Monthly Archives: January 2014

Bust of Bill Richmond?

Bust of Bill Richmond?

by Jerry Leibowitz

(See also Bust of a Man…Alternate version at http://idiscoveredamerica.com/?p=149 and The Sequel…Bill Richmond Fights Back http://idiscoveredamerica.com/?p=292 )

“I’m not made of iron or steel or stone or gold or bronze or wood, I’m Just Your Man”…    Graham Parker

My inquiry into the sculpture known as Bust of a Man begins with some known facts. There are two similar sculptures known as Bust of a (Black) Man. One is unsigned in black limestone and is at the Yale Center for British Art. A lesser one, to my eye, is at the Getty Museum and is signed “Francis Harwood fecit.”, meaning “I did that!”. The latter appears to be in painted sandstone and dated 1758. The Yale Center assumes it has a copy of the Getty work, and assumes it to be a Harwood studio copy. I suggest otherwise.

I submit that the Bust of a Man at the YCBA may be a work of the great French sculptor, Jean-Antoine Houdon, and the sitter is possibly a former American slave who came to be known as Bill Richmond. At the time I believe it was created, between 1777 and 1781, Bill Richmond was in England without official papers or a legal identity. The Bust was catalogued as that of “Negerin“, a possibly derogatory term for a person, usually a woman, of African descent. The catalogued work is in gypsum and I suspect that the black limestone work at the YCBA was derived from it as was a method of operation for Houdon. It is noteworthy that two other significant works of the time which depict black males as subjects, John Singleton Copley’s Head of a (favorite) Negro and Watson and the Shark also have unnamed black subjects. Interestingly, it is quite possible that the person who came to be known as Bill Richmond was the sitter or model for these works as well (note the suspicious scar!), but I leave that astounding notion for further investigation and comment.

Francis Harwood was a British sculptor who worked in England and Italy from the mid 18th century to his death in 1783. He was quite adept at making copies of the great ancient sculptures of the world. For the most part, he did not make his works to deceive; rather he made his living fulfilling the wishes of patrons who wanted copies of the great classical sculptures for their private collection. Some of his work was signed, some was not. Some was created by his hand, some by his active studio in Florence which catered largely to British tourists on their Grand Tour. There are those who suggest that Harwood may have used his talent to dabble in fraud and forgery and believe that some works in major museums thought to be ancient are the product of his hand. His reputation was of a questionable character of the sort that might misdate his work for whatever economic reason he might have. Any assumption that he did the work located now at the Yale Center because he may have signed a similar work must be addressed in the context of the reality that there is scant evidence that he was that talented as an original artist. In a bit of circular logic, I suggest that the date on the Getty Bust must be wrong since Houdon could not have produced his original work before 1758 and Bill Richmond was not in England before 1777.

We begin with the assumption, supported in the literature, that the sitter was associated with the Northumberlands, one of the richest families in the world. An American slave of approximately twelve to fourteen years old who was to take the name “Bill Richmond” was brought to England around 1777 by Hugh Percy, a British Lord who later became the Second Duke of Northumberland. Lord Percy was a General in the British Army who participated in several of the early conflicts of the American War for Independence, including the Battles of Lexington and Concord. He quickly grew fed up with the war due to disagreements with his Commander. Lord Percy returned to England while the war was still in its early stages. The slave, of somewhat indeterminate age, impressed the General with his talents which included a quick wit and his ability to defend himself with his fists. It was not uncommon for British officers to return to England with former slaves who attached themselves to British units as a means of escaping from their horrors. In 1772, a high court judge in England had issued an opinion in the matter of Somersett’s Case, which held that since slavery was abhorrent to British law, a slave who finds a way to sacred English soil is free while on English soil. With the protections afforded by this precedential decision and those provided by the wealthy Northumberlands, the former slave was brought to London, where he lived among a circle the acquaintances of Lord Percy which  included several expatriate artists connected to Benjamin West, including Gilbert Stuart and John Singleton Copley. The former slave was sent by Lord Percy to the Percy ancestral home in Yorkshire where he became educated, and acquired the family  trade of a cabinet maker. At some point he returned to London where he seemingly took his place as a free British subject. Later in life, as Bill Richmond, he revolutionized the sport of boxing and once fought for the title of Champion of England, a title he likely would have won had he began his boxing career as a younger man. Before Bill Richmond, boxing was purely an offensive sport of brute force. Richmond, a welterweight by today’s standards, added a defensive aspect to the sport which enabled him to successfully defeat bigger and stronger foes. He is largely credited with turning the sport from one of brute force into “the sweet science”. Bill Richmond later became a boxing teacher, an instructor to both former slaves and English gentlemen such as Lord Byron. For a time he also owned perhaps the first sports bar in London where he would regale his customers with the stories only he could tell. There is little dispute that he was a beloved great fun smart guy.

