Between Justice and Beauty: Race, Planning, and the Failure of Urban Policy in Washington, D.C. 9780812205299

Citation preview

Between Justice and Beauty

Between Justice and Beauty Race, Planning, and the Failure of Urban Policy in Washington, D.C.

Howard Gillette, Jr.

PENN

University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia

For M y Native Washington Sons Ellery and Felix

Originally published 1995 by Johns Hopkins University Press Copyright 0 1995 Johns Hopkins University Press Paperback edition published 2006 by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-13: 978-0-8122-1958-6 ISBN-10: 0-8122-1958-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) Portions of Charpter 8 appeared in an earlier version as "A National Workshop for Urban Policy: The Metropolitanization of Washington, 1946-1968," Public Historian 7, 1 (1985): 7-27. Copyright 1985 Regents of the University of California, reprinted by permission. Frontispiece: Photo by Charles Hine, from Neglected Neighbors, reproduced in Scott Nearing, Poverty and Riches (1916).

Contents

List of Illustrations vii Preface and Acknowledgements ix I. LOCUS OF THE NEW REPUBLIC 1. City

of Failed Intentions 5 2. The Specter of Race 27

11. SEAT OF AMERICAN EMPIRE

3. Reconstruction: Social and Physical 49 4. Making a Greater Washington 69 5. The New Washington: City Beautiful 88 6. Reform: Social and Aesthetic 109 111. THE CITY A N D THE MODERN STATE

7. A New Deal for Washington 135 8. Redevelopment and Dissent 151

g. Renewal, Reconstruction, and Retrenchment 170

lo. The Limits of Social Protest Politics 190 Conclusion 208 Afterword 215 Notes on Sources 219 Notes 227 Index 293

Illustrations

"A notorious alley slum near the Capitol," by Charles Hine frontispiece Washington City Canal in front of the unfinished Capitol, 1860 3 Plan of the City of Washington, by Andrew Ellicott after Pierre Charles L'Enfant, 1792 8 Thomas Jefferson's plan for the City of Washington, 1791 10 The Aqueduct Bridge crossing the Potomac River, ca. 1860 19 Two views of former slaves liberated by Union troops and put to work on Washington's defense, ca. 1862 41 Charles Weller's Neglected Neighbors (1909): slums in the shadow of the Capitol 47 Black voters in Georgetown, by Thomas Nast, 1867 55 Portrait of Alexander Shepherd, 1871, by Henry Ulke 65 Map of Washington and its surroundings, 1876 75 The city core, Currier and Ives, 1892 84 Railroad accident in Washington, 1887 86 Franklin Webster Smith's grand architectural plan of the Mall, 1900 93 The B&O Railroad crossing the Mall, ca. 1900 95 The Senate Park Commission's vision of a new city core, 1902

101

The monumental core, 1902 103 Early-twentieth-century alley scene 117 "Washington, the City Beautiful," 1912 122 The Federal Triangle emerging along Pennsylvania Avenue, 1933 129 The wrecker's ball over the Washington Monument, ca. 1955 133

Seeking temporary shelter in a Southwest alley, 1941 141 Young alley dwellers, 1942, by Gordon Parks 143 St. Mary's Court, Foggy Bottom, before and after, 1937 145 Southwest Washington before redevelopment, ca. 1950 162 Relocation assistance for Southwest residents, 1950s 164 Anti-highway protest outside the District Building, 1967 168 Walter Fauntroy, president of MICCO, 1969 176 viii

Riot damage, Fourteenth Street, N.W., 1968 181 Marion Barry, director of Pride, Inc., 1968 193 Marion Barry and Walter Fauntroy, 1971 194 Marion and Effi Barry, inauguration day, 1979 195 Marion Barry, shortly after release from prison, 1992 205 Flyer, March on Washington, 1993

Illustrations

212

Preface and Acknowledgments

Voters entering the polls in Washington, D.C., in November 1992, considered more than just the election of the next president of the United States. Attracting most intense discussion and controversy was a referendum issue calling for the restoration of capital a measure the United States Congress had forced on the ballot after the murder of a legislative aide in a residential area near the Capitol. District voters rejected the referendum by more than a two-to-one margin. The same day residents of the city's poorest and most neglected ward overwhelmingly elected as their representative to city council former mayor Marion Barry, who only recently had been released from prison after serving six months for a crack cocaine conviction. Barry's victory evoked jubilant response from supporters, who hoped that he would deal with the social problems besetting their city The linkage between issues of crime and poverty in Washington was familiar enough. The capital punishment referendum, actively pursued by Senator Richard Shelby, a conservative white southerner seeing assurance that federal business would proceed in safety, nonetheless bore the familiar markings of "law-and-order" candidates, who over the years had directed their antagonism at the nation's poor, largely black, inner-city residents. Marion Barry, on the other hand, as a black former civil rights activist whose prosecution by federal officials gained him sympathy from those same inner-city residents, tapped deep-seated aspirations for empowerment and equal justice. Reaction to these two crimes and these two choices on the ballot emerged from sharply differentiated experiences, beliefs, and aspirations, oppositional forces that were assured confrontation in the nation's capital. Ever since the federal government had begun exercising constitutional jurisdiction over the territory set aside for federal business, it had assured the presence of national authority in Washington affairs. By intentionally setting out to make a city in the federal district, Congress had assumed for itself a role in urban policy Although public officials from the start had maintained high expectations for the District of Columbia as a model city for the new nation, federal oversight of Washington in practice proved

uneven at best and at times disastrous. To some degree, such failures were the product of incompetence or indifference. But a long view of relations between city and capital suggests a deeper and more profoundly disturbing revelation: what happened in Washington, D.C., was what the nation wanted. The cause of the urban policy failures that have left vast parts of Washington with neither safe streets nor a livable environment lies not in local circumstances but in national choices. Given the opportunity to pioneer programs in Washington for social welfare as well as physical improvement, the federal government made decisions time and again that left the city the worse for its efforts. Even as it created an aesthetically pleasing monumental core at the heart of Washington, it allowed many of the surrounding neighborhoods to fall into the social and physical decay now considered endemic in urban areas. Such results were not inevitable, as the history of Washington reveals. The two large trends in national urban policy-one to improve the physical environment, to make cities beautiful; the other to improve conditions of social welfare, to make cities just-were not always at odds. In Washington the French planner of the city, Pierre Charles L'Enfant, insisted that the new city be useful as well as commodious, a place of expanding economic opportunity as well as a physical symbol for the new republic. During Reconstruction, local Republicarls supported by Congress devised an expansive program of public works to employ newly liberated and enfranchised African Americans in order to secure their civic as well as partisan loyalty. During the Progressive Era, when architects employed elements of L'Enfant's plan to promote the idea of a city beautiful concentrated at the urban core, social reformers urged the public to attend to the social needs of the city's "neglected neighbors." Similar arguments animated the campaign for urban renewal after World War 11, when planners called for improvements that would achieve social as well as aesthetic goals. The emergence of a black power movement in the 1960s necessarily changed the terms of social advocacy, but even then activists sought to use planning tools to improve physical structures in the name of social justice and political empowerment. Despite these promising efforts to link social welfare with aesthetic improvements, the two strands of urban policy ultimately led in different directions. As demographics changed, as organizations crystallized around separate causes, and as the factor of race sharpened the debate over what could and should be done i11 urban areas, reform efforts splintered. What one set of leaders achieved in the name of social justice was often undone by those who followed. In Washington, even the election of a black activist as mayor failed to reverse a pattern by which the social advances of one period were undercut in the next. Caught between opposing forces for beautification and social justice, Washington gained two identities: one closely asso-

