Dissertation Synopsis
The Great American Architectural Experiment
The United States Capitol Building : 1792 - 1868
Daniel Frydman

---

Introduction

The dissertation subject matter is the United States Capitol Building, located in Washington DC. The building has had a chequered history involving construction taking place over thirty years to reach completion and then only a short period of use before heavy modification and expansion.

This piece of study will cover the history of the design and construction of the Capitol and will pay particular attention at the political influences involved in the architectural expression of the great American experiment: Democracy.

Many volumes have been written on the history of the design of the Capitol, but few touch on the political side of the building. It has housed many important political events, though there is very little written about what the designers were trying to achieve with the architecture of the Capitol. It is easy to put together a history of construction, since that is so well documented, but the issues of style and representation are barely mentioned by most scholars.

The question of what the Capitol represents is at first glance a strange and simplistic question to ask, but it is very important if we are to understand the intentions of the designers and their clients. The clients in this case are the presidents and leading politicians of a brand new state. Therefore, any examination of the building requires a knowledge of the American political system.

An important starting point for the study will be to look at the basic premises of the new state, which will then help to establish the issues of democracy, liberty and 'due process' that lie at the heart of American government.

Within the study, there will be references to the sources of the design, in particular the notions of Roman architecture at the time of construction. Republicanism was a key feature of early American politics and there would be an expectation for the government buildings to reflect this ideal. However, the 'First Capitol' is not immediately seen as a building that breaks architectural links with Britain and so questions arise about the difference between an American architecture and an English form of government.

The anti-English sentiment of Washington and Jefferson did not extend to a rejection of English architecture, but to an acceptance of the form devoid of its political connotations. By accepting the architecture of England, the architects of the time were able to draw from the richness of English Palladianism as a source for the new American state architecture.

Though many of the architects would insist on drawing on Ancient precedents for the formation of a Republican architecture, the real work was taken from the land they were seeking independence from.

To further examine the issue of representation it will be important to look at three individual periods of construction.

During this period we can trace the design and construction of William Thornton's Capitol. Thornton had no previous experience as an architect though he had been educated in Edinburgh around the time of Robert Adam. His interest in architecture was questionable up until his interest in the design competition for the US Capitol. His design, very Palladian in conception was to frame the way the building was built and extended throughout the period of study. Questions arise as to the influences on Thornton, who confessed to have spent only two weeks reading architectural treatises and books on architecture before preparing his design for the Capitol.

George Washington was impressed with Thornton's design even though it was by the hand of an amateur. Washington's faith in Thornton was seen to have been misplaced when later architects, trained in construction techniques, pointed out that Thonton's design was not going to be at all easy to build. The elevations went mostly unchanged from a second revised design by Thornton, but the plans were substantially reworked.

In 1803 an English-born professional architect, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, was asked by President Jefferson to take over the work at the US Capitol. Latrobe established himself on the job as a highly talented designer who was able to build much of the Thornton shell, but with changes to the plan. His many innovations in the interior drew more from true architectural practice than any stylistic concerns and he sought to design appropriate spaces for the function of government. Latrobe was freed from many of the restrictions found in the Thornton plan when the Capitol was burnt in 1814. This opportunity to change direction allowed Latrobe to explore the use of Greek models for democratic expression.

While most of the American Greek Revival is attributed to Robert Mills, [a draughtsman in Latrobe's office while he was working on the Capitol] Latrobe can be seen through his work on the Capitol as the originator of the American search for a purer Classicism. The US Supreme Court and the US Senate rooms both point to a fascination in the Greek style as suitable for government use, an important point in the development of American architecture and especially the impact the Capitol design was to have on the state capitols of the 1820s.

One interesting point to examine is a proposal by Latrobe for a Greek entrance on the Capitol's west front. His Propylea was not built, but it demonstrates the move away from the Roman Republicanism towards a more exact ideal of ancient democracy.

After Latrobe resigned from the Capitol project in 1817, Charles Bulfinch, an experienced American architect from Boston was given the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings and set to work to complete an amalgam of Latrobe and Thornton's work. His task was to pull together disparate architectural styles in the most important building in the United States, one which he did skilfully. Bulfinch's main contribution was the dome, which was a troublesome issue since 1793. The 1826 dome was significantly more Renaissance in style than either Ancient Roman or Greek, raising questions of direction for American architecture.

This was answered after the 1850 competition for the expansion of the Capitol. With the Union growing rapidly, it was increasingly obvious that the Capitol could no longer serve its function as the grand seat of government with the limited space offered. Most of the competition entries were of an Italian Renaissance character, with the winning entry by Thomas Walter very imperial in its magnificence.

There were no doubt many sources for Walter's design, from around Europe. The principle question that arises in regard to the expansion of the Capitol relates to the scale of the expansion and whether it can be seen as an expression of the growing American empire. If this is so, then Walter's extensions are the built forms of the political and economic growth of the nation.

In addition to the grand Congressional expansions, the new cast iron dome designed by Walter and engineered by Captain Montgomery Meigs, crowned the Capitol with an expression of the country's technical as well as political standing. The new dome changed the entire character of the Capitol building and made the whole a much more imposing composition. There is no doubt that Walter was seeking to express an American magnificence when he looked to the domes of St. Paul's, Le Pantheon and St. Peter's for his inspiration.

Finally, after assessing the historical influences of the Capitol and asking what the architects involved were trying to create, there is a need for a coherent discussion of the architectural expression of the politics in the Capitol. The representation of people and the function of government stand at the heart of the US Capitol. Without these there is no reason for its existence.

The concluding discussion will revolve around how these ideals are represented, both in the façade and the function of the building. There are two methods of expression: Republicanism and Imperialism. Both derive their strength from the underlying principle of democracy, yet they seek to express different ideas.

The mixture of these two styles produced a building of immense complexity and importance as the symbol for the government of a people devoted to democracy.