much work to be done; a castle to build, knowledge to be diffused, and ignorance to be destroyed.


[i] For all facts relating to the life of James Smithson see Nina Burleigh, The Stranger and the Statesman, (New York: William Morrow, 2003) and Heather Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson: Science, Revolution, and the Birth of the Smithsonian, (New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007). These biographies of James Smithson are incredibly complete and fascinating. Ewing traipsed around Europe and America looking for and finding every imaginable piece of primary source information. Writers like me who write fluff like this are in great debt to workers like these, even as we take the liberty to reject some of their conclusions.

[ii] See William J. Rhees, James Smithson and His Bequest, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1880) 1.

[iii] The lack of capital letters in “united states” is taken from the hand drawn copy widely dispersed on the Smithsonian Institution website. It is also written without capitals on the officially copied document available at the national archives in London; website Whether either of these reflects the document drawn in Smithson’s own hand is subject to debate. See Smithsonian Institution Archives website

[iv] An early attempt to discern this history is located in Rhees, supra at 1-25.

[v] For a useful family tree that was invaluable to this work, see Ewing 350-353.

[vi] Ewing 22.

[vii] When Hugh Smithson took the Percy name, he agreed to pass it only to the children of Seymour. Ewing 22. It is unlikely that James would have been legally permitted to change his name to Percy, although illegitimate daughters of the First Duke were Philadelphia Percy and Dorothy Percy. Burleigh 76.

[viii] Burleigh 47-48

[ix] No known birth certificate exists. Ewing 33.

[x] King Louis XV was king of France from when he was a boy in 1715 to his death in 1774.

[xi] Ewing 33.

[xii] Ewing 278 Burleigh 146.

[xiii] Ewing 48-53.

[xiv] Burleigh 20.

[xv] See Burleigh 89.

[xvi] Burleigh 93-96.

[xvii] Ewing 343.

[xviii] Burleigh 152.

[xix] Burleigh suggests that Smithson was wealthy and receiving substantial regular income although it is unclear where the money might have come from. 153-154. There is a theory that Smithson curbed his gambling, a theory which is unconvincing to me. Burleigh 156.

[xx] Rhees, page 1, noted that information concerning the mother of James Smithson was quite limited. This was rectified by Burleigh and Ewing, from which much of this information was taken.

[xxi] Burleigh implies that the Smithsonian was funded with Hungerford money; Burleigh 64. For reasons herein, I disagree.

[xxii] Ewing 25.

[xxiii] Ewing 27

[xxiv] Ewing 24.

[xxv] Ewing 28 Burleigh 26.

[xxvi] Burleigh 63.

[xxvii] The Dickinson chapter of Elizabeth’s life is recounted in Ewing 35-43.

[xxviii] Burleigh 42.

[xxix] See Ewing 23.

[xxx] Burleigh 53. Ewing 51.

[xxxi] Smithsonian Institution website,

[xxxii] Ewing 45.

[xxxiii] Burleigh 191.

[xxxiv] The best that money could buy. See Burleigh 32-35. See also Rhees 51-54.

[xxxv] Ewing 82. See also Letters of Hugh Earl Percy from Boston and New York 1774-1776, Edited by Charles Knowles Bowlton (Boston: Charles E. Goodspeed 1900 D. B. Updike The Merrymount Press 1902) 16. Website:

[xxxvi] David Hanna, Knights of the Sea, (USA: NAL Caliber, 2012) 158. Jon Latimer, 1812 War With America(London England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge Mass; 2007) 156.

[xxxvii] Ewing 22, 118.

[xxxviii] Burleigh 109, 112. See also Stephen Conway, ‘Percy, Hugh, second duke of Northumberland (1742–1817)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2006. Website:

[xxxix] Carrie Rebora Barratt and Ellen G. Miles, Gilbert Stuart (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press, 2004) 68. See also History of Parliament, British Political, social and Local History; website: See also Letters of Hugh Earl Percy from Boston and New York 1774-1776 Edited by Charles Knowles Bowlton (Boston: Charles E. Goodspeed 1900 D. B. Updike The Merrymount Press 1902) 16.

[xl]Letters, supra. No. XXIX, 68.

[xli]Letters, supra. 79.

[xlii]See Stephen Conway, ‘Percy, Hugh, second duke of Northumberland (1742–1817)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2006 Website:

[xliii] See Rhees 54-56.

[xliv] Burleigh 111. In Rhees 56 it was noted that upon his return to England,”He was the first to suggest making peace with the colonists…” See also Letters, supra at 22.

[xlv] David Hanna, Knights of the Sea, (USA: NAL Caliber, 2012) 158. Jon Latimer, 1812 War With America (London England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge Mass; 2007) 5.

[xlvi] See Hanna 8, 124.

[xlvii] See T.J. Desch Obi, Black Terror: Bill Richmond’s Revolutionary Boxing, Journal of Sport History, Spring 2009 at 99. See also website:

[xlviii] See website:

[xlix] Bob Mee, Bare Fists, The History of Bare-Knuckle Prize-Fighting, (Woodstock and New York: The Overlook Press, 2001) 60. See also Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre, A Pictorial History of Boxing, (New York: The Citadel Press, 1959) 26-27.