Preface and Acknowledgments

ciated with the federal presence, visited annually by millions of tourists and known as the city beautiful; the other consisting of the city's indigenous neighborhoods, many of them beset by inadequate housing, soaring levels of poverty and crime, and social disorder. Despite its special political standing, Washington should not be viewed as a passive victim of federal control. Its development has been thoroughly contested, both in the ways different national figures have attempted to direct its fate and in local efforts to set the city's own agenda. Whether it was Pierre L'Enfant's dramatic plan for the city, Congress's effort to impose Reconstruction policies on Washington after the Civil War, or the highway lobby's effort to bind city and suburb through a dramatic expansion of throughways into the District, policies for Washington have provoked controversy and attention. Washington, of course, represents a special case in American history. No other part of the country experiences the same dominant federal presence, either physically or politically Still, the very fact of federal control over its local affairs makes Washington's story exemplary What federal authorities have provided in the way of programs for Washington most often has reflected their national goals for urban policy. State legislatures have played an intermediate role in other cities; in Washington, the relationship between national and local authorities has been direct. Here triumphs could be recorded and failures not ignored. Here, in short, is a crucible for evolving urban policy and a place whose history reveals the shortcomings of even the best of intentions. In a period when specialized monographs dominate advanced scholarship, it may seem old-fashioned to attempt a city's whole biography, albeit on a selective, interpretive basis. If the past helc! no influence on the present, I would not have undertaken the task. But in Washington, as I believe is also true in other cities, historical forces have a way of influencing ideas and attitudes long after an understanding of their context has been lost. This is especially true in Washington as long as Congress retains the power of exclusive jurisdiction. The effects of the government's historical relationship with the city show up daily, in debates over the placement of structures according to the L'Enfant plan, over efforts to assign fiscal responsibility for providing services, and in interpreting social relationships. Yet the absence of any shared sense of the historical circumstances that shape those debates makes it difficult either for permanent residents or for more transitory government officials to deal effectively with the problems they face. Without such understanding, efforts to revive civic culture remain weak at best. By bringing together material over time and across subject matters usually treated in isolation, I want in this study to provide a framework for understanding the roots of Washington's history. By examining how the federal government has

Preface and Acknowledgments

tried but failed to make Washington a city "worthy of the nation," I explore not just the problematic relationship between capital and city but also between the nation and its cities.

*** In the years I have worked on this book, I have incurred many debts, none deeper than to George Washington University, which granted the sabbatical leaves that launched this study and helped bring it to a conclusion. In addition, I received a grant from the university's Center for Washington Area Studies providing me the help of two dedicated research assistants, Margaret Henry and Stephen Want, during the 1989-1990 academic year. A summer research grant from the university in 1991allowed me to investigate redevelopment in Shaw. Many librarians have assisted with this project over the years, most notably Roxanna Deane and her staff at the Martin Luther King Jr. Public Library; Philip Ogilvie and Dorothy Provine at the District of Columbia Archives; and at George Washington University's Gelman Library Department of Special Collections, Francine Henderson, Cheryl Cherneaux, and David Anderson. My thanks also go to former Special Collections staff William Keller, now at the Milton S. Eisenhower Library at the Johns Hopkins University, and Matthew Gilmore, of the King Library. Anne Meglis, former librarian at the District of Columbia Office of Housing and Community Development, deserves special thanks, not just for saving so many important materials and making them available, but also for her comments on parts of an earlier draft. The major portion of the library she nourished for so long has been moved to the District of Columbia Archives. I have been blessed at George Washington with the opportunity to work with a particularly talented group of students. My debt to them is abundantly acknowledged in my citations of their work, but those who deserve special thanks for doing so much to break new ground in Washington history are William Bushong, Jessica Elfenbein, Elizabeth Hannold, Susan Klaus, Jane Levey, Melissa McLoud, Druculla Null, Helen Ross, and especially Katherine Schneider Smith, who read and commented extensively on the first draft of this manuscript. To my colleagues Frederick Gutheim, who died as work on this book entered the final phase, and Richard Longstreth I owe special thanks. Fritz, more than anyone, drew me to issues central to urban and Washington history. Richard, who is always a sensitive and acute critic, read a portion of the draft at a critical point in its formation. I am grateful as well to Walter Fauntroy for making available portions of his papers at George Washington's Gelman Library and for reviewing the chapter on Shaw. Peter Reimer, now retired from the Redevelopment Land Agency, read the same chapter and made many useful comments. Early in my Preface and Acknowledgments

work Darwin Stolzenbach made available information he had been gathering for a history of the Metro subway system, materials now available at the Gelman Library. Jerome Paige commented extensively on an earlier draft of the material on Marion Barry, and Pamela Scott made many helpful suggestions for the early chapters. At the Johns Hopkins University Press, Robert Brugger provided many good insights as to how best to sharpen the focus of this study as well as encouraging me to tackle the subject. David Schuyler of Franklin and Marshall College and a second, anonymous reader provided many helpful suggestions for strengthening the text. Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to Margaret Marsh, whose intellectual, emotional, and moral support for this book, as in life, are valued beyond telling.

Preface and Acknowledgments

xiii

Locus of the New Republic

The polluted Washington City Canal in 1860, an affront to L'Enfant's hopes for an aesthetic waterway at the foot of the Capitol. Courtesy National Archives.