I suspect that the YCBA sculpture was carved at the time the former slave was growing into his adult self, possibly 1781. The scar above the eye and the sitter’s physique speak to his past as a slave or fighter in America. In the latter part of the 18th century there were several sculptors who could produce such a masterwork and the Northumberlands were famous for their discerning eye and willingness to spend considerable money on their art. With the surrender of Cornwallis in 1781, Britain and France, while technically still at war over the American conflict, were able to resume a certain amount of trade. The great sculptors of France, most specifically Jean Antoine Houdon, were exploring the issue of slavery in their works. In 1781, Houdon carved a bust of a black woman, thought to be a study for the “attendant” in a fountain sculpture of a bather, of which only the head remains and is located at the Musee Municipale Ancienne Abbaye, Saint-Leger, Soissons. This sculpture was later used by Houdon in an allegory of slavery and freedom. As can be seen from the recast sculpture, now in the Musee Nissim de Camondo, Paris, this sculpture is the spiritual kin to the Bust of a Man at the YCBA and may well have been done by the same sculptor at approximately the same time. In his early catalogue of the works of Houdon, Charles Henry Hart lists a work called “Negerin” under the category of “Busts of Men”. To my knowledge, this work is unaccounted for and may be an early plaster version of the work later produced by Houdon or his studio in black limestone which is at the YCBA . If not Houdon, I can suggest other great artists who could have had a hand in creating the Bust at the YCBA.  Joseph Wilton and Joseph Nollekens, each did work for the Northumberlands; as did Antonio Canova whose early sublime busts were created during this period.  Interestingly, Nollekens held Francis Harwood in low esteem and both he and Houdon were plagued by copiers such as Harwood whose copies of their works, whether purposeful or not,  were attributed as original works. It is possible that Harwood signed his copies to placate the true artists. It is also possible that for economic purposes dates were added later and it is these dates which continue to confuse art historians and add uncertainty to the true nature of the works.

There is some thought that both the Getty and YCBA Bust of a Man are unfinished because they do not bear the identity of the sitter, which would have likely been carved into the base upon completion. But what name did the former slave who came to be known as Bill Richmond have in 1781? Official papers could not be issued on his behalf as the British government only issued papers to those slaves who fought as soldiers for the British Army and not to runaway youths who attached themselves to  the British in an unofficial capacity. In 1781, the victorious Americans who were all about freedom were demanding return of their “stolen property” including their former slaves. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 included a convoluted provision which many thought required the British officers to return their former slaves, at least those who did not serve as soldiers. As wealthy as the Northumberlands were, Lord Percy was politically and socially vulnerable because of his quick exit from the war theater. It would not look good for a British General to violate the terms of a treaty. This young former slave suddenly had a questionable status in England which did not include a real identity. That is exactly how the sculpture depicts him. As a slave child he had no official name in America. Once in England, no papers could be issued on his behalf. In reality, in 1781 he was a young adult without a name. In fact, it may have been his questionable status which had prompted the Northumberlands to move him from cosmopolitan London to rural Yorkshire where he could not easily be found and claimed by some former owner.