[l] T. J. Desch Obi, at 100-101 refers to unruly Hessian soldiers. Mee, supra, refers to “three drunken English soldiers in a bar”. See also John Dizikes, Sportsmen & Gamesmen, and (University of Missouri Press 2002) 203.

[li] T. J. Desch Obi at 108.

[lii] T. J. Desch Obi at 108.

[liii] See James B. Roberts, Alexander G. Skutt, The Boxing Register, International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book, (Ithaca New York: McBooks Press Inc. 2006) website:

[liv] T.J. Desch Obi, Black Terror: Bill Richmond’s Revolutionary Boxing, Journal of Sport History, Spring 2009.

[lv] T.J. Desch Obi, at 110.

[lvi] There are several accounts of the life of Bill Richmond, each with varying facts. For one particularly interesting account see Kevin R. Smith, Black Genesis, A History of the Black Prizefighter 1760-1870. (Lincoln Nebraska: iUniverse Inc 2003) 12-26. website: See also John Dizikes, Sportsman & Gamesmen, supra.

[lvii] Charles Merrill Mount, Gilbert Stuart, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1964) 36.

[lviii] Mount 103-115.

[lix] Mount 116, and Carrie Rebora Barratt and Ellen G. Miles, Gilbert Stuart (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Yale University Press 2004) 28.

[lx] Barratt and Miles 28-30.

[lxi] Barratt and Miles 72, 73. The great art collection of the Second Duke of Northumberland was housed both in his country home called “Syon” and in his ancestral home, Alnwick Castle, which has recently gained notoriety as a prop in the Harry Potter movies. It is a real Norman Castle known to exist for nearly a millennium.  The Smithsonian Castle, which was built in 1847, in part to house the great art collection of America, bears some similarity in design. To my frustration, I have not been able to find any direct connection between the two, either in the Smithsonian Archives or in the available information regarding James Renwick, Jr., architect of the Smithsonian Castle.

[lxii] Barratt and Miles 72.

[lxiii] Barratt and Miles 257.

[lxiv] Andrew Tully, When We Burned the White House, (London: Anthony Gibbs and Phillips 1961) 135. But see Glenn Tucker, Poltroons and Patriots, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Marrill Company, Inc., 1954) 573.

[lxv] Latimer 389.

[lxvi] See Hanna 115-119, 165. See also Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812, A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989).

[lxvii] Tully, 212.

[lxviii] Tucker 667.

[lxix] See Hanna, 136, 155. Latimer 391.

[lxx] How much of this is history and how much is a story, as they say, based on real life? I am searching for a reasonable explanation of all things and cannot agree that the available evidence points to a conclusion that James Smithson and Henry Louis Dickenson were full brothers and sons of the First Duke of Northumberland. Why then, would the First Duke fail to acknowledge his sons the way he acknowledged the two daughters of his mistress, Margaret Marion? Why would he not publicly recognize Elizabeth Macie as a paramour if he were cavorting with her, at least on and off, for many years? Why are the family records relating to this period destroyed?(Ewing 32) It is my theory, with but flimsy proof, that Henry Louis Dickenson was the child of a liaison between Elizabeth Macie and The Second Duke of Northumberland which would make him both the half-brother(on his mother’s side) and half-nephew(on his father’s side) of James Smithson. He would still be in the direct male bloodline of Hugh Smithson, whether fathered by the First or Second Duke of Northumberland. In 1770 The First Duke was 56 years old, Elizabeth Macie Dickinson was 42 years old and The Second Duke was 28 years old and already a war veteran. A fourteen year difference either way. As we might now say, they were all adults and stranger things have happened. Perhaps families are entitled to keep their secrets, even families of great wealth who fund great museums. Ewing (page 349) refers to an engraved portrait of “The Duke of Northumberland” found among the items belonging to the son of Henry Louis Dickenson at the time of his death and eventually turned over to the Smithsonian. Interesting, but not dispositive, is the question of which Duke was pictured. I could footnote this footnote and note that the theory that James Smithson was the son of the First Duke of Northumberland is also based on somewhat flimsy proof, although much more logical in the context of events (See Burleigh 42-43). Maybe, just maybe, he too is also the son of the younger Duke, who was in his early twenties in 1865 and newly married to a woman he would eventually divorce (In this regard one should note Burleigh 81, where it is noted that there was quite a resemblance between Smithson and the Second Duke of Northumberland).  Since the same conundrum exists about the origin of the large estate of James Smithson whether he and/or Henry Louis Dickenson was fathered by the First or Second Duke of Northumberland, the mention of this theory is but a distraction best left in this footnote that perhaps nobody will read.

[lxxi] Rhees 1.

[lxxii] Henry Louis Dickenson never married the mother of his son. He travelled quite a bit. It might be interesting to explore the possible ramifications of this putative son not being his natural son, but I have done more than enough of that for one essay.

[lxxiii] Rhees 1.

[lxxiv] Burleigh 192.