In determining to fashion a new capital out of the wilderness, the founders of Washington, D.C., had the opportunity to mold a place entirely to their liking. At an early stage, they thought boldly. They embraced a grand plan for a new city at the heart of the federal district, anticipating that its advantageous location on the Potomac River would generate the commerce and subsequent growth necessary to achieve the expectations of that plan. Success demanded a close partnership between federal and local interests, and that seemed assured from the active role George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other leaders of the new republic played in the capital. Almost from the start, however, those high expectations were compromised. Despite the best intentions of its founders, Washington less than its rivals benefited from government largess in the early republic. Elsewhere city governments and state legislatures promoted urban growth, aggressively supporting internal improvements to hasten trade and investing in the physical plant of cities. While Congress maintained a relationship to Washington akin to that between other cities and their states, it lacked the same loyalty to its urban constituents. By delaying investments in internal improvements, the federal government dampened Washington's prospects for economic self-sufficiency With the city lacking the anticipated revenues of trade, Congress assured its dependency on federal funding for physical improvement. But lacking the will to pay for services not directly related to its own functioning, the government proved doubly parsimonious. As a result, while the nation clung to hopes that a beautiful and magnificent city would soon emerge, Washington retained the reputation more of an unkept village. Even as Congress remained reluctant to spend money on the new city, it played an active role in Washington's affairs, not the least in attempting to regulate race relations. In accepting the prevailing laws along with the land ceded to the new federal district by Maryland and Virginia, Congress assured at the capital not only a significant black presence but the practice of slavery. Since the capital's location had been tied from the start to slavery by those seeking to protect their interests from government interference, the issue was bound to affect Washington as it more bitterly divided the nation.

Under pressure from those who saw Congress's power of exclusive jurisdiction as a means of securing one measure of social justice through the emancipation of slaves held in the District of Columbia, the capital became quite a different symbol than the city's founders had envisioned. By the time of the Civil War neither the concerns of race nor physical development had been resolved fully. It remained clear through Washington's early history only that the two issues would remain inseparably linked.

City of Failed Intentions

To change a Wilderness into a City, to erect and beautify Buildings &ca. to that degree of perfection, necessary to receive the Seat of Government of so extensive an Empire, in the short period of time that remains to effect these objects is an undertaking vast as it is Novel, and reflecting that all this is to be done under the many disadvantages of opposing interests which must long continue to foment Contention among the various Branches of the Union-the only expedient is to conciliate, and interest the Minds of all Ranks of People of the propriety of the Pursuit by engaging the national Fame in its Success, evincing in its progress that utility and Splendor, capable of rendering the Establishment unrivalled in greatness by all those now existing, by holding out forcible inducements to all Ranks of People. Pierre Charles L'Enfant to Thomas Jefferson, February 26,1792 The establishment of a permanent capital for the new nation in 1790 was an event of immense importance. Forged at a critical point in the early nation-building process, the compromise that located the federal district on the Potomac River after years of contention between the states promised, as George Washington put it, to unify the country by creating a port city capable of exploiting to national advantage the rich agricultural hinterland of the western frontier. As it emerged from the wilderness, this new city could aspire to the status of New York or Philadelphia, or even London and Paris eventually. But even more was anticipated. By casting Washington as a symbol for the nation, the city's designer, the French architect and engineer Pierre Charles L'Enfant, expected it to inspire national pride through the beauty of its buildings and magnificence of its physical plant. Exemplifying national aspirations for grandeur, Washington would prove viable enough economically to serve federal needs for years to come. Beauty would be yoked to enterprise. In fact, nothing like that happened in Washington's early history, and in this failure lay the central contradiction in the founders' hopes for the new capital. Created as a city to inspire respect through the realization of an

aesthetically powerful and inspiring physical presence, Washington instead fell victim to the constraints of its peculiar political culture, a city of magnificent but hopelessly failed intentions. Washington's symbolic role followed most powerfully from L'Enfant, whom George Washington called upon in 1790 to design the new capital. Imbued with America's revolutionary fervor out of his own participation as a military volunteer in the conflict, L'Enfant described to Congress in 1784 his hopes for a capital sufficient "to give an idea of the greatness of the empire as well as to engrave in every mind that sense ofrespect that is due to a place which is the seat of supreme sovereignty." Five years later he wrote President Washington of the unprecedented opportunity for America to choose its own site for a capital. Noting that the nation as yet lacked the means "to pursue the design to any great extent," he nonetheless urged that any plan "should be drawn on such a scale as to leave room for that aggrandizement and embellishment which the increase of the wealth of the Nation will permit it to pursue at any period however remote."' L'Enfant's first surveys of the area generally designated for the new capital immediately impressed him with the beauty of the site and convinced him of the importance of building on that advantage. As he wrote Washington's chief agent in the area, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, his intent was to "unite the usfull with the comodious & agreable viewing."* To do this, he conceived of making ornamental even such a basic urban function as a canal intended to link shipping activities in the existing town of Georgetown with the superior deep water port envisioned for the Potomac's Eastern Branch, or Anacostia River. Other uses of water would help beautify and embellish the capital in ways equal to the leading urban centers of Europe. A great avenue would extend from Georgetown to the Anacostia "laid out on a dimension proportioned to the greatness which . . . the Capital of a powerful Empire ought to manifest."' Given the excuse to plan a large city at the heart of the federal district, appropriately named after Washington himself,4 L'Enfant conceived of creating strong relationships between the two central nodes of government. In locating the Capitol a mile and a half distant from the president's house and other public buildings, L'Enfant raised some practical concern about the difficulty of conducting federal business,5 but such an arrangement, he argued, would by "giving them reciprocity of sight and by making them thus seemingly connected, would promote a rapid settlement over the whole extent."6 Each element of L'Enfant's plan for Washington, as he wrote Jefferson, represented his intent to "delinate on a new and original way the plan the contrivance of which the President has left to me without any restriction soever."' Although some critics have described L'Enfant's vision for Washington as symbolically inappropriate for the new republic and too grand for its undeveloped site,8 Pamela Scott makes a strong case that the French enLOCUS OF T H E NEW REPUBLIC

gineer, far from slavishly replicating forms from abroad, consciously designed a city to represent the new democratic experiment in America. By imposing a carefully orchestrated set of diagonal boulevards on the standard grid, L'Enfant's plan created a complex system of private neighborhoods and public ceremonial spaces. To each of the latter, he assigned a symbolic function. The grand avenues, designated an extraordinary width of160 feet, would assume the names of the states. These L'Enfant arranged within the city of Washington to represent both geographic location and each state's prominence in the process of nation building. Massachusetts, Virginia, and especially Pennsylvania, with its associations both with the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Constitution, gained the most prominence. Avenues named after other states with prominent roles in ratifying the Constitution, notably Delaware and New Jersey,intersected with the Capitol. At the same time, in devising means to create squares at the intersection of diagonal avenues with the grid, L'Enfant intended to provide locations for state buildings, thereby giving them the same symbolic importance in the capital city that they held in the federal ~ystem.~ Scott finds confirmation for her interpretation in an anonymous essay that appeared in 1795, believed to be written by Stephen Hallet, L'Enfant's draftsman in 1791who later worked on the construction of the Capitol. It argued that the capital's size and central location was, like the city plan, an expression of national union: "To found a City in the center of the United States, for the purpose of making it the depository of the acts of the Union . . . which will one day rule all North-America . . . is a grand and comprehensive idea . . . a temple erected to liberty." Seeing the symbolic significance of L'Enfant's calculated street plan in its relationship to the Capitol, it added, "Here he fixed the center of the city, as the city is the center of the American Empire, and he rendered the edifice accessible by more than twenty streets which terminate at this point. Each street is an emblem of the rays of light which, issuing from the Capitol, are directed toward every part of America, to enlighten its inhabitants respecting their true interests."'O Initially L'Enfant had no reason to believe his intentions to build a city to serve as a new seat of empire were out of line with those of his federal sponsors, not the least George Washington. Active as a young man in promoting the prospects of the tobacco town of Alexandria, Virginia, and the Potomac River more generally, Washington played a quiet but no doubt crucial role in securing the Potomac location for the new capital. As early as 1770 he advocated opening the river to better navigation by clearing its channel of rocks and building a system of bypasses around its major falls, a goal he attempted to put into effect by establishing the Potomac Company in 1784. He described the project as "the channel of commerce" for "the trade of a rising empire," one that could save the nation by forming a link to City of Failed Intentions