 

Upon the 1863 death of Algernon Percy, The Fourth Duke of Northumberland and younger son of the Second Duke, at least one of the two Busts was catalogued. The catalogue of the Fourth Duke’s property at Yorkshire, where Bill Richmond once lived, lists the sculpture as “A fine bust in black marble-W. Richmond the Pugilist-on Italian marble plinth”. The Getty thinks this is their Bust, but I find that questionable since there is no mention of Harwood, no date, and it is my understanding that the Getty Bust is not black marble but painted sandstone. I suggest that this more accurately describes the YCBA Bust! The existence of the 1865 catalogue strongly suggests that Algernon Percy thought the sitter to be Bill Richmond. As a teenager Algernon Percy undoubtedly knew Bill Richmond well and probably went to see him box as did many noblemen who were great fans of boxing (Put up your Dukes!). I suggest that this catalogue presents the best evidence of the identity of the sitter. The fact that the Bust turned up in Yorkshire where Bill Richmond was known to have lived in 1781 also speaks to him as its likely sitter. Upon the death of Algernon’s younger wife in 1911, a Bust in her possession was catalogued as “A carved Black Marble Bust of a Negro, 27 in. high, by F. Harwood, on circular marble plinth”. No date is given. Perhaps this is the Getty Bust. The YCBA Bust, if owned by the Northumberlands, would probably have left the Northumberlands hands after 1865, when the title of Duke of Northumberland fell into the hands of distant cousins, and much of their valuable art collection was sold. The “Houdon” Bust was largely unaccounted for until acquired by Paul Mellon and later the YCBA. The Dowager Duchess retained the Harwood Bust which has found its way into the Getty collection.

Bill Richmond spent his life making a great name for himself. He was born and lived his early life without one. Algernon Percy, a respected worldly man also known as “Algernon the Good” for his good works, apparently believed the bust to be that of the boxer Bill Richmond. But now, due to a date placed on a sculpture possibly by a suspected forger, the art community has taken Bill Richmond’s name away from the sculpture and ironically has left it as nameless as the young slave. They may be right that Bill Richmond was not the sitter. I have tried to read all available information on the subject and I remain unconvinced either way. To me, until proved otherwise, I think the sculpture at the YCBA should be titled as follows:

Bust possibly of W. Richmond the pugilist, as a youth circa 1778-1781. Artist unknown, possibly after Houdon’s “Negerin”. Disputed by 1758 date and signature of Francis Harwood on similar work.

To sum up, I believe that the Yale Center for British Art has a black limestone sculpture now entitled Bust of a Man, which possibly depicts a former American slave who came to be known as Bill Richmond. It may be derived from an original Bust by Jean-Antoine Houdon catalogued as “Negerin”. The original Bust was probably created in the late 1770′s or early 1780′s for the Second Duke of Northumberland, who freed the former slave and brought him to England. The Getty Art Museum has a copy of that sculpture in painted sandstone, incorrectly labeled as black stone, signed by the British sculptor, Francis Harwood bearing the date 1758 which appears suspect. The spiritual sisters of these sculptures are located at the Musee municipale Ancienne Abbaye, Saint-Leger, Soissons and the Musee Nissim de Camondo, in Paris. Further investigation should be undertaken to determine if they were created by the same hand.

 

 

Below: The Francis Harwood Bust of a Man at the Getty, The recast Houdon, the original Houdon and the YCBA Bust of a Man

gettyboamwomanhoudonrecasthousonwomanheadycbaboam

 

 

 

The Smithsonian Castle: An Allegory

The Smithsonian Castle: An Allegory

By Jerry Leibowitz

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

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

 

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

Graham Parker[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Brown at p. 8.

[8] Brown at p. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15] (9 Stat. 102)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dedicated To Art

DEDICATED TO ART

Why Jackie Kennedy Saved The Renwick

                                                                                                By Jerry Leibowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

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

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

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

[18] Warnecke, supra p. 43.

[19] Ibid

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

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