[lxxv] Ewing 316(see footnote 2 therein). See also Burleigh 9. See also Rhees 23-24.

[lxxvi] Ewing 316. Burleigh 191-192.

[lxxvii] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Volume 181, by John Nichols 421. People tend to say nice things about you in your obituary but other evidence indicates that in this case this assessment appears to be accurate.

[lxxviii] See The History of Parliament, British Political, Social & Local History.

[lxxix]See 1807 Commemorated, The Abolition of the Slave Trade. Institute for the Public Understanding of the Past
and the Institute of Historical Research, 2007. Website:

[lxxx] Ewing 296.

[lxxxi] The Gentleman’s Magazine, supra.

[lxxxii] The History of Parliament, supra.

[lxxxiii] Ewing 296.

[lxxxiv] Smithson remained close to Margaret Marriott who was an accepted member of the Percy household until her death in 1827. Ewing 149-150.

[lxxxv] We all have our theories. Burleigh suggests that before he died the First Duke may have “handed to young Macie or his mother various untraceable but redeemable bank bonds and annuities.” Burleigh 77. 

[lxxxvi] Ewing 135, 138.

[lxxxvii] The Clivia (Clivia nobilis) was named in honor of Lady Charlotte Florentia Clive, Duchess of Northumberland.

[lxxxviii] As to Smithson, Ewing 268. As to Lady Henrietta Clive, See The National Museum of Wales, Rhagor, explore our collections; The Fabulous Mineral Collection of Lady Henrietta Antonia Clive, Countess of Powis.  Website:

[lxxxix] As Lord Lorraine, a cousin edited a book entitled Speeches in Parliament (Bosworth and Harrison, London 1860) made by his father-in-law, Henry Drummond, Esq. These were religious zealots who may not have appreciated the more worldly lives of the Third or Second Dukes of Northumberland, or those of their family.

[xc] The History of Parliament, supra website:

[xci] The unlikehood of this theory is explored in Burleigh 17.

[xcii] I cannot rule out that the Third Duke bailed out James Smithson, who probably went through what little he had, much in the same way his father bailed out Gilbert Stuart.

[xciii]Dolley Madison was a slaveholder who notoriously did not provide for manumission of her slaves upon her death. I choose to comment little on this other than to note that some issues seem to appear to be more complicated to those involved in them as opposed to those separated by oceans or centuries… Others clearly knew better.

[xciv] A famous though questionable quote of James Smithson is “The best blood of England flows in my veins; on my father’s side I am a Northumberland, on my mother’s I am related to kings, but this avails me not. My name shall live in the memory of man when the titles of the Northumberland and the Percys are extinct and forgotten.” See Rhees 2 and Ewing 8, footnote 10.


[xcv] See Webster Prentiss True, The Smithsonian Institution, located on the website of the History of Science and Technology at the University of Wisconsin Digital Collection; website:  229-234.

[xcvi] See Encyclopaedia Britannica website:

[xcvii] The Late John Lord Campbell(Ed. by Mary Scarlett Campbell) Lives of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham, (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1869) website:

[xcviii] William Jones Rhees, James Smithson and His Bequest, (Smithsonian Institution, Washington 1880) 28. Rhees incorrectly refers to this eminent economist as Nassau William, Sen. His last name was Senior.

[xcix]Encyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolitionedited by Peter P. Hinks, John R. McKivigan, R. Owen Williams (Greenwood Press: Westport Connecticut, 2007) 127-129. website:

[c] Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, contribution by Rosemary Ashton. Website:

[ci] Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, contribution by Catherine Hall. Website:

[cii] See Ashton, ODNB, supra.

[ciii] See Hall, ODNB, supra.

[civ] See Nassau William Senior, Three Lectures on the Rate of Wages (Albemarle-Street London: John Murray 1830). Website:

[cv] Nassau William Senior, American Slavery (Longman, Brown Green, Longmans & Roberts, London: 1856). Website:

[cvi] See Paul Staiti, Accounting For Copley, a chapter in John Singleton Copley in America by Carrie Rebora and Paul Staiti, Erica E. Hirshler, Theodore E. Stebbins Jr., Carol Troyen (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1995). See also Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley In America 1738-1774 (Harvard University Press Cambridge Massachusetts 1966) at 17.

[cvii] Richard Klayman, America Abandoned (University Press of America, Lanham, New York London, 1983) 2.

[cviii] Klayman, supra, 3, 61.

[cix] Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley In England 1774-1815 (Harvard University Press Cambridge Massachusetts 1966) 383.

[cx] True, supra, 233-234.

[cxi] Any study of the legislative history of the Smithsonian Institution demonstrates that it was a wonder that it ever was built, let alone that it would become successful in its mission.

[cxii] Richard Rathbun, The Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences (Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 101, Washington 1917) 7, 20.

[cxiii] David Freeman Hawke, Benjamin Rush, Revolutionary Gadfly (Indianapolis & New York: The Bobs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971) 104-105.

[cxiv] A similar point was made by Burleigh at 213.

[cxv] Tully 203-209.

[cxvi] Latimer 316

[cxvii] Burleigh 200.

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”

[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).