Plan of the City of Washington by Andrew Ellicot after Pierre Charles L'Enfant. Engraving by Thackeray and Vallance, March

1792. Courtesy Geography and

Map Division, Library of Congress.

western rivers capable of "binding these people to us by a chain which can never be broken."ll Thomas Jefferson shared Washington's enthusiasm, becoming involved in the improvement of rivers in Virginia as a young man and arguing in 1784 for a state tax to that end, saying of the Potomac, "This is the moment . . . for seizing it if ever we mean to have it. All the world is becoming commercial."l2 George Washington, as much as anyone, was responsible for extending the boundaries of the new city of Washington. While initially it appeared that the city would be concentrated in a much smaller space, he clearly intended to expand the area, both to appease the interests of competing landowners in the area and to provide a site equal to his grandvision for the city As he wrote L'Enfant April 4,1791, LOCUS OF THE NEW REPUBLIC

It will be of great importance to the public interest to comprehend as much ground (to be ceded by individuals) as there is any tolerable prospect of obtaining. Although it may not be immediately wanting, it will nevertheless increase the Revenue; and of course be beneficial hereafter, not only to the public, but to the individual proprietors; in as much, as the plan will be enlarged, and thereby freed from those blotches, which otherwise might result from not comprehending all the lands that appear well adapted to the general design.13 Jefferson's early notes reveal every bit as much passion for prescribing the details of urban development, from the size of lots to the height of buildings and their arrangement on the street.I4 Writing L'Enfant in April 1791, Jefferson urged "very liberal reservations" for public buildings "on the back of the town," so as to be "of no injury to the commerce of the place, which will undoubtedly establish itself on the deep waters towards the Eastern branch and mouth of Rock Creek." The same day he indicated to George Washington his intent to circulate in the federal district plates of "about a dozen or two of the handsomest fronts of private buildings" with hopes that "it might decide the taste of the new town."l5 Like L'Enfant, Jefferson maintained an overriding concern with balancing the useful with the ornamental, a concept Julian Boyd asserts he had imbibed from his classical education.16 It is true that when Jefferson passed along his relatively modest conception of how the city might look in March 1791, L'Enfant reacted intemperately, calling the proposal "tiresome and insipid" and attacking the gridiron approach so closely associated with urban development in America for annihilating the natural advantages of Washington's site and threatening to injure the success of the undertaking.]' But such was not the central factor of their disagreement. By all indications, Jefferson himself conceived his sketch as only the first step in outlining the city He never objected to L'Enfant's bolder concept, and he must have taken some satisfaction from L'Enfant's decision to incorporate his concept of public gardens along the Potomac River into what finally became the Mall.18 Indeed, even after L'Enfant had been dismissed without finally completing the map detailing his ideas, Jefferson maintained the chief elements, excising only the sites for state squares.l9 While L'Enfant complained bitterly about alterations in his plan, the most telling of which was the absence of his name from the 1792 version, the scope and the intent of the federal city remained virtually intacL20 The source of their disagreement lay not in the scale or design of the undertaking but in the decision on how to finance it, and in this lay the source of Washington's fundamental difficulty Given the conception he shared with Washington and Jefferson of the new capital as an engine for commercial development as well as a fitting symbol for the nation, L'Enfant concluded that the country ought to be City of Failed Intentions

Thomas Jefferson's Plan for the City of Washington, March 1791. Courtesy Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress.

willing to invest in the project. He favored issuing sufficient government bonds to construct public buildings and lay out the necessary infrastructure of roads, walkways, and the like. Once started, he believed, such improvements would attract substantial private investment, and from a grouping of small hamlets, or paper cities, as John Reps calls them, Washington would emerge virtually simultaneously as a thriving metropolis.2' But while L'Enfant had the luxury of creating urban space that would place each state in symbolic harmony with the others, Jefferson was acutely concerned about divisions between the states and the jealousies that had only recently been aggravated by the long and bitter controversy over the location of the capital.22 Fearing that burdening the states with the additional costs of

LOCUS OF T H E KEW R E P U B L I C

constructing the capital would only make matters worse, he advanced, and President Washington accepted, the alternative approach of raising the necessary revenues from the sale at auction of land the government would purchase from the local proprietor^.^^ To do this effectively it was necessary to have an accurate map of the territory, and in efforts to secure one from L'Enfant for the first government sale lay the source of the friction that ultimately led to L'Enfant's dismissal. By midsummer 1791, President Washington was pressing L'Enfant to have a map prepared in time for the first government sale slated for October 17. L'Enfant retorted that he needed more time to put into place the full details of his design, including the placement of the canal he believed was essential to spur the movement of trade within the new city By withholding the map on the assumption that sales would not be harmed, when they were, L'Enfant provoked the anger of the president as well as the commissioners who had been designated by the Residence Act to supervise the capital-building process. By talung the additional step of ordering the house torn down of the nephew of one of the commissioner's relatives, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, on the pretext that it blocked the way of a projected street and an important square, L'Enfant severely undercut his position.24 Yet Washington only mildly rebuked his planner, writing L'Enfant, "Having the beauty, & harmony of your Plan only in view, you pursue it as if every person, and thing was obliged to yield to it; whereas the Commissioners have many circumstances to attend to, some of which, perhaps, may be unknown to you; which evinces, in a strong point ofview, the propriety, the necessity & even the safety of your acting by their directions."2' Instead of reprimanding him for destroying Carroll's home, he asked the commissioners to delegate L'Enfant more authority Washington, it appears, was so anxious to avoid giving the enemies of the Potomac location any opportunity to rescind the Residence Act that he chose to protect L'Enfant in hopes of getting his as-yet incomplete plan rather than dismiss him.26 When out of exasperation Jefferson finally instructed L'Enfant to submit to the commissioners' authority, L'Enfant, who had been used to taking his directions from the president directly, refused. Again ignoring the immediate pressure to sell the land, he defended his plan as the best means of overcoming national divisions by enlisting the "National Fame" in the city's success. For directly thwarting the president's request, Jefferson informed L'Enfant, his services had been terminated.27 The task of completing the map of Washington fell to Andrew Ellicott, who had worked with L'Enfant to survey the new territory He too clashed with the commissioners, indicating that L'Enfant was not entirely to blame for his own misfortune. Ellicott's own version of the map, when completed ini792, was not sufficient to improve sales of lots, however, and the govern-

City of Failed Intentions

ment finally had to resort to loans after a11.28 Once in hand, public funding allowed the capital-building process to begin in earnest, but delays and disappointing results from land sales meant that the capital city was anything but ready when the new government arrived in 1800.

*** The first reactions, in fact, to the new capital as the government moved from Philadelphia in 1800 were highly critical. Reviewing the city's unpaved streets, the incomplete buildup of structures along major thoroughfares, and the lack of amenities by then commonplace and considered essential to modern standards of living in the nation's leading cities, Congressman Richard Griswold of Connecticut called Washington "both melancholy and ludicrous. . .a city in ruins."29 Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott wrote his wife, "I do not perceive how the members of Congress can possibly secure lodging unless they will consent to live like scholars in a college, or monks in a m ~ n a s t e r y "Brought ~~ to Washington to supervise public works, engineer Benjamin Henry Latrobe complained about the effect of delays in building as workers who might otherwise have settled in the city, finding their hopes for employment dashed, were forced to "inhabit the half-finished houses, now tumbling to ruins, which the madness of speculation has erected." He called Washington an "enormous baby of a town."'l Washington's shortcomings prompted not just criticism but suggestions that the capital be moved. As early as1808, Representative James Sloan of New Jersey, citing the inconvenience of location and expense of erecting public buildings, offered a resolution to return the capital to Philadelphia. The resolution failed after provoking debate for a week,32 but the issue emerged again after British soldiers devastated the capital in 1814. Bankers intervened with sufficient funds to rebuild public buildings and thus to retain the capital in Washington.3' But as late as 1838, British visitor Harriet Martineau, declaring Washington "a grand mistake," described western efforts to move the capital to a more central location, noting that "the Cincinnati people are already speculating upon which of their hills or tablelands is to be the site of the new Capitol." Impressed as she was with the Capitol itself, she expressed dismay at its surroundings, "so sordid are the enclosures and houses on its very verge."3149-50>160 Donaldson, Ivanhoe, 198-99,202 Douglas, William, 157, 208 Douglass, Frederick: and black enfranchisement, 51; candidate for nonvoting delegate, 61; opposes territorial government, 60 Douglass, Lewis, 67 Douglass Junior High School, 205 Dowdy, John, 171-72 Downing, Andrew Jackson, 24 Downtown district, 140,171,197 Downtown Progress, 171 Doyle, Phil A,, 177 Duff's Row, 39 Duke, Charles, 166 Duncan, John, 177 Dunnell, Mark, 70 Eastern Branch. See Anacostia River Eaton, David, 182 Eaton, John, 21 Eckington, 81 Edson, John Joy, 91,114 Eliot, Charles, 129 Ell~cott,Andrew, plan for Washington, 8,11 Emory Matthew, j8-59 Enterprise zones, 209 Erie Canal, 17-18, 26 Fahy John, 14 4 Fauntroy, Walter, 190-91; appointed to city

Fauntroy, IValter (continued) council, 179; candidate for mayor, 202-4; elected nonvoting delegate to Congress, 185; and Marion Barry, 192,194;and redevelopment of Shaw, 173-74,176,184-88; resignation as president of MICCO, 186 Federal City Council, 171 Federal employment, 74-75,152,154 Federal payment to District of Columbia, 70, 80,102; dropped from territorial legislation, 61; supported by President Grant, House Judiciary Committee, special joint committee of Congress, 64-66 Federation of Citizens' Associations, 147, 149,160 Federation of Civic Associations, 167-68 Fillmore, Millard, 24 Financing the early capital, 9-12, 20-21 Fire fighting, 14,2j Fishman, Robert, 210 Fitzpatrick, F, it'., 91 Fleming, Philip, 155 Foggy Bottom, St. Mary's Court, 142,145 Fort Lincoln, 179,183-84 Freedman's Bureau, 54 Freedman's Relief Association, 37 Fugitive Slave Act, 3 4 3 9 Gage, Iyman, 98 Gales, Joseph, 18 Gallatin, Albert, 17 Garfield Park, 96 Garreau, Joel, 210 Garrison, William Lloyd, 28,29 General Services Administration, 154 Genius of L'niversal Emancipation, 29 Georgetown: and black suffrage, 51, 53, 55; and canals, 18, 22; housing, 141; incorporated into iVashington city government, 80; limited growth, 26; as port city, 6; retrocession of, 22; tobacco trade, 16; waterfront development, 197 Gerholtz, Robert, 148 Giddings, Josuha, 33-34 Gill, Delancy, 111 Glendening, Parris, 213 Glover-Archibold Park, 158 Goodwillie, Arthur, plan for Southwest Washington, 144-4j, 156 Gould, Elgin, 114 Government Printing Office, 178 Graham, Philip, 166 Grant, Clysses S., 61; backs federal payment for District of Columbia, 64; fails in effort to appoint Shepherd to interim commission, 70; memorial to, 104

Index

Grant, Ulysses S. 111,127,128; and decentral, ization, 153; and housing, 13-36, ~ 9147, 149 Great Falls, 25 Great Society, 132,170, 208 Green, Constance, 24 Greene, Elias, 42 Grier, Eunice, 206 Grier, George, 206 Griffith, Reginald, 174 Grimes, James: opposes integration of street railways, 39; supports black education, 37 Griswold, Richard, 12 Gunther, John, 188 Gutheim, Frederick, loo, 108,152 Hallett, Stephen, 7 Harlan, James, 20 Harris, E. H., 142 Harris, Patricia Roberts, 196,197 Harrison, James L., 178 Hartzog, George, 167 33 Haskell, William T., Haussmann, Baron Georges Eugene, 62,102 Hayford, John E., 118 Hechinger, John, 180 Henry, Joseph, 24 Hepburn, William, 96 Highway Act of lgj6,ljg, 15j-j8,165 Highway Act of1968,169 Highway lobby, xiii, 166 Highways, 154; Inner Loop Expressway, 15758,165-66,172; park boulevard, 12j; Southwest Freeway, 165 Hill, Alfonse, 199 Hoar, George Frisbie, 97 Holland, loan to District of Columbia, 2021, 26 Home Owners Loan Corporation, 144 Home Rule Act ofiy73,188,1go-y1,20;, 211 Hooks, Benjamin, 202 Hoover, Herbert, 128,137 Hopkins, Charlotte, 121,123,136,138-39 Housing, 213; limited dividend, 114-15, 123; low-cost, 140; nonprofit sponsors, 185; public, ~2,~5,147-48,164,178,1~;,1~8,200, 208; wartime shortage of, 140,144 Howard University, 61,73,144,145 Hunter, Robert: supports Alexandria retrocession, 23; supports slave trade in District of Columbia, 34 Ihlder, John, q j ; and alley conditions, 13638; background, 136; and blacks, 142-43; named director of Alley Dwelling Au-

thority, 140; and public housing, 146-48; and redevelopment, 148,150,161,174 Immer, John, 178 Ingalls, John, 71 Internal iniprovements, 2,16-17,19, 23 Jackson, Jesse, 202 Jefferson, Thomas, and federal capital, 2, 8-9,12-13, 88; named \Vashington school board president, 13; plan for LVashington, 9-10; promotioti of canals, 17 Jewish Community Council, 182 Johnson, Andrew: opposes black enfranchisemetlt, 49, 51-53; vetoes Freedman's Bureau Bill, District black suffrage bill, jz Johnson, Karen, 199,201 Johnson, Lyndon, 176; and highway report, 166; and reorganization of District government, 179 Johnson, Reverdy, 40 Jones, illilliam Henry, 136 Julian, George: support for black franchise in Washington, 51; support for women's suffrage, 60 Justement, Louis: and housing conditions, ~7-38;and redevelopment, 156-57,161 Kalorama, 72,76,79 Kane, Betty Ann, 193,196, 201 Kauffman, Victor, 77 Keith, Nathaniel, 157 Kelly Sharon Pratt Dixon, 204,207,210 Kennedy, John F., 159,176 Kerner Commission, 180 King, Martin Luther Jr., 169,17j Kluczynskb John, 168-69 Knox, Paul, 206 Kober, George, IU-14, 120 Kohn, Robert, 138 Land sales, for new capital, 11 Langston Terrace, 140 Lansburgh, Mark, 155,161 Latrobe, Benjamin, 12 LeDroit Park, 73,78-79 Lee, Richard Bland, 21 L'Enfant, Pierre Charles, xii; fired, 11; plan for IVashington, xiii, 5-8,197; plan for state squares, 7; reaction to Jefferson's plan for Washington, 9; and Senate Park Con~missionplan, 101,104,105 Lenox, IValter, 24,35 Lewis, Charles, 201, 202 Liberator, The, 29 Library of Congress, 39; fire in, 25

Lincoln, Abraham, j3; on emancipation, 37 Lincoln Civic Association, 142 Lincoln Memorial, 106-7,124 Litwack, Leon, 36 Lloyd, Thomas, 38 Logue, Edward J., 177,179 Los Angeles: and freeways, 165; Watts riots of 1965,169 Lotteries, 14 Lowe, Jeanne R., 209 Lundy, Benjamin, 29 McCarran, Patrick, 148 McCarter, Walter, J., 167 MacFarland, Henry B. F., 123 McFarland, J Horace, 108 McI(im, Charles, 96; as member of Senate Park Con~mission,98,106; and railroads, 99 McKinley, William, 90 Mchfillan, James: and charitable organizations, 110; death, 104; and philanthropic housing, 116; and Senate Park Commission plan, 89,97-y9,ioz,1io; and steam railways, 87, 93-95; and street railways, 78 McMillan, John L., 171,190,192 Mail: Centennial plans, 91; Downing plan, 24; Jefferson plan, 9; railroad on, 84-8j, 92-94; Senate Park Commission plan, 103-5; Smith plan, 93 Martin. Sells, 60 Martindale, Henry Clinton, 15 Martineau, Harriet, 12 Maryland: and Civil LVar, 40; investment in Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 22, 26; investment in Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 21; and retrocession of District of Columbia, 212-14; slavery in, z7,39-40 Mason, Gu): 146 Mass Transportation Survey (1959),1j5,1j9, 165-66 hlattingly, !"\I. F,, 7: Meigs, Montgomery, 25 Mellon, Andrew, 127 Memorial Bridge, yo, 92, 97,106 Meridian Hill, 73,78, 83 Merrick, Richard, 64 hfeyer, Eugene, 186 hliller, Xeville, 179 Millet, Francis, 107 Mills, Robert, 25 Miner, blyrtilla, 35-36 Mister, Melvin, 183,186-88 Model Cities program, 2c9 Model Inner City Community Development Organization (MICCO), 174-7j, 177-78,185-88,206,209

Index

Mollenkopf, John, 172 Monday Evening Club, 119 Montgomery County, Md., 212-13; slave population, 39 Moore, Charles: and Commission of Fine Arts, 107,124; and Senate Park Commission plan, 89, 98,101-2,loj-6 Moore, Douglas, 177 Morrill, Lot: introduces bill for District government by commission, j9; reports black franchise bill for District of Columbia, 52 Moses, Robert, 166 Mount Pleasant, 73,78, 80-81, 83 Mumford, Lewis, 208, 210 Natcher, L$Tilliam,167-68 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),173,191 National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), 148-49 National Capital Housing Authority (NCHA), 147; and eminent domain, 150; and war housing, 146 National Capital Park and Planning Commission (NCPPC),136; and alley conditions, 137; comprehensive plans, 1j4-jj, 157- j8; establishment of, 125-27; reorganization as National Capital Planning Comn~ission,159 National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC): and highwavs, 167; and public housing, 178; and redevelopment, 183 Kational Capital Regional Planning Council, lj9 National Capital Transportation Agency (NCTA), 166 National Committee on Segregation in the National Capital (1948),160 National Highway User Conference, 166 Iiational Housing Act of 1937,140 National Housing Act of~gqy,150,1j5,160 National Housing Act of 1968,182 National Housing Association, 136 ~VationnlIntelligencer: antagonism toward abolitionists, 30-31; favors colonization, 33; support for canals, 2o,22 National Planning Conference of lgog,lio, 120-21

National Recovery Adlnillistratio~lHousing Division, 138 Navy Yard, 30,73 iveighborhood advisory comn~issions,188 Neighborhood Development Corporation, 187 Neighborhood planning, 138

Index

Nelson, Herbert U., 148-49 New Bedford, Mass., attitude toward slavery, 31 N e w Bethel Baptist Church, 173 New Deal, 46,132-33, Uj, 140, 208 New York City: authority to issue bonds, 16; Central Park, 62, 83, 92; Commission on Congestion of Population, 120; corruption, iyy New York State, investment in internal i n provements, 17, 26 Newall, Clifford, 160 Nervlands, Francis, 76,106 Nixon, Richard, 182,190 North Carolina Proclamation, 49 Northwest 81urban renewal area, 173,175, 183,185 Norton, Eleanor Holmes, 204 Noyes, Crosby, 158 Iioyes, Theodore, 79 Ohio, support for black education, 36 Olmsted, Frederick Law Jr.: commentary on Mall, 96-97; and Lincoln Memorial, 106; on James Mchlillan's death, 104; as member of Senate Park Commission, 98-101; named to Comn~issionof Fine Arts, 107; and National Park and Planning Cotnmission, 126; and national planning con120 ference (~gog), Olrnsted, Frederick Law Sr., 83, 92 O'Malle): Therese, 25 Orange and Alexandria Railroad, 41 Palmer, Charles F., 144 Paris: Champs Elysees, loo, 106; Ecole des Beaux Arts, 99; as model for Washington, 99 Parker, James, 15 Parker, Myron, 82 Parks, 88-89,9i, 95, 125,127-28 Parsons, Samuel Jr., plan for Mall, 92, 96 Patterson, James, 67 Pearl Affair, 33-34 Pearl Harbor, 144 Peets, Elbert, plan for Southwest Washington, 156,161 Peirce, Neil, 213 Pendleton Civil Service Act, 75 Pennsylvania Avenue: condition of, 13,16, 72,126-27; early plan for, 6-7; improvements to, 15, 21,57; public buildings on, 92>97 Pennsylvania Railroad, 92, 99,103. See also Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Pennsylvania State Llrorks, 26

Pentagon, 1 4 l j~2 Perry, Clarence Arthur, 138 Peterson, Jon, 92 Pettigrew, Richard, 94 Petworth, 76,79, 82 Philadelphia: and black schools, 36; consolidation, 73-74; housing association, ~ 6as; national capital, 12; street lighting, 15 Philip, M'illiam H., rationale for comprehensive planning, 60 Pinckney, Henry, report on slavery in District of Columbia, 31-32 Pittsburgh: growth, 26; housing association, 136 Pittsburgh-IVashington Courier, 163 Playgrounds, 109,126 Point-of Rocks, bld., 2 0 Pollution, 83 Potomac [canal] Company, 7 Potomac River, 2, j, 8; beautification, 99; flats, 83, 89 Pouver~,Richard, yj President's Commission on Civil Rights (19471,160 President's Homes Commission, log-lo; urges governmentally assisted housing, 119-20 President's house, 6. See also White House Pride, Incorporated, 18o,ly2,198 Prince George's County, rMd., 184, 212, 213; slave population, 39 Progressive Era, xii, loo, iiy,zo8 Proprietors, 9 Public baths, proposals for, 92,112 Public buildings: consolidation and grouping of, 88, 90-92, 97,100,108,126;Jefferson's ideas for, y; protection of, 128 ~ Public Buildings Commission, 1 2 152 Public Utilities Commission, 140 Public works: financing of, 24; as political patronage, 56- 57

Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA): authorized, 150; in Northwest FI, 173; in Shaw, 175,185-88; in suburbs, 163 Reid, Herbert, 180, 201 Relocation, 164-65, 171,173-7~+,185 Rent controls, 140 Reps, John, lo Republican party: and black education, 36, 67; campaign of1868, 54; and congressional sweep, 210; and statehood, 213; support for public works, 61, 68. See also Radical Republicans Residence Act of i79o,11 Retail sales, 152,ljq Retrocession: of Alexandria County, 22-23, 212; of District of Columbia, 79-80, 21213; of Georgetown, 22 Reuss, Henry, 154 Reynolds, James Bronson, 119 Reynolds, William E., 153- j4 Rhodes Tavern, 1y7 Riis, Jacob, 116-17,11y,136 Riots, 33,169,179-80,lgl Rivard, Lloyd, 166 Rivers, L. Mendell, 178-79 Roberts, Chalmers, lj6 Robinson, Charles hlulford, loj,110 Rock Creek Park, 69, 83, 89, 97 Rome, as model for IGshington, 99 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 138,142,147-48,160 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 132,135,138,139,142 Roosevelt, Theodore: and alleys, lij-18; appoints Council of Fine Arts, 107; establishes President's Homes Commission, 199; and Senate Park Comlllission plan, loo, 105-6,126 Root, Elihu, and Senate Park Commission, loo Rouse, James, 157 Rowe, Elizabeth, 166-67 Rush, Richard, 20 Rusk, David, 211, 213

Rabuck, Arthur, 152 Radical Republicans, 46; and emancipation, 37; and enfranchisement of Il'ashington blacks, jo, 66, 70; opposition to District government by commission, 59 Railroads, 19-20; and controversy over rails above grade, 85-86,g8; location of depots, 84-85 93-96 Raspberry, \Yilliani, 192, 203 Ray, John, 210 Reconstruction, xii-xiii, 46, 201, 208 Redevelopment, 132,149-50,156- 57,163-65, 213; and citizen participation, 173,181,18486

St. Dominic's Catholic Church, 156 Saint-Gaudens, Augustus, 98 St. Louis, as possible national capital, 58 St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church, 182 Sawyer, Mary, zoi Scavengers, i j Schools: federal responsibility for, 21; integration of, j6,61, 66-67 Schuyler, Montgomery, 102,123 Schwartz, Carol, 200, 210 Scott, Pamela, 6-7 Searles, John, 161 Seaton, Richard, 25

Senate Park Commission plan (hlchlillan Commission plan), 88-89,98,iol-z, loj6,120,125-26 Sewerage, 26,72,89 Shaw, 132; redevelopment of, 174-76,182-83, 188 Shaw People's Urban Renewal Group (SPCR),177,178 Shelby, Richard, xi, 207, 210 Shepherd, Alexander: accomplishments, 69; appointment to interim commission blocked, 70; background, 58-59; bankruptcy, 70; bossism, 68; compared to Baron Haussmann, 62; on district relationship to federal government, 60,68; and Frederick Douglass, 61; named governor, 63; praised, 71; portrait of, 65; promotes territorial government, 60; promotes IVashington as government center, 71 Sherman, John, 83 Shipsted-Luce Bill, 128 Shurtleff, Arthur, 126 Slave trade, 32-34 Slavery, 2; petitions for and against abolition of, 32-33; whippings, 28 Sloan, James, 12 Slum clearance, 92,142,146-48,156,209 Smith, Chloethiel Woodard, 156-57,161 Smith, Franklin ivebster, 91-93 Smithsonian Institution Castle, 104- j Snow, Beverly, object of riotous attacks, 29 Southard, Samuel, 20,6j South~vestLVashington, 132,137;citizens' association, 162; civic association, 163; and railroad nuisances, 84-8j; and redevelopment, 144,150-51,161-63,170-75,184

Spanish-American LVar, 89, yo Stallings, George, 202 Starkwater, H. H., 63 State rivalry, lo, 17 Statehood, 206-7,210-14 Stephens, Jay, 202 Sternberg, George, 114-15,119-20 Stewart, William, 185 Stewart, llrilliam M.,n8 Stolzenbach, Darwin, 166 Stone, Chuck, 177 Stonorov, Oscar, 161 Street, i$'illiam, 178 Street: grading, 24; lighting, 11-15, 24; pavIng, 13,15,2o, 71 Street railways, 7476-77, 80-81; desegregation of, 39; introduction of, 73 Streets, condition of, 15-16, 24; federal responsibility for, 21; names rationalized, 80; regulation of, 78

Index

Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC),iyi Subdivisions, 78 Suburbs, lj2,172, 206, 210-11, 213 Sumner, Charles, 42,208; and black schools in Boston, 36; and civil rights, 60-61, 67; and desegregation of Washington schools, 67; and Fugitive Slave Act, 34; and street railways, 39; and voting rights, 50 Supreme Court decisions: on redevelopment,ij6-57; on restrictive covenants, 160; on segregated schods, 160 Surveying, 15 Taft, Robert, 149 Taft, William Howard, 107 Takoma Park, hfd., 74 Taylor, Zachary, 24 Teaford, Jon, 213 Techworld, 197,206 Territory of the District of Columbia (187174), 21; terminated, 64 Three Sisters Bridge, 158,166-67 Totten, George 0akle)r 121 Treadwell, Mary, 198 Truesdell, George, 80-81 Tucker, Sterling, 188,191,195 Turner, Maurice, 202 Turner, Xat, 29 TGeed, \Yilliam, 62 Tydings, Millard, 148 Underhill, Charles, 125 Union Station, 82, 85, 99,103-4,106 Union Temple Baptist Church, 204 Uniontown (Anacostia), 73 Uptown Progress, 175,187 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 136 Usry, James, 203 Van Hook, John, 73 Vaux, Calvert, 92 Veiller, Lawrence, 118,136,138 Versailles, 97 Virginia: and Civil War, 40; and housing for blacks, 147; and parks, 125; slavery in, 27; support for Alexandria's retrocession, q; support for canals, 22-23 Von Eckardt, Wolf, 163,165,167,184 LVaker, Howard, 96 it'dllach, Richard: fear of contrabands, 40; opposed to black franchise, 51; opposed to congressional funding of black schools, 37; opposed to election of Sayles Borven, j4 Waring, George E. Jr., 73

Warner, Brainard, 82-83 Washington, D.C.: centennial, 69; city charter (I~oz), 13; city charter (~Xzo),13, 28; civil code, 56; growth, 26; indebtedness, 21; mayor, appointment of, 13; mayor, popular election of, 14; mayor as symbol, 7,g-lo Washington, D.C., City Council: and emancipation, 37-38; and franchise for blacks, jo; guidelines for development, 23; opposition to Alexandria's retrocession, 23; prohibits shop licenses to blacks, 29; resolution to tax federal property, 21 Washington, George, 208; and federal capital, 2, 6-8, 26, 94; and Pierre L'Enfant, 69,11 IVashington, Walter, 150, 181-82,184,191-y4 llrashington Afro-American, and black leadership, 177 Washington Board of Trade, 59-60,82; and centennial celebration of \b%shington, 89-90; committee on municipal art, 120-21; and industrialization, 82-83; and Marion Barry, 19z-y3,1y6; opposition to home rule, 191; and parks, 125; and philanthropic housing, 110; and public buildings, 127; and railroads, 85-87; and redevelopment, 162,178;and regulation of streets, 79; and Rock Creek Park, 83; and Senate Park Conlmission, 98; and smoke nuisance, 83 Washington Canal, 11,16-18,24, 26,j4, 5657, 62, 71 IVashington Chronicle: and Andrew Johnson, 52; and emancipation, 38; and franchise for blacks, 50; and Reconstruction, 49, j4; and Sayles Bowen, j7-j8 LVashington Civic Center, 112-14,116 Washington Council of Social Agencies, 138 Washington County, 74 IVashirigton Daily News, criticisn~of alley dwellings, 123 12'nshington Dainily Patriot: launched to oppose territorial government, 62; racial commentary, 66 LVashington Gas Works, 24 Ib'ashingto~iHeights, 79, 81 Washington Housing Association (Washington Planning and Housing Associa, tion), ~ 8144-45,171,178 Washington Post: and Marion Barry, 193,210; and railroads, 85,99; and redevelopment, 15j-j6,163,173,182-83; and relocation, 139; and suburbs, 152

Washington Sanitary Housing Company, 115 Washington Sanitary Improvement Company, 114-16 lZkshington Star: and abolitionists, 34,38; and alley conditions, 112-13,121-~2,~7;and black suffrage, 50-51,~;and comprehensive planning, 125; federal payment, 102; opposition to Sayles Bowen, 57-58; and plans for the Mall, 91-92,106; and poverty 111-12; racial attitude, 27,37, 39; and railroads, 8j-86,99; and redevelopnlent, 172; and residential design, 123; and Senate Park Commission plan, 102; and slum clearance, 146; and suburbs, Ij2; and territorial government, 60,62-64,7o Ilinskington Tribune, and Alley Dwelling Authority, 142 \llashington Urban League, 147,173 LVater supply, 14,16,2j-26 IVeaver, Robert, 171 Webster, Noah, 16 Weller, Charles, 46-47,109,116,118,121 Wender, Harry, 149 Wendt, IL'illiam, 179,182 \Vest End, 142 \\'bite House: proposal for conversion of, 92; proposal for extension of, 89-91,96-97 IVidnall, William, 173 Wiggins, Lillian, 193 Williams, Hosea, 201 \lrilliams, Juan, 196,199, 202 JYilliamsburg, 98 Wilson, Ellen, 121,122,138 N'ilson, Henry, 39 \Vrilson, James, 91,104-5 Wilson, James Q., 192 \L1ilson, \l'oodrow, 121 IVirtz, Willard, 193 \\'olcott, Oliver, 12 \\'omen's Anthropological Society, 1 ~ - 1 4 Women's suffrage, 50, 60 Wood, Leonard, 115 LVoods, Elliott, 106-7 Woodward, Augustus, 13 Mbodward, S. W,116 M'oolfork, James, 185 \\.'orld Columbian Exposition, 89-92,96, 99-1oo,103-4,107 Wycoff, Bernard, 146 Young, John Russell, 147 Zoning, 124

Index